Posted on 05/25/2016 12:10:20 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
More than 300 prominent historians, including Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson, are warning voters that if they choose to leave the European Union on 23 June they will condemn Britain to irrelevance.
In a letter to the Guardian, the academics and writers argue that the referendum offers a chance to underscore the “irreplaceable role” Britain has played, and should continue to play, in Europe’s history.
“As historians of Britain and of Europe, we believe that Britain has had in the past, and will have in the future, an irreplaceable role to play in Europe,” the letter says.
“On 23 June, we face a choice: to cast ourselves adrift, condemning ourselves to irrelevance and Europe to division and weakness; or to reaffirm our commitment to the EU and stiffen the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
The British economy collapsed, because they stupidly threw out Churchill after the war, and went full-bore socialist.
do note that the UK is also pretty much leftist — the “conservatives” are more big government than the Democrats in the US...
You make some valid points, but not this one:
“unless the EU as a whole collapses and that isn’t going to happen”
EU collapse is inevitable. The refugees are already forcing EU countries to exercise their individual sovereignty more than the EU would like them to be able to.
The best reason for the UK to exit is that the Eurozone is doomed, and has been doomed from the start.
You are right Germany would dictate austerity to a far greater degree than is presently in place in countries like Greece.
Ultimately that is why the EU will fail, or at least fracture significantly.
The least productive areas have never maintained the economic discipline that the EU itself calls for - and have never been able to before the EU. Under a common currency this causes a huge burden - such as in Greece where they simply cannot and will not pay their debts (unless someone else gives them the money to do so).
The UK would be wise exit, despite the shorter term pain it would cause.
London is the financial center more because of US economic policy than their EU membership. This is likely to change with a new administration, assuming Trump wins, regardless of London’s EU status.
All that said, I have no idea what the UK voters will do.
perhaps, but I don’t think Churchill had much of an economic policy either. Also, the UK was recovering from it’s imperial hangover.
Great Britain was the dominant world power for centuries and entirely without the help of any union with European countries. In fact, it was the competition with those countries that made them great.
Better to pursue the return of the mighty British Empire than be forever a pimple of the EU’s gladius maximus.
>>brexit is more likely to result in the UK being bankrupted (as it loses access to its major market and supplier and also loses the bargaining power derived from being a part of a larger bloc) and dead (If they vote for Brexit, then Scotland will move to leave the UK as the Scots are pro-EU)
It’s a common misconception that it is better to be dead than poor. The EU is dedicated to destroying Christendom in Europe, so they can have access to markets while praying 5 times a day to satan.
Not so. Cameron refused to have anything to do with Merkel's quota plan for Syrian refugees: and because the UK isn't in the Schengen open-borders area, there was absolutely nothing Merkel could do to enforce it. Hence the much-reported 'jungle' camp in Calais - that's would-be immigrants whom Britian refuses to accept. If the UK were in Schengen there'd be no 'jungle'.
Cameron gets a lot of stick over immigration on this forum, but few seem to have noticed his stand over the Merkel plan.
Cronos - thanks for your well-informed common sense about the realities of the UK/EU relationship.
:') And I'm sure that the EU zealots want the UK to stay in because they're all concerned about UK relevance.
Hyperbole? You are sorely misinformed. Crime is through the roof after they outlawed not only guns but knives and mace. (yes really...you can’t lawfully give your daughter pepper spray to keep the chavs off...a woman was arrested for carrying oven cleaner in her purse as an alternative)
brings to mind that song about “should stay or should I go”
And if they stay it will be double.
"Let's patch together a confederation of nations with thousand-year-old gripes, and force some to carry the burden of others, and randomly penalize others while giving credits and debits arbitrarily to sovereign banks"
What could go wrong?
And don't forget, the EU was a Bill Clinton Production, right after he got the Ukraine to disarm.
Yep
Country vs country: United Kingdom and United States compared: Crime stats
And no, as has wearily been pointed out here ad nauseam by British Freepers, knives have never been banned, nor have many types of gun.
Don't conflate the eurozone with the EU -- your post is doing that.
also, their rise to dominance is heavily endebted to the Dutch -- they learned from the Dutch and then, callously stabbed the erstwhile teachers in the back with the Anglo-Dutch wars.
also, their rise to dominance is heavily endebted to the Dutch -- they learned from the Dutch and then, callously stabbed the erstwhile teachers in the back with the Anglo-Dutch wars.
They did form this "union" with the Dutch and then allied with various other powers to keep checks on other powers.
The British Empire was possible due to a weakness in Spain in the late 1600s, then in France in the 1700s when Louis XIV focused on wars with the Holy Roman Empire on the continent and also due to the disintegration of the Mughal Empire in India
for the Mughal Empire piece remember that until the end of Aurangzeb in 1707, the English had to go cap in hand and had no chance against this unified Empire. Aurangzeb went against the policy of his grandfather Akbar who had a strict "all religions equal" policy while Aurangzeb was a strict Sunni. this created tensions in India and within a few years of Aurangzeb's death, the Maratha confederation took over much of the empire, but they were a very, very loose confederation and the BRitish played one against the other to win.
ditto in China which was also conquered by the invading Manchu (Qing dynasty) and fought brutal wars against them -- a disunited empire open to outside interference
The British Empire was a product of its time and has no chance of rising again.
This would leave England as the bottom half of the island that is non-EU
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.