Brexit Is Teaching Britain A Lesson In Humility; Boris Johnson finalizes EU Exit Deal!
- Thread starter thatrapsfan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
The New York Times
·
The Eurostar once embodied the idea of a border-free Continent. But Brexit leaves the high-speed train facing an uncertain future.
About this website
NYTIMES.COM
For the Eurostar Tribe, Brexit Could Make Brussels Feel Even Farther Away
The high-speed rail link was once the locomotive embodiment of the ideal of a border-free Continent. But Britain’s withdrawal from the E.U. leaves the service facing an uncertain future.
·
The Eurostar once embodied the idea of a border-free Continent. But Brexit leaves the high-speed train facing an uncertain future.
About this website
NYTIMES.COM
For the Eurostar Tribe, Brexit Could Make Brussels Feel Even Farther Away
The high-speed rail link was once the locomotive embodiment of the ideal of a border-free Continent. But Britain’s withdrawal from the E.U. leaves the service facing an uncertain future.
null
...
Nigel Farage says Britain should stop apologising for its colonial past because 'the country was a different place 300 years ago' as Jeremy Corbyn prepares to pledge a review into the UK's imperial legacy
Nigel Farage has told people to stop apologising for Britain's colonial past because 'obsessing' about events 300 years ago is useless.
Pointing to a 'different world', the Brexit Party leader railed against the constant dredging up of the country's imperial history and suggested politicians should instead focus on forging a better future.
His intervention came as Jeremy Corbyn was poised to pledge an inquiry into the country's colonial-steeped past in Labour's general election manifesto.
Mr Farage was scathing about the policy, and even suggested the British empire was not as heavy-handed as the conquests of other European nations.
On a campaign trip to Peterborough, he said: 'I think if we obsess about the past, different times and different cultures, it can be very difficult to move forwards. So I think some of this stuff is just not helpful.
Nigel Farage says Britain should stop apologising for its colonial past | Daily Mail Online
- The Brexit Party leader railed against the constant dredging up of colonial past
- Jeremy Corbyn is poised to pledge an inquiry into the country's imperial history
- He said British empire was not as heavy-handed as conquests of other nations
Nigel Farage has told people to stop apologising for Britain's colonial past because 'obsessing' about events 300 years ago is useless.
Pointing to a 'different world', the Brexit Party leader railed against the constant dredging up of the country's imperial history and suggested politicians should instead focus on forging a better future.
His intervention came as Jeremy Corbyn was poised to pledge an inquiry into the country's colonial-steeped past in Labour's general election manifesto.
Mr Farage was scathing about the policy, and even suggested the British empire was not as heavy-handed as the conquests of other European nations.
On a campaign trip to Peterborough, he said: 'I think if we obsess about the past, different times and different cultures, it can be very difficult to move forwards. So I think some of this stuff is just not helpful.
Nigel Farage says Britain should stop apologising for its colonial past | Daily Mail Online
@88m3 @dtownreppin214
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
ft.com
Britain and Russia are Europe’s odd couple
Gideon Rachman October 28 2019
6-7 minutes
The current deep antagonism between Russia and Britain disguises some important similarities between the two countries. Those parallels are likely to become more obvious after Brexit — in ways that should worry both the UK and the EU.
Britain and Russia are on the fringes of the European continent. Partly as a result, the two have traditionally had a dual identity — regarding themselves both as European and as something more. Nearly 80 per cent of Russia’s landmass is in Asia. The British empire was built outside Europe and the country still has strong cultural ties with the “Anglosphere” in North America, Australasia and south Asia.
So it is unsurprising that the UK and Russia are likely to end up as the two major European powers that stand outside the EU. However, both countries will continue to worry about the EU’s collective power. As nations on the periphery, they have traditionally feared the rise of a single power dominating the European landmass — which partly explains why they ended up as allies in the Napoleonic wars and the two world wars. Each country has built its modern identity around the memory of victory in 1945. And both are shaped by nostalgia for imperial power.
For Britain, the Russian parallel is not encouraging. It underlines the danger that Brexit could lead to a long-term souring in relations with continental Europe, and a politics of embittered nationalism in the UK.
For Brussels, the danger is that the EU will ultimately be faced with two angry and alienated neighbours, in Britain and Russia. Both are great powers in European terms, with considerable capacity to make mischief.
It is of course true that Britain has a liberal and democratic tradition that is absent in Russia. That aligns London’s political values much more closely with Paris and Berlin than Moscow. Those values make it much less likely that the British political class will allow the country to “go rogue” in the manner of Russia under Vladimir Putin.
But geopolitics is not driven by values alone. There are also emotions and strategic interests involved. And here the parallels between post-Soviet Russia and post-Brexit Britain are concerning.
The economic turmoil and strategic setbacks of the 1990s convinced many Russians that their country had been taken advantage of by the west. Russian anger focused on the US and on Nato expansion. But the Kremlin also came to see the EU as a threat — since, in Moscow’s eyes, it was expanding into Russia’s natural hinterland. The Kremlin’s decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine was triggered by the fact that the country was about to sign an association agreement with the EU.
If Brexit goes badly wrong, it could trigger events reminiscent of the collapse of the Soviet Union — the break-up of the country, accompanied by a profound economic shock. English nationalists would undoubtedly see the EU as complicit in such malign events: some critics already accuse Brussels of manufacturing artificial problems on the Irish border, unreasonably delaying a free-trade deal and encouraging Scottish independence.
Weekly podcast
Sign up here to the new podcast from Gideon Rachman, the FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist, and listen in on his conversations with the decision-makers and thinkers from all over the globe who are shaping world affairs
For the moment, British and EU officials are careful still to talk the language of friendship and future partnership. But, beneath the surface and off the record, antagonisms are stirring. One influential former EU official argued to me recently that because Brexit Britain would be a threat to the EU, it is in Europe’s interests to encourage Scottish independence and Irish unity. (Wine had been consumed — but in vino veritas.) When, with the Russian parallel in mind, I suggested that it would be a bad idea to humiliate the UK, I was told that Britain was responsible for its own humiliation; and besides, the UK had humiliated the EU by voting to leave. (“You said you are better than us.”)
Even on the record, you can hear hints of rivalry stirring. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, usually the voice of moderation, said recently that Britain will be a “competitor” to the EU after Brexit — bracketing it with China and the US.
If, as seems likely, the EU responds to that perceived competitive threat by refusing to move towards tariff-free trade with Britain, then antagonism between London and Brussels will grow. The Europeans will argue, with some justification, that Britain has brought its sorry fate upon itself — just like Russia. But winning the debate would not head off confrontation.
In an increasingly bad situation, the UK (or possibly just England) would play what few cards it has — cutting back on security and diplomatic co-operation with Europe, and working with forces that are hostile to the EU.
These threats are not taken very seriously in EU capitals at the moment because Britain is in such a mess. The same dismissive attitude was adopted towards the Russians in the 1990s. After all, their country had just fallen apart and their economy was in freefall. But, spurred on by a feeling of humiliation, Russia reasserted its power — in ways that the EU now finds alarming.
The lesson is that countries that have been major European powers for centuries are unlikely simply to drift into irrelevance. Their interests need to be accommodated. If that cannot be done, they will have to be confronted. Either way, a European construction that excludes Britain and Russia is unlikely to be either stable or secure.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
ft.com
Britain and Russia are Europe’s odd couple
Gideon Rachman October 28 2019
6-7 minutes
The current deep antagonism between Russia and Britain disguises some important similarities between the two countries. Those parallels are likely to become more obvious after Brexit — in ways that should worry both the UK and the EU.
Britain and Russia are on the fringes of the European continent. Partly as a result, the two have traditionally had a dual identity — regarding themselves both as European and as something more. Nearly 80 per cent of Russia’s landmass is in Asia. The British empire was built outside Europe and the country still has strong cultural ties with the “Anglosphere” in North America, Australasia and south Asia.
So it is unsurprising that the UK and Russia are likely to end up as the two major European powers that stand outside the EU. However, both countries will continue to worry about the EU’s collective power. As nations on the periphery, they have traditionally feared the rise of a single power dominating the European landmass — which partly explains why they ended up as allies in the Napoleonic wars and the two world wars. Each country has built its modern identity around the memory of victory in 1945. And both are shaped by nostalgia for imperial power.
For Britain, the Russian parallel is not encouraging. It underlines the danger that Brexit could lead to a long-term souring in relations with continental Europe, and a politics of embittered nationalism in the UK.
For Brussels, the danger is that the EU will ultimately be faced with two angry and alienated neighbours, in Britain and Russia. Both are great powers in European terms, with considerable capacity to make mischief.
It is of course true that Britain has a liberal and democratic tradition that is absent in Russia. That aligns London’s political values much more closely with Paris and Berlin than Moscow. Those values make it much less likely that the British political class will allow the country to “go rogue” in the manner of Russia under Vladimir Putin.
But geopolitics is not driven by values alone. There are also emotions and strategic interests involved. And here the parallels between post-Soviet Russia and post-Brexit Britain are concerning.
The economic turmoil and strategic setbacks of the 1990s convinced many Russians that their country had been taken advantage of by the west. Russian anger focused on the US and on Nato expansion. But the Kremlin also came to see the EU as a threat — since, in Moscow’s eyes, it was expanding into Russia’s natural hinterland. The Kremlin’s decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine was triggered by the fact that the country was about to sign an association agreement with the EU.
If Brexit goes badly wrong, it could trigger events reminiscent of the collapse of the Soviet Union — the break-up of the country, accompanied by a profound economic shock. English nationalists would undoubtedly see the EU as complicit in such malign events: some critics already accuse Brussels of manufacturing artificial problems on the Irish border, unreasonably delaying a free-trade deal and encouraging Scottish independence.
Weekly podcast
Sign up here to the new podcast from Gideon Rachman, the FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist, and listen in on his conversations with the decision-makers and thinkers from all over the globe who are shaping world affairs
For the moment, British and EU officials are careful still to talk the language of friendship and future partnership. But, beneath the surface and off the record, antagonisms are stirring. One influential former EU official argued to me recently that because Brexit Britain would be a threat to the EU, it is in Europe’s interests to encourage Scottish independence and Irish unity. (Wine had been consumed — but in vino veritas.) When, with the Russian parallel in mind, I suggested that it would be a bad idea to humiliate the UK, I was told that Britain was responsible for its own humiliation; and besides, the UK had humiliated the EU by voting to leave. (“You said you are better than us.”)
Even on the record, you can hear hints of rivalry stirring. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, usually the voice of moderation, said recently that Britain will be a “competitor” to the EU after Brexit — bracketing it with China and the US.
If, as seems likely, the EU responds to that perceived competitive threat by refusing to move towards tariff-free trade with Britain, then antagonism between London and Brussels will grow. The Europeans will argue, with some justification, that Britain has brought its sorry fate upon itself — just like Russia. But winning the debate would not head off confrontation.
In an increasingly bad situation, the UK (or possibly just England) would play what few cards it has — cutting back on security and diplomatic co-operation with Europe, and working with forces that are hostile to the EU.
These threats are not taken very seriously in EU capitals at the moment because Britain is in such a mess. The same dismissive attitude was adopted towards the Russians in the 1990s. After all, their country had just fallen apart and their economy was in freefall. But, spurred on by a feeling of humiliation, Russia reasserted its power — in ways that the EU now finds alarming.
The lesson is that countries that have been major European powers for centuries are unlikely simply to drift into irrelevance. Their interests need to be accommodated. If that cannot be done, they will have to be confronted. Either way, a European construction that excludes Britain and Russia is unlikely to be either stable or secure.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
null
...
@88m3 @dtownreppin214
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
ft.com
Britain and Russia are Europe’s odd couple
Gideon Rachman October 28 2019
6-7 minutes
The current deep antagonism between Russia and Britain disguises some important similarities between the two countries. Those parallels are likely to become more obvious after Brexit — in ways that should worry both the UK and the EU.
Britain and Russia are on the fringes of the European continent. Partly as a result, the two have traditionally had a dual identity — regarding themselves both as European and as something more. Nearly 80 per cent of Russia’s landmass is in Asia. The British empire was built outside Europe and the country still has strong cultural ties with the “Anglosphere” in North America, Australasia and south Asia.
So it is unsurprising that the UK and Russia are likely to end up as the two major European powers that stand outside the EU. However, both countries will continue to worry about the EU’s collective power. As nations on the periphery, they have traditionally feared the rise of a single power dominating the European landmass — which partly explains why they ended up as allies in the Napoleonic wars and the two world wars. Each country has built its modern identity around the memory of victory in 1945. And both are shaped by nostalgia for imperial power.
For Britain, the Russian parallel is not encouraging. It underlines the danger that Brexit could lead to a long-term souring in relations with continental Europe, and a politics of embittered nationalism in the UK.
For Brussels, the danger is that the EU will ultimately be faced with two angry and alienated neighbours, in Britain and Russia. Both are great powers in European terms, with considerable capacity to make mischief.
It is of course true that Britain has a liberal and democratic tradition that is absent in Russia. That aligns London’s political values much more closely with Paris and Berlin than Moscow. Those values make it much less likely that the British political class will allow the country to “go rogue” in the manner of Russia under Vladimir Putin.
But geopolitics is not driven by values alone. There are also emotions and strategic interests involved. And here the parallels between post-Soviet Russia and post-Brexit Britain are concerning.
The economic turmoil and strategic setbacks of the 1990s convinced many Russians that their country had been taken advantage of by the west. Russian anger focused on the US and on Nato expansion. But the Kremlin also came to see the EU as a threat — since, in Moscow’s eyes, it was expanding into Russia’s natural hinterland. The Kremlin’s decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine was triggered by the fact that the country was about to sign an association agreement with the EU.
If Brexit goes badly wrong, it could trigger events reminiscent of the collapse of the Soviet Union — the break-up of the country, accompanied by a profound economic shock. English nationalists would undoubtedly see the EU as complicit in such malign events: some critics already accuse Brussels of manufacturing artificial problems on the Irish border, unreasonably delaying a free-trade deal and encouraging Scottish independence.
Weekly podcast
Sign up here to the new podcast from Gideon Rachman, the FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist, and listen in on his conversations with the decision-makers and thinkers from all over the globe who are shaping world affairs
For the moment, British and EU officials are careful still to talk the language of friendship and future partnership. But, beneath the surface and off the record, antagonisms are stirring. One influential former EU official argued to me recently that because Brexit Britain would be a threat to the EU, it is in Europe’s interests to encourage Scottish independence and Irish unity. (Wine had been consumed — but in vino veritas.) When, with the Russian parallel in mind, I suggested that it would be a bad idea to humiliate the UK, I was told that Britain was responsible for its own humiliation; and besides, the UK had humiliated the EU by voting to leave. (“You said you are better than us.”)
Even on the record, you can hear hints of rivalry stirring. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, usually the voice of moderation, said recently that Britain will be a “competitor” to the EU after Brexit — bracketing it with China and the US.
If, as seems likely, the EU responds to that perceived competitive threat by refusing to move towards tariff-free trade with Britain, then antagonism between London and Brussels will grow. The Europeans will argue, with some justification, that Britain has brought its sorry fate upon itself — just like Russia. But winning the debate would not head off confrontation.
In an increasingly bad situation, the UK (or possibly just England) would play what few cards it has — cutting back on security and diplomatic co-operation with Europe, and working with forces that are hostile to the EU.
These threats are not taken very seriously in EU capitals at the moment because Britain is in such a mess. The same dismissive attitude was adopted towards the Russians in the 1990s. After all, their country had just fallen apart and their economy was in freefall. But, spurred on by a feeling of humiliation, Russia reasserted its power — in ways that the EU now finds alarming.
The lesson is that countries that have been major European powers for centuries are unlikely simply to drift into irrelevance. Their interests need to be accommodated. If that cannot be done, they will have to be confronted. Either way, a European construction that excludes Britain and Russia is unlikely to be either stable or secure.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
This guy is a lunatic.
Hobble the UK by removing 5 million people...
where did he suggest/say this???This guy is a lunatic.
Hobble the UK by removing 5 million people...
null
...
"One influential former EU official argued to me recently that because Brexit Britain would be a threat to the EU, it is in Europe’s interests to encourage Scottish independence and Irish unity."he's reporting what he was told
null
...
Then he should have gone for a better quote. Or does he only have the 'One'?
True, I skirted over the article the first time but for me that article is very much a case of him trying to suggest that Russia and the UK will go down separate but similar paths?
Did the UK show Russia level belligerence before joining the precursor to the EU?
The UK does not move without America's say so and that is not going to change post Brexit (if it ever happens).
The UK doesn't have the military, the resources or the economic might to challenge the EU without the backing of the USA. And even then it would be the USA driving it.
Germany (and much of Europe) is reliant on Russia for gas and as Russia showed in Ukraine it acts in its own interests. Sometimes in expansionary, violent ways.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
The New York Times
·
The Eurostar once embodied the idea of a border-free Continent. But Brexit leaves the high-speed train facing an uncertain future.
About this website
NYTIMES.COM
For the Eurostar Tribe, Brexit Could Make Brussels Feel Even Farther Away
The high-speed rail link was once the locomotive embodiment of the ideal of a border-free Continent. But Britain’s withdrawal from the E.U. leaves the service facing an uncertain future.
Didn't read the whole article but that headline of it embodying the idea of a border-free continent is bullshyt. GB has never been part of the Schengen treaty, since as usual they felt special and opted-out. Meaning that to take the Eurostar to GB you had to show documentation and the sections in train stations (Brussels, Paris, Lille) were special sections with special access. Actually it embodied the whole "GB is different" idea, since GB is the only EU country (with Bulgaria and Romania, but that will change soon) where you actually still have to cross a border. The truest embodiement of a border-free continent would be any other train that crosses old borders on the continent, for example the Thalys, another high-speed train which runs from Paris all the way to Amsterdam and Cologne I think. It's so convenient that some people live in Brussels and work in Paris.
Sensitive Christian Grey
The Fisher King
I did, Johnson was shyt. They laughed at him when he said 'I believe in truth in politics'
Boomers are the ones saying he won. They thought the presenter was biased and gave him less time when he just stuttered over his Brexit done spiel over and over again. He also couldn't get LAboUr and COrByN out of his mouth but was lucky he didn't get more pressed about how the Cons have been fukking up the last ten years. You gonna ask Corbyn about anti-Semitism again when racist prick Johnson is right there?
Corbyn seemed a person, compassionate and all. He did deliver soundbites but had quips as well. He said the monarchy needs a bit of improvement when Johnson said it was above reproach (in light of the Prince Andrew scandal). He also apparently waffled on the Brexit thing but I didn't catch, missed the first 15 minutes. He stuck to his beliefs that the country needs investment and Labour will be the ones to do it but he never stuck the knife in to say this is how pathetic the Cons are
I did, Johnson was shyt. They laughed at him when he said 'I believe in truth in politics'
Boomers are the ones saying he won. They thought the presenter was biased and gave him less time when he just stuttered over his Brexit done spiel over and over again. He also couldn't get LAboUr and COrByN out of his mouth but was lucky he didn't get more pressed about how the Cons have been fukking up the last ten years. You gonna ask Corbyn about anti-Semitism again when racist prick Johnson is right there?
Corbyn seemed a person, compassionate and all. He did deliver soundbites but had quips as well. He said the monarchy needs a bit of improvement when Johnson said it was above reproach (in light of the Prince Andrew scandal). He also apparently waffled on the Brexit thing but I didn't catch, missed the first 15 minutes. He stuck to his beliefs that the country needs investment and Labour will be the ones to do it but he never stuck the knife in to say this is how pathetic the Cons are
And thats why he probably lost that debate. He needs to sling mud like Boris is