Carryfast:
You do know that peace in Europe has always been about the ‘defence’ of the Nation State ‘against’ the aggression and takeover of the Federation.
I don’t think I do know that, no.
"Peace… has always been about… defence. What does that mean exactly? Peace is defence?
Sounds familiar. Maybe a little bit like “War is Peace”. A nice bit of Doublespeak.
I can’t claim to be as informed as you are on modern European history. I hadn’t realised that Hitler had been attempting to put together a “Federation”, errr…
but these constant references back to the war, jingoistic nostalgia to a time when plucky Britain stood up for itself… it isn’t 1940.
Again from my limited knowledge, I believe a certain moustachioed chap swept into power by telling the impoverished population that the economic problems were a result of the influx of outsiders and plots by unknown shadowy elites, that Germany could be great again just like it used to be, if only…
Such an easy message to sell, and the realities of how inter-dependant countries are on each other are too nuanced and messy, they get lost on people when the real question is “Do you love your country or not”.
How you can’t see the irony of invoking the memory of the war to declare UK “independence” I just don’t know.
And I’m afraid I have never heard of Spinelli.
Edit to Add:
Come to think of it, on your constant Nation v Federation question, Isn’t the UK a federation of nations? Like England, Scotland, Wales and half of Ireland, cos the other half didn’t want to be part of the Union. To follow your logic, why should the Union hold? Why not break up Britain too? After all, we wouldn’t want to harmonise laws etc. to allow administration of a collection of separate nations. That is what your mate Spinelli would want innit?
Free movement of people. You’d have Irish in London, Scots in the Midlands, I mean where does it end?