EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
What do you mean by a "federated" EU? That is a term I have never heard before. As far as Britain goes, I've never understood why it is part of the EU to begin with. It is Germany's show, and England can have no part of it. Besides it is mostly a currency zone, isn't it? England has its own currency, thank you, and doesn't need to adopt a German backed currency. It would almost seem like a reversal of World War 2!
Linda wrote: "This is what I was thinking of dramatizing as a start:Edward and Dora talk to each other looking through the binoculars at the scene unfolding in front of them. You never see them. You just hear ..."
This should dramatise well. It is a very exciting scene.
Linda wrote: "It would be impossible to have an EU which isn't dominated by Germany. Germany is the glue of the Continent and the lead nation of the Continent with the biggest economy of all. Russia doesn't belo..."Yes I understand your point and I know the Americans are never keen on the Russians. But I am pro Russian in the sense that I admire their tenacity and I do regard them as part of Europe and the European story.
It was the Russians who destroyed Napoleon's Grand Army, the Waterloo edition was a lot inferior, it was the Tzar's invasion of East Prussia which stopped the Germans reaching Paris in 1914, because they had to pull crack troops from the West to the East. and it was the Russians who destroyed the Wehrmacht in WWII. As I have pointed out before 90% of all German losses were on the Eastern front.
I am sure the Americans have a different take on all that but they always do!
Linda wrote: "It would be impossible to have an EU which isn't dominated by Germany. Germany is the glue of the Continent and the lead nation of the Continent with the biggest economy of all. Russia doesn't belo..."It was actually Britain that pressed for EU enlargement East so that a united Germany would not dominate, but of course it did because it understands eastern Europe much better. However the Germans want Britain to stay, because like the Americans, they like the Brits on board.
I heard a French diplomat say that all the countries of the EU are driven by emotion except Britain which is only concerned with facts. It has no emotions which it wants to share. There is some truth in that.
You have the current occupant of the White House to thank for Britain exiting the EU if it happens. More than any other individual he could have prevented it by containing all those refugees in the Middle East. If there was suddenly a mass exodus into the US, though it would be better equipped to deal with it, you had better believe the troops would be called out. The Middle East would be occupied —- probably not for long enough but at least it would be occupied.
For some strange reason all many Europeans think about is the foreign policy of the occupant of the White House. I guess it makes sense in a way for that is the part that affects them. But there are other policies, too, which I’ve heard about second or third hand that might make your hair stand up on end. For instance, there is this crazy health care act which seems to be coming apart at the seams. Then there are the freaks he has appointed to the Supreme Court.
The Russian army is a disaster. It is undisciplined and tends to pillage, loot, and plunder. Monty's forces at the end of WW2 had to fight the Russians to break up fights between Eastern European forces and to protect the Germans who were supposed to be the enemy. The Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, not the Russian army. If anything in Russia defeated Napoleon it was the harsh winter.
WW1 was Russia's biggest disaster. The Czar couldn't do anything. He got imprisoned and executed. It caused the Russian Revolution and the takeover by the Bolsheviks.
To describe the Russian army as a disaster is ridiculous. Yes it was pretty rapacious when it entered Germany because it was payback time for the appalling atrocities committed by the Germans in Russia and eastern Europe, but it had beaten the Germans fair and square. If only you would read a few books about the war on the eastern front you would not make such sweeping statements.The other thing is there is a difference between politics and people. A country can have a politics one dislikes but a people one admires.
I am talking about WW1 at the beginning, not later.
Tzar Alexander entered Paris after driving Napoleon back from Moscow. Yes winter played its part but the French army was all but wiped out. The second effort after the escape from Elba was the defeat by Wellington, who would incidentally have lost but for the Prussians.
Linda wrote: "You have the current occupant of the White House to thank for Britain exiting the EU if it happens. More than any other individual he could have prevented it by containing all those refugees in the..."It was Bush 2's stupid wars that caused the problems in the first place.
Yes, when I was in Germany I did sense a strong pro-British sentiment, particularly in northern Germany. But then didn't the Georges, the Hanoverians, come from Hanover in Germany just south of Hamburg? The British and the Germans teamed up to fight Napoleon. But then in the 20th century the Germans and the British fought two world wars against each other. It didn't seem to matter that Hitler would rather have kept the British on his side.
Nevertheless the Russian army always has been a disaster. They would never have been able to do anything much in World War 2 without misplaced aid from the British and the Americans. As far as payback time goes, the Russians as well as the Eastern Europeans were colluding with certain Nazis to engage in ethnic cleansing, etc during World War 2. How was this possible? Russia isn't a united front and is full of warring factions. Ditto Eastern Europe. And it was true that Monty and his forces had to battle certain Russian and Eastern European forces in Germany at the very end of World War 2. They had to help protect the Germans even though the Germans were supposed to be the enemies and the Russians were supposed to be the allies. (You notice how the American army was not fighting the British army at the end of World War 2 to cite a ridiculous contrast to the Russian situation! Monty did not like Eisenhower but he did not attack him.) As far as not reading books goes, I should look up and list my sources. You have read certain books. I have obviously read other books. I was not there at the time.
No one person could "cause the problem in the first place". Bush 2 did not "cause" the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq though he was President at the time. The American people rose up and created them with a united will. Bush's opinion ratings were higher than any President in history right after 9/11. Congress gave him a blank check to fight against the terrorists. Even Mrs. Clinton (my nickname for her is Mrs. Bozo) agreed at the time. Nobody publicly disagreed. Senators on TV were declaring war by themselves before Bush appeared out of hiding that night to make a speech.But the American public isn't patient. They wanted an instant and decisive victory. They don't like foreign entanglements. When the going got more complicated than they expected the popular will started to turn against Bush's policies though he tenaciously persisted to the end. The American government is so constituted that it is hard for a President to fight against opinion polls. FDR was clever enough to manipulate popular opinion. But even Truman felt he had to end the war quickly (thus the atomic bomb) because the American people didn't want it to continue.
There is a school of thought in Russia that regrets that Napoleon didn't stay there. It might have helped Russia develop in such a way that it could have staved off the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the tragedies it brought upon itself. For instance, I was talking to our amiable Russian expert just yesterday. He was saying he had read an article about how the Russians during the time of Stalin were taking apart the ancient Russian monasteries that existed within the Kremlin Walls. They trashed them, crushed them, and threw ancient relics of their own country away --- something the Germans would never do. Only now is their talk in Russia whether they should rebuild the monasteries. If Napoleonic influence had spread in Russia this probably would never have happened.
If Napoleon had won Waterloo, then there would have been another battle after that. There was no way he could defeat the British. However, I do think they should have allowed Napoleon to remain in Paris.
Linda wrote: "Nevertheless the Russian army always has been a disaster. They would never have been able to do anything much in World War 2 without misplaced aid from the British and the Americans. As far as payb..."Okay we will agree to disagree on this but I can tell you the stoicism and patriotism of the ordinary Russian people was heroic in WWII.
And although it is certainly true that both Britain and the US gave aid to Russia its own industrial production was vast.
Linda wrote: "There is a school of thought in Russia that regrets that Napoleon didn't stay there. It might have helped Russia develop in such a way that it could have staved off the Russian Revolution in 1917 a..."Yes that is certainly the case. Napoleon was a great civilizer and liberator, unlike the Nazis, and Russian serfs were hoping he would take over, free them and give them land.
The British Royals were fed up with their cousin for not giving his country democracy and refused to grant the Romanov family sanctuary so they ended up shot.
And yes Napoleon might have prevented the later Bolshevik revolution through his reforms.
Linda wrote: "If Napoleon had won Waterloo, then there would have been another battle after that. There was no way he could defeat the British. However, I do think they should have allowed Napoleon to remain in ..."Yes there would have been another battle perhaps, but the British were becoming more focused on their empire and less interested in Europe. He might just have got away with it if he had been careful.
The British have always regarded Europe as a quarrelsome nuisance, which is what the current referendum is all about.
The Russian "industrial production" was largely on paper and not in reality. Have you ever heard of a Potemkin Village? It dates to the time of Katherine the Great and means something fake or for show usually on paper and not in reality. Russians had 5 year plans for production but never met them and only pretended to for the sake of politics. At the same time they had supposed 100% employment and supposedly gave out paychecks based on this. This was one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell. They couldn't keep up with the fake paychecks. Meanwhile there was an underground economy that kept everything going. The Russian government depended upon selling natural resources abroad. But the underground economy wasn't diversified and when oil prices went through the floor in the 1980s it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Was the it British Royals who refused to give the Romanovs sanctuary or the Parliament or popular opinion? This is really a tragedy. It wouldn't have done any good at all if Nicholas had proposed democracy. Many Russians had already tried that even during the time of the Revolution. They ended up dead or in exile. Russia wasn't ready for it. Most of the population had recently been serfs. They were not educated. What small middle class Russia had fled to Paris and abroad during the Revolution making matters worse. Even nowadays Russia isn't ready for democracy.
I think Napoleon should have gotten away with it. But the Prussians wouldn't have liked that idea. But I liked your remark about a "quarrelsome nuisance". That sounds humorous. But remember you recently connected yourself to Europe with the Chunnel. You'll have to take it down.
Linda wrote: "Was the it British Royals who refused to give the Romanovs sanctuary or the Parliament or popular opinion? This is really a tragedy. It wouldn't have done any good at all if Nicholas had proposed d..."King George V himself alone decided not to allow them in. The British government was willing as was the Russian. A Russian battleship was all ready to sail with the family to England when the refusal came through.
The King afterwards regretted his decision but he was afraid their presence would somehow stir up trouble for the Monarchy here. I don't think there was any evidence for that, but the House of Windsor was the only one to survive the war and its aftermath.
Today is the Queen's 90th birthday. She is the oldest and longest reigning monarch in an unbroken line going back 1000 years. Big celebrations, beacons lit etc.
I think you will enjoy two new blogs, Brexit Thoughts 9 and Trump v Clinton.http://malcolmblair-robinson.com/word...
It makes your royal house of Windsor look as if they have low IQ's not to admit the Romanovs if what you are telling me is really true. It is a good thing they don't have much power left. They wouldn't be able to handle it. I don't know how they can live with their own consciences to have been responsible for the brutal slaying of the Russian royal family.
I personally think that the British should leave the EU. I don't know what they are doing in it. They have their own currency. They don't speak the same languages. They have a different history and a different mission, a different kind of government. What do they need the EU for anyway?
You are comparing Great Britain with the Confederacy? The Confederacy if it existed at all existed for only four years in all of human history. Great Britain has been around in one form or another for over 2000 years since at least Roman times. Also Britain by itself constitutes a nation. The Confederacy never had an independent existence. A few leaders such as Jefferson Davis were just pretending that it did for political reasons. The true was far different, and the people of the Confederacy with relatives in the North knew it. They were not very enthusiastic participants in the army. For the most part they ignored it and went about their lives trying to earn a living. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE CONFEDERATE MUSEUM IN RICHMOND.
Linda wrote: "You are comparing Great Britain with the Confederacy? The Confederacy if it existed at all existed for only four years in all of human history. Great Britain has been around in one form or another ..."You so misunderstand how we use English not as a direct communication like German but in nuances and subtexts which constantly causes you to take literally something which is metaphoric or symbolic. I accept that Americans don't use English in this way.
What I was saying was that Leave think it will be easy to fix up new trade deals and carry on as before. but the world has moved on and that is not how things work now. It could take years to unravel and reboot and with an economy which is based on shopping funded by borrowing and asset inflation, with industry now only 10% of GDP.
It is also important for Britain to remain in Europe because without Britain the EU is diminished. Britain is America's gateway to the EU and the EU's gateway to America. That is why all the leaders and bankers etc are getting anxious. Also Scotland will leave the UK so it will be England only if we leave.
Linda wrote: "You are comparing Great Britain with the Confederacy? The Confederacy if it existed at all existed for only four years in all of human history. Great Britain has been around in one form or another ..."I have spent many hours in the Confederate Museum in Richmond and I am a good deal better read on the American civil War than you are. Your problem is you hold strong opinions which you then research to justify and if the facts don't fit you ignore them.
If the whole thing was such a waste of time why did American kill more of each other than the casualties in all the other wars in their history up to the present day put together? Were they fighting for fun or what?
At present the UK owes the rest of the world $9.6 trillion which is the highest on the planet after the US which is about $17 trillion. But that is only 1x US GDP, whereas Britain owes 5x GDP. The UK is in no position to take a financial gamble nor is it in a fit financial state to stand an economic shock.
The other thing is that Europe is tiny by comparison to America. From where I sit now to Moscow as the crow flies is about the same distance as where you are to eastern Tennessee. Think of all the countries within that envelope. Europe itself is even smaller if you ignore Russia, the Ukraine etc.Also Britain's household debt which was 25% of average earnings when Thatcher came to power now stands at 150% of annual earnings. And the credit card debt of Brits is more than all the rest of Europe put together. Finally productivity per head is the lowest of all the industrialized nations.
Cameron's plan to re-balance the economy is a complete failure and sooner or later will have to be tackled. But it is in no shape to suffer all the uncertainty of years of negotiating trade deals, re-jigging investment and all that goes with it and unraveling the whole structure. One day maybe, but now is not the time.
Incidentally the currency is a red herring. The Euro is the EU's Achilles heal and may not survive in its current form. The real value is in the free movement of goods, capital and people and the common regulations regarding trade standards and so forth. Like your anti-trust laws and emission regulations, there is just one set for everyone.
I don't think it is Americans who are literal, it is the way I think. I am VERY literal. You say something to me, I take it literally like the Germans. I am almost 100% German by ancestry though I don't speak a word of it. Even still any comparison at all between Britain and the Confederacy doesn't seem right to me. A better analogy --- and one often used --- is to compare Britain to the Roman Empire. But the Confederacy I don't see at all.
I see the EU as a German dominated entity, German's next attempt at empire but this time an economic empire modeled only partly on America. I once saw a book on the bookshelf in my basement that my mother used in college called Germany Will Try It Again. And that is the truth. That is why I don't see England as part of it at all. England doesn't fit.
You think I have read nothing about the American Civil War? There you are wrong. Before college I took a course in high school in 11th grade about American History taught by a Mr. Tosh at Bethel High School. It was the AP or Advanced Placement course that was supposed to give you college credit. We focused on --- you guessed it! --- the Civil War. When I took the AP exam in 12th grade I scored 770 on the American HIstory Achievement exam out of a possible 800. This was a national exam. When I attended Bryn Mawr College I took a course in American History with Professor Dudden. He was a PH.D. with a specialty in the subject and many years of experience teaching the subject, too. Many of my opinions about American history were formed in that class. To this day I continue to spout many of Professor Dudden's opinions about American history. He thought that the Confederacy wasn't really there at all. It was just an experiment by the few and didn't involve most of the population of the South. It was doomed to failure from the start. The only thing interesting about it at all were the battles fought by some of its generals which is probably what interested you. (Another of Dudden's opinions was that the American Revolution wasn't really a revolution but was already an accomplished fact. There was nothing Britain could have done about it. The colonies were already independent).
And yes the Confederate Museum does have a wall placard about the subject in the museum emphasizing how the people of the Confederacy weren't interested in the Confederacy at all. They regularly deserted the army when they wanted to go back to the hills to do their planting and harvesting. Most of the South was just a myth.
In addition I actually wrote a book about the Civil War which oddly enough is the only novel I've ever written which isn't up on Amazon. It still needs editing. It is called The Dead March and focuses on the Battle of the Wilderness. The heroine of the novel is a Quaker abolitionist of all things who works for Quakeress Miss Van Lew of Richmond --- a Union spy --- who lived on Church Hill which we visited on several occasions when we lived in Charlottesville. The hero is a plantation boy from Virginia by the name of Clay who fights in various battles until he gets wounded at the Wilderness.
In addition when we lived in Charlottesville and Gary worked at the Research Group he knew somebody whose ancestors fought in the War of Northern Aggression. We also visited Shirley Plantation and met the modern day descendants of King Carter. I interviewed Alexandra Ripley, who lived in Charlottesville, and who wrote Gone with the Wind 2, a novel called Scarlet. And yes we did visit the Confederate Museum as well as all the battlefield parks such as the Wilderness, Gettysburg, Manassas, Fredericksburg, Appomattox, Petersburg. We even lived next to an elementary school built on the site of the Battle of Rio Hill, which I bet you have never heard about. Heck, even last summer we visited the site of the Battle of Newmarket. I sent you a postcard.
Linda wrote: "I don't think it is Americans who are literal, it is the way I think. I am VERY literal. You say something to me, I take it literally like the Germans. I am almost 100% German by ancestry though I ..."I fully understand. I too leaned English spoken in a German way and it took me years to really connect to the way the English use the language. As my mother used to say 'the English never mean what they say, nor say what they mean'.
The allusion to the Confederacy is just that the Leave campaign think it will be really easy to go it alone and all the world will open up to our call. But they may be wrong and there is a good deal of evidence building up that they are.
Also the Confeds thought recognition etc. would be a pushover and Britain could not possibly manage without its cotton and would intervene to support it. Three times the US and GB got very close to declaring war on each other, but they pulled back each time. Queen Victoria supported the Confederacy and thought her Government was wrong not to recognise it. She dismissed the Union as 'such ruffians'.
The point is when you break away from something, whatever it is, you have to have a clear cut plan, properly tested for effectiveness and be able to demonstrate that it will work. Leave have been asked time and again to produce a single world leader (apart form Putin) who backs them, a single banker or a single big corporation. So far they have offered nothing but pipe dreams.
Linda wrote: "I see the EU as a German dominated entity, German's next attempt at empire but this time an economic empire modeled only partly on America. I once saw a book on the bookshelf in my basement that my..."Oh you are absolutely dead right. This is the new German Empire and because it is economic and not military it does not have all the unwelcome undertones of previous efforts. Third time lucky.
The reason everybody wants Britain to stay is that we are the only ones who are actually willing to stand up to the Germans when they get headstrong. France mutters but always submits. America wants us in there to keep it from getting out of hand.
When Hollande (socialist) was elected President of France on an end austerity programme for euroland, he flew to Merkel in a thunderstorm as soon as he had been sworn in, on the same day, to beg her to agree to an economic stimulus package. She told him to get stuffed. He had to come back and cut left right and centre and became the most unpopular president since records began. France had to do Germany's bidding when they had voted for the opposite.
Had it been Britain, Merkel would have cut a deal. Britain is respected by Germany more than any of the other countries who now more or less do her bidding. I think they know if they challenge Britain they challenge America.
Linda wrote: "You think I have read nothing about the American Civil War? There you are wrong. Before college I took a course in high school in 11th grade about American History taught by a Mr. Tosh at Bethel Hi..."Yes I understand the points you make and I respect the opinions of your professor. The same could be said about many wars. My interest is more derived from the relationship between the three components, the Union, the Confederacy and Great Britain. I am not sure that appears much in American writings, which is why I am keen for you to read A World On Fire. It is an academic masterpiece.
I visited several battlefields in Virgina and two in the North, Gettysburg and Antetham. I had a plan to go to Vicksburg before I am too old, but I think I may have left it too late. Battles are interesting but it is the politics behind the battles which is really where the history lies. I still have all the postcards you sent me and they are much treasured.
Obama is on a Mid East/ Europe tour and came here the last couple of days. He made it more than plain we should stay in Europe. The Remain camp were thrilled, the Leave campaign went potty.This is my blog, 'Obama Drama'. It is tongue in cheek and not literal, but I think you will chuckle nevertheless!
http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
First of all, I didn't learn English from German speakers or even people with German sounding accents speaking English. My parents didn't know German. I think all my mother knew were certain songs. My grandparents on my father's side knew German but they didn't speak with German accents either. What I meant is that I THINK more like a German. I once attempted to explain this to my former literary agent who was talking about how the Germans had bought so many manuscripts and published them in the Cora Verlag line. I talked about my German ancestry on both sides of my family. For instance, my mother's maiden name was Dietrich, a very German name. I was raised to prefer things to be organized, on time, clean and tidy, etc. I also detest change and want things to remain the same which doesn't fit in very well with American life. I am basically a very conservative person and Germans as a people strike me that way.
Again comparing Great Britain to the Confederacy seems fallacious. Great Britain has more standing in the world than the Confederacy ever had. Nor are you in the middle of an actual physical war. If you were, the US government would back you. As you have pointed out, in Great Britain the US and Britain have joint military facilities. The Confederacy never had any friends like that.Besides, how long has Britain been part of the EU? You act as if it were fundamental to Great Britain's existence. What does it really do for Great Britain anyway except stir up trouble?
Linda wrote: "First of all, I didn't learn English from German speakers or even people with German sounding accents speaking English. My parents didn't know German. I think all my mother knew were certain songs...."I know you think like a German and I spotted that before I knew your background! I remmeber thinking this is like conversing with my mother.
And I think you would probably be happy to have built your life in Germany. Although in many ways Germany is very flexible and adapts to the times better than any other country. That is why it is back on top.
Linda wrote: "Again comparing Great Britain to the Confederacy seems fallacious. Great Britain has more standing in the world than the Confederacy ever had. Nor are you in the middle of an actual physical war. I..."I am not comparing Britain to the Confederacy. I am comparing the situation of nationalism without a proper plan. Britain's legal, financial, business and manufacturing structures are all fully intertwined with the EU and will take a lot of unravelling. Nobody has any idea how the country is going to operate. Of course it could prosper but nobody has a clue how. My blog says more.
Also it will be England alone. Scotland will not stay.
Yes, I am sure Merkel wants to cut a deal with the British. So did Hitler. He wanted England to help him manage things. He wanted the British Empire to continue and manage places like the Far East and Africa, places the Reich wasn't interested in. In those days America didn't play as big a part. But Hitler had a train called America before the war. Traditionally the Germans want to work with the English speaking world. English is the most taught foreign language in Germany and Austria. My friend in Austria is also a teacher. She tells me that English is part of the curriculum at all levels.
Are you still planning to go to Vicksburg? The British apparently were keenly interested in the American Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression as a tour guide at Magnolia Plantation outside Charleston, South Carolina once told us as we toured the swamps in a tram and saw alligators. By the way if you want to get an idea of the Deep South and not just Virginia come to Magnolia Plantation. The gift shop was very instructive. They sold tons of black mammy statuettes and Negro slaves holding lanterns to decorate the end of your driveway. That sort of thing like Aunt Jemima and the pancakes or don't they sell that in Britain? We were at first scandalized until we observed what was going on. Who do you think was purchasing the artifacts of slavery in the Old South? Blacks! Apparently they think it part of their cultural heritage and many are now proud of it. They boast about the contributions they made in the times of slavery.
Linda wrote: "Yes, I am sure Merkel wants to cut a deal with the British. So did Hitler. He wanted England to help him manage things. He wanted the British Empire to continue and manage places like the Far East ..."Oh yes and the interesting thing is that when an English speaking German politician comes on the media the really keen English speakers have no accent at all. You cannot tell they are not English.
Linda wrote: "Are you still planning to go to Vicksburg? The British apparently were keenly interested in the American Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression as a tour guide at Magnolia Plantation outside C..."I am not sure I will make it to Vicksburg, but your observations are very interesting. I too ran into the 'war of Northern aggression' in Petersburg. I was quite surprised at the fervour behind it. It was not said in a light hearted way. I was a bit shocked actually.
When I heard "the war of northern aggression" at Magnolia Plantation there was absolutely no fervour or emphasis at all. The tourguide was making a joke, and everybody on the tram ride laughed and laughed the turn of words. I've never met a southerner who believed in the rebellion nowadays. In fact, southerners are all the biggest Unionists I've ever met. They are now the Conservatives, the ones who believe most in the United States of America.
I've never heard a German speak English the way you say with the exception of a professor at the University of Arizona who is a German professor but one who has been living in the US for decades. My friend, Gertrude, who lives in Austria also speaks very good English. But she does have a slight accent.
That was how our acquaintance online started talking about Scottish Nationalism. I will repeat because it needs emphasis that I don't know why Scotland will be allowed to leave Great Britain. If you don't have a country that can be held together it won't last. This Balkanization businss is one of the biggest problems that Europe seems to have. I am sure you can have trade with Europe without belonging to the EU. Why not? I am sure the US has trade with Europe without belonging to the EU.
Yes Europe and the US trade but it is not free trade, ie tarrif free and no restrictions on capital movement etc. The way we trade with all 27 countries is that it is one market, one set of regulations and laws and no tariffs, just like the internal US. That is the whole point, Europe is one market.When the US exports to us or we to you there are customs duties. I once bought a pair of gloves by mail order from L. L. Bean and had to pay the customs duty to the postman.
Linda wrote: "That was how our acquaintance online started talking about Scottish Nationalism. I will repeat because it needs emphasis that I don't know why Scotland will be allowed to leave Great Britain. If yo..."Yes but Scotland and England are different countries, with separate legal and eduction systems and a completely different heritage. Their courts and schools are different. They were never occupied by the Romans or the Normans and of course they speak English with a very different style and accent. They also have their own language, Gaelic which is still spoken in the Islands.
The Union, which began with the Crowns and then moved on to Parliaments was never like the Union of the former American colonies. It has always been voluntary, always two countries, but one Kingdom. If they did go independent they would keep the same Monarch. I think Americans might find this a bit difficult to fathom. Also when the Royal Family is on official duties in Scotland they use different Scottish titles, except for the Queen, although she is Elizabeth I in Scotland. It has never been one country in the literal sense, like the US.
They even have different coins and banknotes (bills) although it is the same currency.
It shows that Lee was not Winston Churchill at Dunkirk withdrawing and yet turning that withdrawal into a moral victory that would lead to total victory in the future. But of course that would be impossible. Lee wasn't fighting for the right idea. Churchill was. In the long run you can never make the wrong ideal prevail. The Confederacy was doomed from its inception. At the time of Churchill America was on the rise and all the half American Churchill had to do was latch onto it and combine forces which is still carried out to this day. Lee wasn't a man of that stature.