UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Olerand]

And no, of course not everyone in France believes the exact same things, like I've already said in my comparison with Aelex. I vote for the Socialist Party, he supports the Front, clearly, we don't share all the same beliefs. But we both have a sense of belonging. We know what is France, what is the Republic, and we belong to it. The core beliefs between an FN voter, me, a Macron supporter, and a Communist are the same. We all claim the Republic and its values.

You are aware that French monarchists do in fact exist, yes? I know a few personally. Not every Frenchman is born a republican, any more than every British person is born a royalist.

Certainly. But they're not in the political discourse, popular discourse, popular thought, or the common representation of France and what being French is. But they do exist, in their very small numbers. The Bourbons aren't dead, and neither are the Bonapartes.

[Calladan]

*shrug* Why not. Of the positions you've posited, I support somewhere between two and four of them, and I consider myself to be British.

I don't like the fact that the country I live in is full of racists, bigots, misogynists, far right Christians, Sun Readers, BNP members, monarchists and any number of other people who I find contemptible, but I am still quite happy that my taxes go to pay for their children to go to school, that it might go to pay for their benefits, that it goes to pay for the police to keep them safe, the fire brigade to put out any fires that start in their houses, to pay for the NHS that keeps them healthy so they can continue to spew their vile bigotry and hate (not so much the monarchists) and so on and son on, because for me that is what being part of a society is - you don't get to chose where the taxes go.

And while I know full well other people might not like it, there is very little I can actually do about that.

Plus - why should we all believe the same thing? Why shouldn't we be allowed to believe what the hell we want? Are you telling me everyone in France believes exactly the same thing? (Because I call bollocks on that).

I cannot think of a single belief, a single idea, a single thing that would unite the entire country and that everyone would have in common. (Even the most simple thing - I don't drink alcohol, I don't drink tea, I loathe football, I think the St George's flag is the last refuge of morons..... well - you get the idea).

So I go back to where I start. I define someone as British if they have citizenship (either through birth or naturalisation) and with clarifications of guests/tourists as above. That's pretty much it.

Does Britain feel the same? Post-1979 Britain suggests to me that quite a few don't share your generous sentiments about paying taxes for others to benefit. Not under Thatcher, Major, Blair (don't know much about Brown), Cameron, or May would I say that that sentiment has had a presence.

And no, of course not everyone in France believes the exact same things, like I've already said in my comparison with Aelex. I vote for the Socialist Party, he supports the Front, clearly, we don't share all the same beliefs. But we both have a sense of belonging. We know what is France, what is the Republic, and we belong to it. The core beliefs between an FN voter, me, a Macron supporter, and a Communist are the same. We all claim the Republic and its values.

And there we go, back to where we started. Why does Britain continue to exist? Why should people elect governments that will take their hard earned money and help those who don't have that money? Those who they don't feel solidarity to, those who don't deserve their money? That's the Tory Britain (the real post-1979 Britain), and the next stop on this train is Republican America (why should I pay for your son's congenital heart defect?) and more yet to come.

Okay, I think I am starting to lose the point of what we are discussing here.

I know that quite a few people don't share my views. And that Thatcher pretty much screwed up this country and turned into an absolute hellhole of putting oneself first and everyone else second. (This is clearly not a view I subscribe to, but hopefully you know that already). But you are wrong about one thing - under Blair and Brown, things got a lot better, and they undid a lot of the damage Thatcher and Major did. Then Cameron and Clegg got into power and cacked it all up again.

And yes, there is every chance that, unless something surprising happens, the incoming government will be made up of people who are not pro-NHS or pro-welfare, and it might get worse after that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon the country just because the country is going to turn in to an utter nightmare. (Actually, if Scotland secedes, I am pretty much planning on moving there to live with my girlfriend, but I am planning on doing that even if it doesn't). Instead I am going to stay and fight back and make this country the country it should be once more.

I believe in equality, tolerance, respect, politeness, the rule of law, that we should remain in the ECHR, that our courts should be above our Parliament and that the ECHR courts should be above our courts and that leaving the EU is insane and crazy, that religious beliefs have no place in civil or criminal laws and that if ANYONE - especially anyone in politics tries to define "British values" it is usually an appeal to a section of voters that they are desperate to win votes from, and five will get you ten that it involves religion or bigotry.

And my core values? Be nice to everyone, don't raise your hand to anyone, treat everyone equally, obey the rule of law and that all of these can be broken if the circumstances warrant it.

[Olerand]

Does Britain feel the same? Post-1979 Britain suggests to me that quite a few don't share your generous sentiments about paying taxes for others to benefit. Not under Thatcher, Major, Blair (don't know much about Brown), Cameron, or May would I say that that sentiment has had a presence.

And no, of course not everyone in France believes the exact same things, like I've already said in my comparison with Aelex. I vote for the Socialist Party, he supports the Front, clearly, we don't share all the same beliefs. But we both have a sense of belonging. We know what is France, what is the Republic, and we belong to it. The core beliefs between an FN voter, me, a Macron supporter, and a Communist are the same. We all claim the Republic and its values.

And there we go, back to where we started. Why does Britain continue to exist? Why should people elect governments that will take their hard earned money and help those who don't have that money? Those who they don't feel solidarity to, those who don't deserve their money? That's the Tory Britain (the real post-1979 Britain), and the next stop on this train is Republican America (why should I pay for your son's congenital heart defect?) and more yet to come.

Okay, I think I am starting to lose the point of what we are discussing here.

I know that quite a few people don't share my views. And that Thatcher pretty much screwed up this country and turned into an absolute hellhole of putting oneself first and everyone else second. (This is clearly not a view I subscribe to, but hopefully you know that already). But you are wrong about one thing - under Blair and Brown, things got a lot better, and they undid a lot of the damage Thatcher and Major did. Then Cameron and Clegg got into power and cacked it all up again.

And yes, there is every chance that, unless something surprising happens, the incoming government will be made up of people who are not pro-NHS or pro-welfare, and it might get worse after that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon the country just because the country is going to turn in to an utter nightmare. (Actually, if Scotland secedes, I am pretty much planning on moving there to live with my girlfriend, but I am planning on doing that even if it doesn't). Instead I am going to stay and fight back and make this country the country it should be once more.

I believe in equality, tolerance, respect, politeness, the rule of law, that we should remain in the ECHR, that our courts should be above our Parliament and that the ECHR courts should be above our courts and that leaving the EU is insane and crazy, that religious beliefs have no place in civil or criminal laws and that if ANYONE - especially anyone in politics tries to define "British values" it is usually an appeal to a section of voters that they are desperate to win votes from, and five will get you ten that it involves religion or bigotry.

And my core values? Be nice to everyone, don't raise your hand to anyone, treat everyone equally, obey the rule of law and that all of these can be broken if the circumstances warrant it.

Again, it's not really a discussion of your values and beliefs. I am asking, what does Britain believe? What does Britain believe Britain is? Why is Britain still together? Why should Britons continue to pay for someone else's sake, if there's nothing in common between them?

[Salandriagado]

Okay, I think I am starting to lose the point of what we are discussing here.

I know that quite a few people don't share my views. And that Thatcher pretty much screwed up this country and turned into an absolute hellhole of putting oneself first and everyone else second. (This is clearly not a view I subscribe to, but hopefully you know that already). But you are wrong about one thing - under Blair and Brown, things got a lot better, and they undid a lot of the damage Thatcher and Major did. Then Cameron and Clegg got into power and cacked it all up again.

And yes, there is every chance that, unless something surprising happens, the incoming government will be made up of people who are not pro-NHS or pro-welfare, and it might get worse after that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon the country just because the country is going to turn in to an utter nightmare. (Actually, if Scotland secedes, I am pretty much planning on moving there to live with my girlfriend, but I am planning on doing that even if it doesn't). Instead I am going to stay and fight back and make this country the country it should be once more.

I believe in equality, tolerance, respect, politeness, the rule of law, that we should remain in the ECHR, that our courts should be above our Parliament and that the ECHR courts should be above our courts and that leaving the EU is insane and crazy, that religious beliefs have no place in civil or criminal laws and that if ANYONE - especially anyone in politics tries to define "British values" it is usually an appeal to a section of voters that they are desperate to win votes from, and five will get you ten that it involves religion or bigotry.

And my core values? Be nice to everyone, don't raise your hand to anyone, treat everyone equally, obey the rule of law and that all of these can be broken if the circumstances warrant it.

Again, it's not really a discussion of your values and beliefs. I am asking, what does Britain believe? What does Britain believe Britain is?

Absolutely nothing. And the same is true of every other country that exists (except maybe the Vatican).

Why is Britain still together? Why should Britons continue to pay for someone else's sake, if there's nothing in common between them?

Because it's a convenient economic arrangement of mutual benefit.

[Mostrov]

most of you don't want to live with each other anymore.

Despite the nihilistic tendency against nationhood of many users here, these views aren't representative of Britons in general.

You have stated this perfectly.

One of the interesting things about the past is that it often contains the same dilemmas as the present, as indeed the constant of human nature has remained unchanged:

During the fourth century Greece steadily moves towards new ways of thought and a new way of life; so much so that to those who were born at the end of the century the age of Pericles must have seemed as remote, mentally, as the Middle Ages do to us.
[...]
When Philip died, states like Athens and Thebes were, to the Greek mind, large and powerful; when Alexander died, Greeks of the homeland looked out upon an empire which stretched from the Adriatic to the Indus, and from the Caspian to Upper Egypt. These thirteen years had made a considerable change. Classical Greece was at an end, and henceforth life had an entirely different shape and meaning.
Confronted with so sudden a collapse of a whole political system we naturally look for an explanation. It is not very difficult to see at least an immediate cause, that the continuous wars of a century or more had exhausted Greece, materially and spiritually. Things could not go on like this ; the city-state was no longer providing a tolerable way of life. As today, in somewhat similar circumstances. Western Europe is trying to feel its way towards some larger political unit, so in the fourth century there were some who were turning away either from the polls itself or from the democratic principle.
But not only externally was the polis proving a failure, in not giving Greece a tolerable way of life: internally too it was losing its grip[.] Fourth-century Athens gives the impression of political lethargy, almost of indifference: men were interested in other things than the polis, and not until the last fatal day did the Athenians act in a way worthy of their great name - and then it was too late.
The contrast between the two periods goes very deep. It is not merely that Athens had been exhausted by the long Peloponnesian War. From such exhaustion communities recover, and indeed fourth-century Athens was active and enterprising enough in other directions. We cannot attribute the change to mere prostration. Nor to simple reaction from the strenuousness of political life in the fifth century; for reaction, in time, spends its force. What we meet in the fourth century is a permanent change in the temper of the people: it is the emergence of a different attitude to life. In the fourth century there is more individualism. We can see it wherever we look - in art, in philosophy, in life. Sculpture for instance begins to be introspective, to concern itself with individual traits, with passing moods, instead of trying to express the ideal or universal. In fact, it begins to portray men, not Man. It is the same with drama - and drama shows that the change is no sudden one. Already in the last two decades of the fifth century tragedy had begun to turn away from important and universal themes, and to interest itself in abnormal characters (as in the Electra and Orestes of Euripides), or in romantic stories of peculiar perils and thrilling escapes (as in the Iphigenia in Tauris and Helen). In the philosophies of the time we find schools like the Cynics and the Cyrenaics. The great question was. Where lies the Good? the Good for Man? And the answer given took no account of the polis. The Cynics, of whom the famous Diogenes was the extreme example, said that Virtue and Wisdom consisted in living according to nature, and abandoning such vanities as the desire for honour and comfort. So Diogenes lived in his tub, and the polls had to do without him. The Cyrenaics, a hedonist school, held that wisdom consists in the right choice of pleasures and in the avoidance of what would disturb the even flow of life, so that they too avoided the polis. Indeed the word 'cosmopolis' was coined at this time, to express the idea that the community to which the wise man owed allegiance was nothing less than the community of man; the wise man, wherever he lived, was the fellow-citizen of every other wise man. But, quite apart from this philosophical sense, 'cosmopolitanism' was the necessary counterpart of the new individualism. The Cosmopolis was beginning to supersede the Polis.
If we turn firom art and philosophy to life and politics we find what is essentially the same thing. The ordinary citizen is more interested in his private affairs than in the polls. If he is poor, he tends to regard the polls as a source of benefits. For example, Demosthenes struggled hard to persuade the people to devote to national defence revenues which they had been regularly placing to the 'theatre-fund* - not a fund for producing plays, but one for enabling the citizens, free of charge, to attend the theatre and other festivals. The maintenance of this fund can be defended, but only on the assumption that the citizen showed as much alacrity in serving the polls as he did in accepting its favours. If the citizen was rich, he was more engrossed in his own affairs ; Demosthenes compares unfavourably the splendid houses built by the wealthy of his own time with the simple ones with which the rich men of the previous century had been content. Comedy shows very clearly the change of temper. Old Comedy had been political through and through; it was the life of the polls that was criticized and burlesqued on the stage. Now it finds its material in private and domestic life, and makes jokes about cooks and the price of fish, shrewish wives and incompetent doctors.
[...]
But this disrupting Progress was not confined to the material side of life, and it would be foolish to assert that it began there. Aristophanes maintained that it all came from trying to be too clever, and for this simple view there is much to be said.
For generations Greek morality, like Greek military tactics, had remained severely traditional, based on the cardinal virtues of Justice, Courage, Self-restraint, and Wisdom. Poet after poet had preached almost identical doctrines - the beauty of Justice, the dangers of Ambition, the folly of Violence. It was a morality which was indeed no more practised by all Greeks than Christianity was practised by all Christendom; nevertheless, like Christianity, it was an accepted standard. When a man did wrong, he was known to be doing wrong. Here was the foundation, simple and strong, on which a common life could be built: here too is the source of the strength and simplicity of classical Greek art ; and the only other European art which in these qualities approaches the Greek, namely the art of the thirteenth century, was built on a similar foundation.
But the fifth century changed all that. By the end of it, nobody knew where he was ; the clever were turning everything upside-down, and the simple felt that they had become out of date. To speak of Virtue was to provoke the response, 'It all depends what you mean by Virtue' - and nobody knew ; one reason why the poets went out of business. As within the last hundred years new ideas and discoveries in the natural sciences have profoundly altered our outlook, upsetting, for many men, a traditional religion and morality, so that the Devil has abdicated, wickedness has ceased to exist, and all human shortcomings are the Results of the System, or the Product of Environment, so, but more acutely, the bold philosophical speculations of the Ionian philosophers of the sixth and early fifth centuries had stimulated systematic inquiry in many directions, with the result that many received ideas in morality were badly shaken.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.

[Salandriagado]

Despite the nihilistic tendency against nationhood of many users here, these views aren't representative of Britons in general.

You have stated this perfectly.

One of the interesting things about the past is that it often contains the same dilemmas as the present, as indeed the constant of human nature has remained unchanged:

During the fourth century Greece steadily moves towards new ways of thought and a new way of life; so much so that to those who were born at the end of the century the age of Pericles must have seemed as remote, mentally, as the Middle Ages do to us.
[...]
When Philip died, states like Athens and Thebes were, to the Greek mind, large and powerful; when Alexander died, Greeks of the homeland looked out upon an empire which stretched from the Adriatic to the Indus, and from the Caspian to Upper Egypt. These thirteen years had made a considerable change. Classical Greece was at an end, and henceforth life had an entirely different shape and meaning.
Confronted with so sudden a collapse of a whole political system we naturally look for an explanation. It is not very difficult to see at least an immediate cause, that the continuous wars of a century or more had exhausted Greece, materially and spiritually. Things could not go on like this ; the city-state was no longer providing a tolerable way of life. As today, in somewhat similar circumstances. Western Europe is trying to feel its way towards some larger political unit, so in the fourth century there were some who were turning away either from the polls itself or from the democratic principle.
But not only externally was the polis proving a failure, in not giving Greece a tolerable way of life: internally too it was losing its grip[.] Fourth-century Athens gives the impression of political lethargy, almost of indifference: men were interested in other things than the polis, and not until the last fatal day did the Athenians act in a way worthy of their great name - and then it was too late.
The contrast between the two periods goes very deep. It is not merely that Athens had been exhausted by the long Peloponnesian War. From such exhaustion communities recover, and indeed fourth-century Athens was active and enterprising enough in other directions. We cannot attribute the change to mere prostration. Nor to simple reaction from the strenuousness of political life in the fifth century; for reaction, in time, spends its force. What we meet in the fourth century is a permanent change in the temper of the people: it is the emergence of a different attitude to life. In the fourth century there is more individualism. We can see it wherever we look - in art, in philosophy, in life. Sculpture for instance begins to be introspective, to concern itself with individual traits, with passing moods, instead of trying to express the ideal or universal. In fact, it begins to portray men, not Man. It is the same with drama - and drama shows that the change is no sudden one. Already in the last two decades of the fifth century tragedy had begun to turn away from important and universal themes, and to interest itself in abnormal characters (as in the Electra and Orestes of Euripides), or in romantic stories of peculiar perils and thrilling escapes (as in the Iphigenia in Tauris and Helen). In the philosophies of the time we find schools like the Cynics and the Cyrenaics. The great question was. Where lies the Good? the Good for Man? And the answer given took no account of the polis. The Cynics, of whom the famous Diogenes was the extreme example, said that Virtue and Wisdom consisted in living according to nature, and abandoning such vanities as the desire for honour and comfort. So Diogenes lived in his tub, and the polls had to do without him. The Cyrenaics, a hedonist school, held that wisdom consists in the right choice of pleasures and in the avoidance of what would disturb the even flow of life, so that they too avoided the polis. Indeed the word 'cosmopolis' was coined at this time, to express the idea that the community to which the wise man owed allegiance was nothing less than the community of man; the wise man, wherever he lived, was the fellow-citizen of every other wise man. But, quite apart from this philosophical sense, 'cosmopolitanism' was the necessary counterpart of the new individualism. The Cosmopolis was beginning to supersede the Polis.
If we turn firom art and philosophy to life and politics we find what is essentially the same thing. The ordinary citizen is more interested in his private affairs than in the polls. If he is poor, he tends to regard the polls as a source of benefits. For example, Demosthenes struggled hard to persuade the people to devote to national defence revenues which they had been regularly placing to the 'theatre-fund* - not a fund for producing plays, but one for enabling the citizens, free of charge, to attend the theatre and other festivals. The maintenance of this fund can be defended, but only on the assumption that the citizen showed as much alacrity in serving the polls as he did in accepting its favours. If the citizen was rich, he was more engrossed in his own affairs ; Demosthenes compares unfavourably the splendid houses built by the wealthy of his own time with the simple ones with which the rich men of the previous century had been content. Comedy shows very clearly the change of temper. Old Comedy had been political through and through; it was the life of the polls that was criticized and burlesqued on the stage. Now it finds its material in private and domestic life, and makes jokes about cooks and the price of fish, shrewish wives and incompetent doctors.
[...]
But this disrupting Progress was not confined to the material side of life, and it would be foolish to assert that it began there. Aristophanes maintained that it all came from trying to be too clever, and for this simple view there is much to be said.
For generations Greek morality, like Greek military tactics, had remained severely traditional, based on the cardinal virtues of Justice, Courage, Self-restraint, and Wisdom. Poet after poet had preached almost identical doctrines - the beauty of Justice, the dangers of Ambition, the folly of Violence. It was a morality which was indeed no more practised by all Greeks than Christianity was practised by all Christendom; nevertheless, like Christianity, it was an accepted standard. When a man did wrong, he was known to be doing wrong. Here was the foundation, simple and strong, on which a common life could be built: here too is the source of the strength and simplicity of classical Greek art ; and the only other European art which in these qualities approaches the Greek, namely the art of the thirteenth century, was built on a similar foundation.
But the fifth century changed all that. By the end of it, nobody knew where he was ; the clever were turning everything upside-down, and the simple felt that they had become out of date. To speak of Virtue was to provoke the response, 'It all depends what you mean by Virtue' - and nobody knew ; one reason why the poets went out of business. As within the last hundred years new ideas and discoveries in the natural sciences have profoundly altered our outlook, upsetting, for many men, a traditional religion and morality, so that the Devil has abdicated, wickedness has ceased to exist, and all human shortcomings are the Results of the System, or the Product of Environment, so, but more acutely, the bold philosophical speculations of the Ionian philosophers of the sixth and early fifth centuries had stimulated systematic inquiry in many directions, with the result that many received ideas in morality were badly shaken.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.

Your spammy, off-topic low-effort attempts to turn every damned thread you participate in into a discussion of your personal ludicrous conspiracy theory is fucking annoying.

[Calladan]

Okay, I think I am starting to lose the point of what we are discussing here.

I know that quite a few people don't share my views. And that Thatcher pretty much screwed up this country and turned into an absolute hellhole of putting oneself first and everyone else second. (This is clearly not a view I subscribe to, but hopefully you know that already). But you are wrong about one thing - under Blair and Brown, things got a lot better, and they undid a lot of the damage Thatcher and Major did. Then Cameron and Clegg got into power and cacked it all up again.

And yes, there is every chance that, unless something surprising happens, the incoming government will be made up of people who are not pro-NHS or pro-welfare, and it might get worse after that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon the country just because the country is going to turn in to an utter nightmare. (Actually, if Scotland secedes, I am pretty much planning on moving there to live with my girlfriend, but I am planning on doing that even if it doesn't). Instead I am going to stay and fight back and make this country the country it should be once more.

I believe in equality, tolerance, respect, politeness, the rule of law, that we should remain in the ECHR, that our courts should be above our Parliament and that the ECHR courts should be above our courts and that leaving the EU is insane and crazy, that religious beliefs have no place in civil or criminal laws and that if ANYONE - especially anyone in politics tries to define "British values" it is usually an appeal to a section of voters that they are desperate to win votes from, and five will get you ten that it involves religion or bigotry.

And my core values? Be nice to everyone, don't raise your hand to anyone, treat everyone equally, obey the rule of law and that all of these can be broken if the circumstances warrant it.

Again, it's not really a discussion of your values and beliefs. I am asking, what does Britain believe? What does Britain believe Britain is? Why is Britain still together? Why should Britons continue to pay for someone else's sake, if there's nothing in common between them?

Oh. In the case - I don't know, because I am not actually the country And quite honestly, Britain looks like it is not going to stay together much longer because Scotland is going to break away (not literally - that would be odd and probably cause more problems than either of us could imagine) once Maggie May stops being a dictator and gives in to the inevitable.

[Ifreann]

And no, of course not everyone in France believes the exact same things, like I've already said in my comparison with Aelex. I vote for the Socialist Party, he supports the Front, clearly, we don't share all the same beliefs. But we both have a sense of belonging. We know what is France, what is the Republic, and we belong to it. The core beliefs between an FN voter, me, a Macron supporter, and a Communist are the same. We all claim the Republic and its values.

You are aware that French monarchists do in fact exist, yes? I know a few personally. Not every Frenchman is born a republican, any more than every British person is born a royalist.

Indeed. Royalism is induced through mind-controllgin food additives. That's why Jeremy Corbyn, who makes his own jam, is a republican.

[Imperializt Russia]

You've seen Aelex posting, right?

Yes, that might explains why he says that every Frenchman is born with a love for the République, indeed. :^)

My love for the Republic is different than his, I vote PS, he votes FN. But we both recognize what are the fundamentals of France and the Republic. We disagree on much, but the French Republic is the core value of all modern French politics. There is a reason why when a political party is trying to occupy the middle ground (or arguably, higher ground), they add République to their name. Like the UMP becoming Les Républicains, or En Marche becoming La République en marche. Or why la République, much like l'État, or Nation when referring to the nation, are always capitalized in French, per l'Académie's rules.

Well, I don't vote at all actually because I'm not in age by a couple of months but the rest is absolutely true. No matter the political differences, it's the idea of the République that unite France as a whole for it is simply undissociable with our very National Identity at that point.

That would seem to mirror the nature of the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then.

[Imperializt Russia]

most of you don't want to live with each other anymore.

Despite the nihilistic tendency against nationhood of many users here, these views aren't representative of Britons in general.

You seem to have gotten big in the misrepresentation game lately, Hydes.

[Hydesland]

Despite the nihilistic tendency against nationhood of many users here, these views aren't representative of Britons in general.

You seem to have gotten big in the misrepresentation game lately, Hydes.

"Why do we need a united, cohesive country?"

[Imperializt Russia]

You seem to have gotten big in the misrepresentation game lately, Hydes.

"Why do we need a united, cohesive country?"

It's a valid question, either because the person doesn't know (most people on this board) or to provoke debate on nationhood.

Neither is "nihilistic tendency against nationhood".
That sounds like what the Daily Mail will start calling pro-Remain students after the election.

[Hydesland]

"Why do we need a united, cohesive country?"

It's a valid question, either because the person doesn't know (most people on this board) or to provoke debate on nationhood.

Neither is "nihilistic tendency against nationhood".
That sounds like what the Daily Mail will start calling pro-Remain students after the election.

I've been here for over 10 years, sentiments such as "there's no such thing as society" or "borders are arbitrary nonsense" etc... do find support among many people here, from my experience.

[Olerand]

Again, it's not really a discussion of your values and beliefs. I am asking, what does Britain believe? What does Britain believe Britain is?

Absolutely nothing. And the same is true of every other country that exists (except maybe the Vatican).

Why is Britain still together? Why should Britons continue to pay for someone else's sake, if there's nothing in common between them?

Because it's a convenient economic arrangement of mutual benefit.

And that is absolutely not true. We know what we are. Germany knows what it is, ask the CDU, ask the SPD, what is Germany? Spain knows what it is. Italy knows. Belgium knows. The Dutch know. Otherwise, why do we exist? Why aren't we German?

And you think that trumps the argument that "so and so undeserving group is getting your hard earned cash and living the good life on welfare and child support"? I absolutely disagree. Example number 1, America. 2, Britain.

Again, it's not really a discussion of your values and beliefs. I am asking, what does Britain believe? What does Britain believe Britain is? Why is Britain still together? Why should Britons continue to pay for someone else's sake, if there's nothing in common between them?

Oh. In the case - I don't know, because I am not actually the country And quite honestly, Britain looks like it is not going to stay together much longer because Scotland is going to break away (not literally - that would be odd and probably cause more problems than either of us could imagine) once Maggie May stops being a dictator and gives in to the inevitable.

I see it coming too. It is, after all, apparently inevitable.

It's a valid question, either because the person doesn't know (most people on this board) or to provoke debate on nationhood.

Neither is "nihilistic tendency against nationhood".
That sounds like what the Daily Mail will start calling pro-Remain students after the election.

I've been here for over 10 years, sentiments such as "there's no such thing as society" or "borders are arbitrary nonsense" etc... do find support among many people here, from my experience.

I'm fully aware of the fact that the forums obviously lean towards multicultural liberalism and the younger members of British society. Which is why I don't want people's personal beliefs. I am genuinely interested, however, in knowing what Britain believes. I can tell you what France is, so can Aelex. Even though we're on opposing sides of the spectrum. A German can tell you what is Germany. Can a Brit tell you what is Britain?

[Hydesland]

I'm fully aware of the fact that the forums obviously lean towards multicultural liberalism and the younger members of British society. Which is why I don't want people's personal beliefs. I am genuinely interested, however, in knowing what Britain believes. I can tell you what France is, so can Aelex. Even though we're on opposing sides of the spectrum. A German can tell you what is Germany. Can a Brit tell you what is Britain?

Really? What would a German say that Germany is?

[Mostrov]

Your spammy, off-topic low-effort attempts to turn every damned thread you participate in into a discussion of your personal ludicrous conspiracy theory is fucking annoying.

A quote concerning Athens during 4th century with the rise of cosmopolitanism, the undermining of tradition virtue and identity leading to its political decline, is either a conspiracy theory or off-topic?

Despite the fact that the book was written in 1951 it even mentions the EU!

[Olerand]

I'm fully aware of the fact that the forums obviously lean towards multicultural liberalism and the younger members of British society. Which is why I don't want people's personal beliefs. I am genuinely interested, however, in knowing what Britain believes. I can tell you what France is, so can Aelex. Even though we're on opposing sides of the spectrum. A German can tell you what is Germany. Can a Brit tell you what is Britain?

Really? What would a German say that Germany is?

I can't confidently answer for them, but I can say that from our perspective across the Rhine, Germany was used to strongly defining itself as an ethnic construct. Being German was by blood, not belonging. And this has been the case until very recently, and why the Turks in Germany were treated not as citizens or residents (how France treated them) but as foreigners who are there but might leave someday. This has, of course, slowly (and not in everyone's minds) changed recently, and Germany appears to be defining itself more along French value-based definitions. The German government, at least in the lower house, has banned the burqa in civil service, which as far as they can go by law(though polls suggest that up to 81% of Germans want the burqa fully banned, as in France and Belgium and Bulgaria). Germany categorically rejects gender segregation, upholds the Basic Law to the letter, has a commitment more or less to the social market, and maintains a certain connection to German history and heritage, including folklore (minus the era of Hitler, of course).

Germany, I would say, is currently where France was in the 90s and 2000s. It is a little behind because for a long time, and even now to a certain extent, discussing what was understood but not discussed (German identity, and the nation) was awfully suspicious and Nazi-like. The barriers are coming down of course, as evidenced by the CDU-CSU being more willing to talk about German belonging, to counter the AfD, and even the SPD doing that to a certain extent too. But I am not German, and I cannot tell you how they would intimately define themselves.

[Mostrov]

I'm fully aware of the fact that the forums obviously lean towards multicultural liberalism and the younger members of British society. Which is why I don't want people's personal beliefs. I am genuinely interested, however, in knowing what Britain believes. I can tell you what France is, so can Aelex. Even though we're on opposing sides of the spectrum. A German can tell you what is Germany. Can a Brit tell you what is Britain?

What is it that makes you French?
While there may be an exception in that France is particularly conscious of its culture and has that peculiarly French approach to centralization; culture more broadly is trickier to define.

Our language is a major part of it, from the way we say 'hello' to how we codify our social hierarchy, domestic consumption, political participation, shared history, common cultural habits all play their part as well. It is something very difficult to see from the inside and unable to be defined in simple terms. In the popular imagination British culture has always been historically blurred with English, as Britain is the last pre-westphalian state in Europe, which further muddies the question.
The easiest rule I have found is when outsiders can identify you as something i.e. 'he is British/English/Cornish'.

[Olerand]

I'm fully aware of the fact that the forums obviously lean towards multicultural liberalism and the younger members of British society. Which is why I don't want people's personal beliefs. I am genuinely interested, however, in knowing what Britain believes. I can tell you what France is, so can Aelex. Even though we're on opposing sides of the spectrum. A German can tell you what is Germany. Can a Brit tell you what is Britain?

What is it that makes you French?
While there may be an exception in that France is particularly conscious of its culture and has a particularly French approach to centralizing it; culture more broadly is trickier to define. Our language is a major part of it, from the way we say 'hello' to how we codify our social hierarchy, domestic consumption, political participation, shared history, common cultural habits. It is something very difficult to see from the inside and unable to be defined simply. In the popular imagination British culture has always been historically blurred with English, as Britain is the last pre-westphalian state in Europe, which further muddies the question.
The easiest rule I have found is when outsiders can identify you as something i.e. 'he is British/English/Cornish'.

But Britain is more than that, surely. Don't you have common values, a common outlook to the future, the present, the past? Granted, France's powerful State, which in many ways shaped the Nation and its culture, is uniquely different than Britain. But surely, even Britain has something that keeps it Britain, and not Northernmost Italy.

What makes me French is my commitment to the values of the Republic. To the Constitution, to the 1948 Preamble, to laïcité, to gender equality, to a social market, to our motto, to our history, to our ideals, to our shared future, to my obligations to my fellow citizen, and his or her obligations to me.

[Hydesland]

I can't confidently answer for them, but I can say that from our perspective across the Rhine, Germany was used to strongly defining itself as an ethnic construct. Being German was by blood, not belonging. And this has been the case until very recently, and why the Turks in Germany were treated not as citizens or residents (how France treated them) but as foreigners who are there but might leave someday. This has, of course, slowly (and not in everyone's minds) changed recently, and Germany appears to be defining itself more along French value-based definitions. The German government, at least in the lower house, has banned the burqa in civil service, which as far as they can go by law(though polls suggest that up to 81% of Germans want the burqa fully banned, as in France and Belgium and Bulgaria). Germany categorically rejects gender segregation, upholds the Basic Law to the letter, has a commitment more or less to the social market, and maintains a certain connection to German history and heritage, including folklore (minus the era of Hitler, of course).

So things like rejecting gender segregation, "social market", upholding laws, connection to history and folklore can be said of basically any western nation. If they're no longer using an ethnic definition, then you're stuck with the same problems you pointed out earlier, what is uniquely German?

[Olerand]

I can't confidently answer for them, but I can say that from our perspective across the Rhine, Germany was used to strongly defining itself as an ethnic construct. Being German was by blood, not belonging. And this has been the case until very recently, and why the Turks in Germany were treated not as citizens or residents (how France treated them) but as foreigners who are there but might leave someday. This has, of course, slowly (and not in everyone's minds) changed recently, and Germany appears to be defining itself more along French value-based definitions. The German government, at least in the lower house, has banned the burqa in civil service, which as far as they can go by law(though polls suggest that up to 81% of Germans want the burqa fully banned, as in France and Belgium and Bulgaria). Germany categorically rejects gender segregation, upholds the Basic Law to the letter, has a commitment more or less to the social market, and maintains a certain connection to German history and heritage, including folklore (minus the era of Hitler, of course).

So things like rejecting gender segregation, "social market", upholding laws, connection to history and folklore can be said of basically any western nation. If they're no longer using an ethnic definition, then you're stuck with the same problems you pointed out earlier, what is uniquely German?

The Basic Law. Their social market. Their history, folklore, and way of life. We share none of that, even though we share so much else.

France doesn't have the Basic Law, France has the remnant of a dirigiste economy, and our history, folklore, and way of life is not German, though we obviously have things in common.

Again, I cannot tell you how Germany intimately defines itself, but I can tell you why it is not, say, French. Germany is not laïque, Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution.

Even on Europe, probably the one major topic we have most in common (makes sense as we were the two who most contributed to it), we have differing outlooks. France has consistently seen Europe as a tool to maximize French influence and power, while Germany has sought to anchor itself in a European identity to find a new home outside of the tainted ethnic definition. We share much in common, as we do with the UK, but we are definitely not the same.

EDIT: Along with the obvious, our languages, and all that entails. The French language is different than German in what it emphasizes, what it expresses, how it exists. As it is different from English.

EDIT 2: Also, no, they certainly wouldn't be "any Western nation". I can't think of a single Anglo-Saxon country who shares those values. Maybe Australia and New Zealand, I don't really know what's going on there.
Or any Eastern European country, which are still by and large ethnically understood.

[Hydesland]

The Basic Law. Their social market. Their history, folklore, and way of life. We share none of that, even though we share so much else.

France doesn't have the Basic Law, France has the remnant of a dirigiste economy, and our history, folklore, and way of life is not German, though we obviously have things in common.

Again, I cannot tell you how Germany intimately defines itself, but I can tell you why it is not, say, French. Germany is not laïque, Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution.

Yes, we have different histories, folklore and legal structures (as well as similarities). If we're defining nations by how their legal systems or histories or traditions differ from each other then that's easy. How could you possibly be struggling with Britain? Why are you acting as if Britain is unique? Is it so difficult for you to read about our legal system, our history and traditions and find out for yourself? I assumed you were originally asking these questions as a rhetorical exercise to illustrate some absurdities when you completely reject any conceptual nationhood, but are you genuinely confused about something?

EDIT 2: Also, no, they certainly wouldn't be "any Western nation". I can't think of a single Anglo-Saxon country who shares those values.

What values? We uphold laws, we reject gender segregation, we have an interest in our history and folklore, we have a "social market" (a.k.a meaningless platitude to describe unremarkable mixed market economy).

[Olerand]

The Basic Law. Their social market. Their history, folklore, and way of life. We share none of that, even though we share so much else.

France doesn't have the Basic Law, France has the remnant of a dirigiste economy, and our history, folklore, and way of life is not German, though we obviously have things in common.

Again, I cannot tell you how Germany intimately defines itself, but I can tell you why it is not, say, French. Germany is not laïque, Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution.

Yes, we have different histories, folklore and legal structures (as well as similarities). If we're defining nations by how their legal systems or histories or traditions differ from each other then that's easy. How could you possibly be struggling with Britain? Why are you acting as if Britain is unique? Is it so difficult for you to read about our legal system, our history and traditions and find out for yourself? I assumed you were originally asking these questions as a rhetorical exercise to illustrate some absurdities when you completely reject any conceptual nationhood, but are you genuinely confused about something?

EDIT 2: Also, no, they certainly wouldn't be "any Western nation". I can't think of a single Anglo-Saxon country who shares those values.

What values? We uphold laws, we reject gender segregation, we have an interest in our history and folklore, we have a "social market" (a.k.a meaningless platitude to describe unremarkable mixed market economy).

Um... Why did you miss: Germany is not laïque, Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution. Do you not understand how significant laïcité is to French culture, or being a unitary State is to the development of France, or the events and documents of the French Revolution are?

Do you know how significantly laws affect their cultures? How significantly French civil administrative law affected the development of public authority in France. Or the Organic law affected German society?

We share none of those things with Germany, our economy isn't even similar to Germany's.

As for the similarities in Anglo countries? Where?

Who rejects segregation? The UK? With segregated political meetings, university courses?
Canada? With segregated municipal accommodations? A Prime Minister who speaks in a mosque with the female ministers sitting with the women on a balcony in the back?
America? Whose commitment to gender segregation, as long as it is Christian, is well documented in its culture and educative system?

And the social market is much more than "platitudes". We are closer to a social market, with our social conferences between the labour unions and the employers' unions, hosted by the State, than you are. Germany's State doesn't often need to be involved in labour negotiations, as they get settled between the labour and employers' unions. Our State is heavily involved, as we don't have a social market. Your State and your social actors are heavily not involved, as you don't have a social market. German labour law gives preeminence to labour negotiations, French law to the State, and Anglo-Saxon law to individual contracts. Do you not see how significant this is?

I'm not making a point, nor am I confused. I'm genuinely asking, what is Britain?

[Hydesland]

Um... Why did you miss: Germany is not laïque

Encompassed by my mention of legal structure.

Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution.

I mentioned tradition and history.

Do you not understand how significant laïcité is to French culture, or being a unitary State is to the development of France, or the events and documents of the French Revolution are?

Do you know how significantly laws affect their cultures? How significantly French civil administrative law affected the development of public authority in France. Or the Organic law affected German society?

I don't remember saying otherwise. Laws and history sculpt culture in every nation.

As for the similarities in Anglo countries? Where?

You just said "We share much in common, as we do with the UK".

Who rejects segregation? The UK? With segregated political meetings, university courses?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I spent 4 years at university, attending two universities, and not once did I ever encounter gender segregated university courses, nor have I ever heard of such a thing. To the extent they do exist, they are most certainly fringe, and defining a culture by its most fringe elements is legitimately terrible. I've no idea what you're talking about with "segregated political meetings", parliament is not segregated.

And the social market is much more than "platitudes". We are closer to a social market, with our social conferences between the labour unions and the employers' unions, hosted by the State, than you are. Germany's State doesn't often need to be involved in labour negotiations, as they get settled between the labour and employers' unions. Our State is heavily involved, as we don't have a social market. Your State and your social actors are heavily not involved, as you don't have a social market. German labour law gives preeminence to labour negotiations, French law to the State, and Anglo-Saxon law to individual contracts. Do you not see how significant this is?

Again I have no idea what you're talking about. This bears no resemblance to any definition of "social market" I've encountered. The first thing that comes up when I google "social market" is:

an economic system based on a free market operated in conjunction with state provision for those unable to work, such as elderly or unemployed people.

The UK economy, like most western economies, is broadly speaking a "free market" that includes state provisions for those unable to work. Wikipedia says:

"The Social Market Economy (SOME) (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) (also called Rhine capitalism) is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies which establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state."

We have a welfare state and policies to promote fair competition (anti trust law).

I'm not making a point, nor am I confused. I'm genuinely asking, what is Britain?

If you're not confused, why are you asking?

[Olerand]

Um... Why did you miss: Germany is not laïque

Encompassed by my mention of legal structure.

Germany does not have a Republican tradition like we do (and I don't mean being a republic, I mean the developments of the French Republics), Germany is a federal country that used to be even more fractured two centuries ago when France was already a unitary State for a few centuries. Germany does not have our history, or our commitments, it does not have the ideals of the Revolution.

I mentioned tradition and history.

Do you not understand how significant laïcité is to French culture, or being a unitary State is to the development of France, or the events and documents of the French Revolution are?

Do you know how significantly laws affect their cultures? How significantly French civil administrative law affected the development of public authority in France. Or the Organic law affected German society?

I don't remember saying otherwise. Laws and history sculpt culture in every nation.

As for the similarities in Anglo countries? Where?

You just said "We share much in common, as we do with the UK".

Who rejects segregation? The UK? With segregated political meetings, university courses?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I spent 4 years at university, attending two universities, and not once did I ever encounter gender segregated university courses, nor have I ever heard of such a thing. To the extent they do exist, they are most certainly fringe, and defining a culture by its most fringe elements is legitimately terrible. I've no idea what you're talking about with "segregated political meetings", parliament is not segregated.

And the social market is much more than "platitudes". We are closer to a social market, with our social conferences between the labour unions and the employers' unions, hosted by the State, than you are. Germany's State doesn't often need to be involved in labour negotiations, as they get settled between the labour and employers' unions. Our State is heavily involved, as we don't have a social market. Your State and your social actors are heavily not involved, as you don't have a social market. German labour law gives preeminence to labour negotiations, French law to the State, and Anglo-Saxon law to individual contracts. Do you not see how significant this is?

Again I have no idea what you're talking about. This bears no resemblance to any definition of "social market" I've encountered. The first thing that comes up when I google "social market" is:

an economic system based on a free market operated in conjunction with state provision for those unable to work, such as elderly or unemployed people.

The UK economy, like most western economies, is broadly speaking a "free market" that includes state provisions for those unable to work. Wikipedia says:

"The Social Market Economy (SOME) (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) (also called Rhine capitalism) is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies which establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state."

We have a welfare state and policies to promote fair competition (anti trust law).

I'm not making a point, nor am I confused. I'm genuinely asking, what is Britain?

If you're not confused, why are you asking?

Laïcité is so much more than just the 1905 law, which is relatively restrained in comparison to what laïcité has become now. It is an worldview, a way of life.

Which breed values. France places more value on the State and public authority and communal efforts than Britain. More than Germany, which prioritizes the nation and the folk over the State. This is significant.

And breed values. France's State has long intervened in the economy, which breeds a certain understanding of economics and solidarity. Germany has its social actors. The UK has private charities, and for a brief moment after WWII, the State. This creates values in a nation.

So much, absolutely. We're all liberal democracies. We all have private property. I didn't say we shared all. Not at all.

Oh, you don't? Even political meetings who spontaneously gender segregate, and a left-wing party has nothing to say about it?

Neither does Canada?

Do you need evidence of American segregation?

And I'm not talking of what is a majority practice, but of what is permissible. What is, thus, "not un-British". Like gender segregation. This would never be allowed in France, no school under contract with the State is allowed by law to segregate, nor would Merkel ever speak in a mosque where women are in the back, for obvious reasons. That cannot be French, nor German. But apparently it can be British and Canadian.

The French article on Rhine capitalism, also called the Rhine social model, says this:
Le capitalisme rhénan se caractérise par : (Rhine capitalism is characterized by:)

un rôle important des banques régionales et une relativisation du rôle de la bourse dans le financement des entreprises, (an important role for regional banks and a less important role for the stock market in financing corporations)
une vision à long terme appuyée sur un auto-financement et sur un système de partenariat avec les clients, fournisseurs et employés, (a long term vision focused on auto-financing and a system of partnership with clients, providers, and employees)
un partenariat entre de puissants syndicats patronaux et salariaux qui limite aussi bien les conflits du travail que les interventions directes de l'État dans la vie des entreprises, (a partnership between powerful emloyees and employers' unions that limit labour conflicts as well as direct State involvement in business)
un système de protection sociale très développé, (a very developed social protection system)
une politique de stabilité monétaire gérée indépendamment des gouvernements. (a politic of monetary stability run independently of the government)

Clearly, we have a different understanding of the social market, as evidenced by the fact that switching the Rhine capitalism page from French to English would take you back to the social market page, even though there is a separate social market page on the French Wikipedia from the Rhine capitalism model page. Clearly, this is another national difference in understanding, and languages.

For opinions. Does one never ask others' opinions? Are all questions necessarily elicited by confusion? Have you never asked somebody's opinion before? Considering the nature of this forum, I would say the vast majority of questions are asking for opinions, and the vast majority of answers are just that.