Posted on 06/23/2016 3:30:08 PM PDT by Lorianne
“England,” our Fairest Isle, including Scotland and Wales, looks like one single place because it is one single place. It is surrounded on all sides by water, which marks its boundaries and colours the British soul. You may say that there is no such thing as the “soul” of England: We may imagine her as Britannia, but a country is not a person. The only corporate personality, I am reliably told by R. R. Reno, is the Church. Countries are not persons, said the Oracle. No, maybe not—but they are analogous to persons, and they have some analog of a soul. And today we may say, as was said to France in 1941: “England, take care not to lose your soul.”
What does it mean for a country to have a soul? What would it mean for a country to lose its soul?
For a place to be a country at all, it must be a whole. It must look like, and also be, a single, self-standing whole. For a place to be a country, it must be given the look of an individual entity, by surrounding seas or rivers, or by mountain ranges. These geographical features defend the country against absorption into surrounding areas. Like life in the “Darwinian jungle,” so human life in the fallen history of mankind is a ceaseless struggle to survive against the other countries' will to dominion. A country's geographical boundaries not only make its wholeness visible but also shield it, enabling it to survive as a single, substantial entity. Thus, neither Norfolk nor, I'm sorry to say, Wales could operate for long as a country.
I name those two, by the way, because I'm confidently told that “one might as well say that Wales or Norfolk should seek independence from Great Britain and become self-governing states, as say that Great Britain should retrieve its independence from the maw of the European Union.” But Norfolk has not been a single, independent country for a thousand years, for the very good reason that it has no discernible borders to keep out intruders and mark its identity. What makes a place a country is a matter of geography and history. Spain is surrounded by mountains to the north and sea to the south. Poor Wales is not sufficiently so defended.
England is a country, as a matter of geography and history. But while a country's borders defend it from death by absorption into a wider empire, they cannot give it a soul. We know whether a place has a soul by whether it has a voice. A soul without a voice is unimaginable. A person's voice expresses his or her singular personality. The first thing we know about God in Genesis is that he speaks. A mute deity would be absolutely impersonal. To have anything analogous to a soul, a country needs not only borders but something like a voice. Not just the English accent, or a Welsh lilt or the Scottish brogue that so mystifies the Americans that they need subtitles for Scottish movies—but a single voice, appearing as the expression of a single mind. Without a single mind, a country has nothing analogous to a substantive personality, of which its voice is the outward indication. A multilingual territory can be an empire, in which one of its many languages is the dominant strain. But seldom can it be a single country with a soul of its own. That is why national independence movements desperately attempt to resurrect dying or dead local dialects.
That is why “Europe” will never be a “country,” and its M.O. will always be, not contingently but fundamentally, anti-democratic. With its twenty-four bureaucratically stipulated languages, the E.U. is a soul-less empire, not a country like England, Spain, and Hungary, with its own voice, its own mouth-piece, and thus something like a soul to call its own.
Every one of those “official languages” of the E.U., from Bulgarian to Swedish, has seen the sea-changes over the centuries. Languages live, they shrivel into local dialects, and thereby, languages die. If a country has some analog of a soul, that soul lives only in time, and therefore lives, and will eventually die, at some juncture in history. For the soul of England, that juncture may be imminent.
Tomorrow, the Fairest Isle has to choose between forfeiting her soul to the European Empire and retaining the sovereign freedom of her Parliamentary democracy. I do not hold out much hope for a vote to “Leave” the European Empire. The big banks, the money-guys, the Goldman-Sachses, and the Soroses are all for “Remaining.” So are those who want E.U. cash for their University jobs. So is everyone for whom money is their driving motivation. They want to exchange England's freedom for the mirage of prosperity. Very few people today believe there is such thing as a soul, exhibited in freedom from material constraint, and thus rising above money interests.
(excerpted)
Looks like I was wrong in my prediction — and I’m glad I was! :)
Having admitted that, I think the Brits still like the nanny state; just not one run by outsiders I guess.
Also the way the demographics are changing in Britain, its a good thing this vote took place now. A few more years of unchecked immigration and this door might be permanently closed. The situation is similar in the U.S.
Roughly 75-percent of the nation that was registered to vote....came out to vote. What you see from the results if you really dig into the numbers...the urban areas delivered the ‘stay-in’ vote....in some towns by a massive amount (2-to-1 and even 3-to-1). If you look at Northern Ireland...same way. Gibraltar went almost 95-percent to stay-in.
But then you come to the mass of England....the rural communities and small towns, and they went massively to exit. It didn’t matter about politics and stance (liberals and conservatives broke on this entire issue....with both leaning heavily toward exit). With the youth vote....between age 18 and 25, it was probably in the 70-percent range that they voted stay-in. So what is said (part of the campaign from three months ago)....is that young people feel attached to the EU...more than feeling attached to England or the UK itself. In a way, they proved that exact point.
I don’t think any of the mess is really ended...you simply move onto the next moment of chaos. The EU wants this ‘divorce’ rather quickly because five other nations are quietly talking of a referendum themselves, and they really don’t need this divorce-settlement to take 12-to-24 months (as most experts predict it will take). France national elections are in 10 months. German national elections are in 16 months. The national election in Austria may be forced into a repeat and done again in Sep of this year. This BREXIT can have a major affect on the three countries mentioned and their elections.
The amazing part of this entire story is that over the past five years....there’s been continual suggestions of reform going to the EU, and they absolutely refused to compromise on this. I read about a week ago that the EU was going to write up a regulation on hair dryers....limiting the max wattage that can be sold within the EU. I mean....really...that was necessary?
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.