February 7, 2005

UNAMBIGUOUS:

PIGS MUST PLAY (Anthony Lane, 2005-02-07, The New Yorker)

Most Americans know nothing of the location, composition, or purpose of the European Union. There is no shame in such ignorance, for most Europeans are in the same position—rather worse, indeed, given that they are the ones who are meant to be experiencing a pleasant sensation of unity. If anything, the view from the States is more precise: Europe is that Shrek-shaped landmass to the left of the Middle East, and the European Union, or E.U., must therefore be the constitutional equivalent of a group hug, designed to insure that no Finn, say, will ever launch a first-strike attack on a Greek. Europeans themselves, however, cannot even decide where Europe begins and ends. Does it include Turkey, which has taken the first step toward joining the E.U. in 2015? Does it even include Great Britain, a founding member? To most Englishmen, the geography is unambiguous: Europe is what you get if you are stupid enough to venture any farther than Kent.

Hence the recent British opinion poll suggesting that, were the Government to hold a referendum on whether the country should sign on to the European Constitution, the percentage of the population in favor would be a slightly unencouraging twenty-four. Nobody but the Prime Minister knows what the Constitution looks like, or even whether it is a physical document, a lovely idea, or a bill of health, but voters nonetheless felt morally impelled to state that, whatever it is, they don’t like it.

In this regard, as in all others, the British press remains warmly on the side of the people.


You'd think that would be a sensible side for a political party to stand on too, no?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 7, 2005 5:23 PM
Comments

Reminds me of the opening song from "Horsefeathers" where Groucho, as the newly-installed president of Huxley College sings "I'm Against It":

I don't care what you have to see,
it makes no difference anyway:
Whatever it is,
I'm against it.
No matter who proposed or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
but let's get one thing understood:
Whatever it is,
I'm against it.
And even if you change it or condense it,
I'm against it....

Posted by: Foos at February 7, 2005 9:25 PM

Britain isn't America. While in America, we have a group of people who believe they are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else, only they believe it. In Britain, the great masses are willing to be led by people they perceive as their 'betters' for no apparent reason other than birth. Members of the political class in Britain don't have the slightest interest in what the 'people' think. 'Everyone knows the people are no better than beasts. The average British voter probably doesn't know how to use a fish knife or how to tell a Rembrandt from a Vermeer. And those of us who rule in Britain should give heed to their opinions. Are you stark raving mad?'

It is the difference between being a 'citizen' and being a 'subject.'

Posted by: Bart at February 8, 2005 7:31 AM

We are not superior to our subjects, we simply rule over them and hope they stay in their proper places.

Posted by: Lord/Master at February 8, 2005 11:16 PM
« DON'T GET YOUR BACK WET: | Main | BLEEDING KANSAS »