Comments on: National identity vs European identity

By: french derek

french derek — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:16:54 +0000

@Hunter #62. I agree that, for the bourgeoisie and the higher echelons of French society, what you say would have been true. But, given that the main means of communication to the masses was by word of mouth, at the local markets, “ordinary” folk in France knew (and cared) little of their ruling heads’ doings. Except when they were conscripted into the Army, of course – and were mostly treated like animals. Life was very, very different, even in the late 19th century in France, from what it became after WW1.

But there is no doubting the arrogant nationalism of the French today!

By: Hunter

Hunter — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:29:06 +0000

Well you seem to know more about the matter at hand than I do, so I would happily concede but must just suggest that surely in times of military prowess and success, nationalism naturally soars, in the same way as cricket or Henman and the like attract huge crowds when they look set to win. Surely there must have been strong nationalist sentiments prior to 1914. Look at the Franco Prussian war for example; the annexation of Alsace Lorraine from France was remembered and subsequently used as propaganda in 1914 to rally troops to the cause; surely an indication of underlying, and strong nationalist sentiment? Again, the Empirical conquests of Napoleon, or even the cultural triumphs of the Sun King, shows that the French must in fact have one of the oldest and best established senses of nationalism in Europe, simply for the fact that under Napoleon it would have been appropriate for the French to feel national pride due to their worldwide accomplishments and, under Louis, for the cultural achievements. Would this not denote a well established, if fluctuating sense of national pride, as opposed to a lack thereof?

By: french derek

french derek — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:20:09 +0000

Nm Sorry for the delay coming back – we’ve had visitors. This post is not so much to with identity (I’ve said what I wanted to say on that); but I do need to reply to Hunter #37.

After the fall of the Bastille no-one gave much thought to celebrating it as a special event. The Revolutionaries had to spend a year or two putting down (violently) various Royalist uprisings around France north of the Loire. South of that line – as I noted before – life carried on pretty much as normal.

The 14th July continued to be celebrated across France – as St Bonaventure’s Day for many years to come. It wasn’t until the Third Republic that anyone proposed a Fête nationale: and then the arguments raged as to when. It wasn’t until 21 May 1880 that a law was passed instituting 14 July. However, since St Bonaventure was regarded as a special Saint, it took many years for him to be ousted from “his” day.

Yes, the Marsaillaise was played when the French Army marched. But, as I noted, the French Army were held in very low regard outside the more genteel circles of Parisian society. And it was not usual for it to be played at town and village marches (they were noted more for their drunken jollities).

French nationalism did not really arrive until 1914; and by 1919 the fête nationale reached apotheosis.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:34:27 +0000

A sound point Manderson. It’s true that I rarely meet Englishmen who claim to feel Chinese, Tanzanian or Kenyan.

By: MANDERSON

MANDERSON — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:31:17 +0000

More than a thousand years after the formation of England, the Cornish….the Welsh…the Scots blah blah blah…..and the English still feel English!

By: EU regionalism on the decline? | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia

EU regionalism on the decline? | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:30:46 +0000

[...] my recent posts on national vs European identity and regionalism and the EU (as part of a vague attempt to get an idea of the nature and importance [...]

By: Insideur

Insideur — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:57:14 +0000

Anoldun I did not miss that point – read my last two sentences. The fact that the treaty was not debated in Parliament is entirely the fault of HMG, and is indeed symptomatic of a broader trend of abuse of Parliament by the executive.

By: British citizenship vs European citizenship | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:22:39 +0000

[...] point that arose in the comments to the National identity vs European identity post the other day was that of citizenship, commenter Anoldun noting that “We were informed [...]

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:53:00 +0000

Yep, interesting stuff. Again, to support I’s comments, the agreement is just an agreement made by a non-entity. The agreement has to be ratified by each member state for it to apply in that state, and I gather it has also gone through a few changes, notably as regards the death penalty issue. The following text is taken from the EC website:

The Agreement on extradition has not yet entered into force due to the complexity of the “enter into force” conditions, in particular the ratification process:
1. all EU member States need to exchange “written instruments” with US to stipulate relationship with existing bilateral treaties (one on mutual legal assistance and one on extradition), in conformity with the two EU-US Agreements;
2. both the EU and the US have to go through the ratification process:
- for the US this implies: to have 2 EU-US agreements + 2 bilateral instruments per member States (i.e. 50 in total) ratified by US Senate.
- for EU this implies that those EU member States that have declared that they have to comply with the requirements of their own constitutional procedures as allowed by Article 24 (5) of the Treaty on European Union (DK, NL, P, D, UK, IRL, S, I, FIN, B, ES and LU, and all new member States: CY, CZ, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, SK, MT and EE) have completed their constitutional procedures. Only after that has been done, can the Council decide to conclude the EU-US agreements.
As for the “old 15” EU member States:
- 7 have finalised and signed: France; Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Spain, UK;
- 5 are finalised or almost finalised: Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Luxembourg;
- 3 still encounter difficulties: Austria, Germany and Portugal.
As for the 10 new Member States (+2: Romania and Bulgaria):
- Lithuania signed on June 15 2005.

The US-UK extradition treaty, of November 2003 can be found here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=820518
An analysis of it can be found here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

As noted therein “The UK-US extradition treaty also means that the government will also avoid ‘normal’ parliamentary ratification of the controversial EU-US extradition treaty signed on 6 June 2003″ through the following text: “The United Kingdom welcomes the Agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and extradition. Much of the legislation necessary to implement the agreements in the United Kingdom is already in force and, where it is not, Parliament’s consideration of the draft legislation is, for the most part, at an advanced stage. The United Kingdom aims to complete its domestic requirements in the near future and looks forward to applying the Agreements at the earliest opportunity thereafter”

The UK set it up so that it didn’t have to be debated prior to ratification. The British Government could have done so, as every Member State has to ratify the agreement, however the elected representatives of our nation chose not to. Not, I might stress, the fault of the EU in any way. You might also be interested to a parallel set of decisions recently taken on the CIA’s illegal extradition of EU Members State Citizens. You should find it on google.

By: Anoldun

Anoldun — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:47:55 +0000

You are missing the point. It was not debated in our Parliament. However, that is old news, and my concern is Lisbon and this Country’s future, if it has one. You are way out in the first part of your last paragraph.