Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
I love the way your last paragraph includes "get the facts right", then omits to include any. Very droll.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
Anti English sentiment might not go back as far. The whole of 'Britain' was prepared to tolerate many thousands of fellow citizens starving to death, or being forced away in order to sustain the price of 'English' wheat when the Irish potato crop failed. So. We hear today that it is the intention of a post brexit UK to not be part of a customs union with the EU so in practical terms how will you control the lengthy land border on the island of Ireland?
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
I love the way your last paragraph includes "get the facts right", then omits to include any. Very droll.
Sorry didn't realise it was difficult to grasp. The French King invaded his own country, not England, the King just happened to have his house here.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
Anti English sentiment might not go back as far. The whole of 'Britain' was prepared to tolerate many thousands of fellow citizens starving to death, or being forced away in order to sustain the price of 'English' wheat when the Irish potato crop failed. So. We hear today that it is the intention of a post brexit UK to not be part of a customs union with the EU so in practical terms how will you control the lengthy land border on the island of Ireland?
I’ll tell you how it’s been explained to me @seth plum.
The border will be patrolled by elves mounted on unicorns. It’s really quite simple.
A complete tool always blames his workmen - classic
Gus O’Donnell’s ‘snake oil sellers’ description was pretty good. Can just see the 3 musketeers in that role.
And just proves how unbiased civil servants are
If there's one group that will probably do better than most out of Brexit it will be the Civil Service. Imagine all the roles that are currently spread across the EU and it's agencies that will have to be replicated domestically within the Civil Service for example. Whether this government properly resources those services is another issue given it's dogma for austerity but potentially the Civil Service will need to expand post Brexit. So it might be in their self interest to support Brexit.
In your rush to support the barking mad conspiracy gaining traction you appear to happily overlook the fact we have ministers proven to be lying to the House btw. Why is that ok but the former heads of the service not allowed to correct the lies?
Oh, and the Peasant's Revolt might have kicked off because of the Poll Tax to pay the King who had spent all his money on wars, but it was mostly because the labourers were in such short supply, being mostly dead, that they told the Nobles to work their own land or pay a decent wage. The King was trying to force them to work the land, as slaves, like before the Black Death, nothing to do with exports to Flanders falling off.
Alternative view, and no mention of wars causing the Peasants Revolt or being the fault of the "English".
A Reevaluation of the Impact of the Hundred Years War On The Rural Economy and Society of England Brad Wuetherick
Abstract
Most scholars have argued that the Hundred Years War negatively impacted the economy and society of England. They have focused primarily on four aspects of the war: the burden of taxation on the English populace, the effects of purveyance on rural society, the effect of recruitment on the labour force of England and the costs of supporting military expeditions. However, in each case the actual degree of impact can be called into question or offset by appealing to other scholarship, or by drawing attention to related positive benefits that are too often overlooked. Beyond this, one must also consider the benefits of war in the form of new industry and the influx of money from high wages, rewards, ransoms, and the spoils of war.
This paper seeks to examine both the positive and negative impacts of the Hundred Years War on the rural society and economy of England and to demonstrate that the overall impact of the war was not as negative as the majority of historians have previously maintained.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
Anti English sentiment might not go back as far. The whole of 'Britain' was prepared to tolerate many thousands of fellow citizens starving to death, or being forced away in order to sustain the price of 'English' wheat when the Irish potato crop failed. So. We hear toda
Oh, and the Peasant's Revolt might have kicked off because of the Poll Tax to pay the King who had spent all his money on wars, but it was mostly because the labourers were in such short supply, being mostly dead, that they told the Nobles to work their own land or pay a decent wage. The King was trying to force them to work the land, as slaves, like before the Black Death, nothing to do with exports to Flanders falling off.
Alternative view, and no mention of wars causing the Peasants Revolt or being the fault of the "English".
A Reevaluation of the Impact of the Hundred Years War On The Rural Economy and Society of England Brad Wuetherick
Abstract
Most scholars have argued that the Hundred Years War negatively impacted the economy and society of England. They have focused primarily on four aspects of the war: the burden of taxation on the English populace, the effects of purveyance on rural society, the effect of recruitment on the labour force of England and the costs of supporting military expeditions. However, in each case the actual degree of impact can be called into question or offset by appealing to other scholarship, or by drawing attention to related positive benefits that are too often overlooked. Beyond this, one must also consider the benefits of war in the form of new industry and the influx of money from high wages, rewards, ransoms, and the spoils of war.
This paper seeks to examine both the positive and negative impacts of the Hundred Years War on the rural society and economy of England and to demonstrate that the overall impact of the war was not as negative as the majority of historians have previously maintained.
I have read his carefully, but see no practical solution to the UK land border with the EU in a post brexit non customs union situation. As a brexiters who knew what he was voting for can you estimate the cost of staffing and controlling this non open open border in Ireland.
Only an Irish perspective on England would rake up conflicts 800 years ago to justify anti English sentiments. Only an ill-informed biased perspective would seek to blame the Peasants Revolt on the result of "English" overseas invasions and omit the rather relevant fact that the Black Death meant there were not enough people to work the land and laws were being passed to prevent them exploiting their position of power as a result of the shortage of labour. The poll tax to replenish the King's empty coffers used to fund the wars with his siblings wars was just the last straw.
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
@Dippenhall, I find your response to the article "unique", and I might be inclined to quibble with your historical assessment.
You do realise that it is not actually anti-English to either a) view a current political decision as bonkers or b) seek to identify a more bonkers decision from history. It is a question of opinion and interpretation - which is the good thing about history, there is very rarely a situation where there is a fixed historical "truth" about events, historians love disputing every interpretation but their own, and every generation brings forward new interpretations (we are not obliged to forever accept the views of Froissart, Macaulay & co. - not the radio show).
Nor is it inappropriate, within the context of this particular article, to make use of the Hundred Years' War as an illustration (given that the author specifically relates his use of that conflict to the speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg at the Conservative Party Conference - unless, of course, it's just not okay for an Irishman to refer to the Hundred Years' War in the context of Brexit).
And, also in Mr O'Toole's defence, also, it is fair to point out that he did not try to suggest that "the insatiable demand for taxation" associated with the War was the only cause of the Peasants' Revolt, the wording that he used is entirely consistent with your statement that was the last straw.
I'm fairly certain that the family dispute was with a cousin, but it was not just a family dispute, it was clearly about wealth, prestige and power. But, then again, as many of those in possession of much of the wealth, prestige and power were related....
England was not merely a province of the French Kingdom, the English King (in the absence of the ability to make good his claim to the French throne) was also a major subject of the French King (with more possessions in Aquitaine and Gascony than Normandy).
However, none of this touches upon the main thrust of the article. Unless someone, somehow, is going to suggest that the Hundred Years' War was a massive success, or that we have all learned from history, and are prepared to admit to making a mistake in being seduced by the grand gesture (which is what Mr O'Toole very clearly believes Brexit to be).
"However, none of this touches upon the main thrust of the article. Unless someone, somehow, is going to suggest that the Hundred Years' War was a massive success, or that we have all learned from history, and are prepared to admit to making a mistake in being seduced by the grand gesture (which is what Mr O'Toole very clearly believes Brexit to be)."
I think O"Toole should have pointed out that if there had been a referendum the 100 years war wouldn't have started, so proving that we can learn from history and if we are going to invade France we should let the people decide.
The comparison between Edward III invading France in the 14th century to land grab, and UK citizens voting in the 21st century that it does not wish to be part of a new European experimental superstate, as a lesson to be learnt from history, is frankly ludicrous.
Mr O'Toole was obviously intent on finding an historic angle to show how the UK thinks it is Billy Big Bollox, and had to go back 800 years.
"However, none of this touches upon the main thrust of the article. Unless someone, somehow, is going to suggest that the Hundred Years' War was a massive success, or that we have all learned from history, and are prepared to admit to making a mistake in being seduced by the grand gesture (which is what Mr O'Toole very clearly believes Brexit to be)."
I think O"Toole should have pointed out that if there had been a referendum the 100 years war wouldn't have started, so proving that we can learn from history and if we are going to invade France we should let the people decide.
The comparison between Edward III invading France in the 14th century to land grab, and UK citizens voting in the 21st century that it does not wish to be part of a new European experimental superstate, as a lesson to be learnt from history, is frankly ludicrous.
Mr O'Toole was obviously intent on finding an historic angle to show how the UK thinks it is Billy Big Bollox, and had to go back 800 years.
This 'UK' you speak of do you mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/emerging-brexit-identities/ This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
"However, none of this touches upon the main thrust of the article. Unless someone, somehow, is going to suggest that the Hundred Years' War was a massive success, or that we have all learned from history, and are prepared to admit to making a mistake in being seduced by the grand gesture (which is what Mr O'Toole very clearly believes Brexit to be)."
I think O"Toole should have pointed out that if there had been a referendum the 100 years war wouldn't have started, so proving that we can learn from history and if we are going to invade France we should let the people decide.
The comparison between Edward III invading France in the 14th century to land grab, and UK citizens voting in the 21st century that it does not wish to be part of a new European experimental superstate, as a lesson to be learnt from history, is frankly ludicrous.
Mr O'Toole was obviously intent on finding an historic angle to show how the UK thinks it is Billy Big Bollox, and had to go back 800 years.
No, I don't think so.
His article is simply an effort (in my opinion, well written) to highlight how grand gestures can come back to haunt those who make them.
He took as the basis of his article some examples of past glories (Agincourt and Crecy), originally used by Jacob Rees Mogg at the Conservative Party Conference.
He did not find the historical angle, it was provided for him.
All that he did was to highlight that, historically, Mr Rees Mogg might have chosen better examples.
The outcome of the Hundred Years' War was not favourable to the English Crown - winning battles, without winning the war, is not everything.
I have to admit that I thought that it was fairly obvious.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/emerging-brexit-identities/ This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
There is some truth here. As one of the losing 48% I will never be reconciled to the moron who slithers up beside me to berate 'foreigners' with an automatic assumption that I would agree. The positions are fixed and after the referendum the philosophical and political enemy is now flushed out, and I am now in a permanent minority in an occupied state.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/emerging-brexit-identities/ This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
There is some truth here. As one of the losing 48% I will never be reconciled to the moron who slithers up beside me to berate 'foreigners' with an automatic assumption that I would agree. The positions are fixed and after the referendum the philosophical and political enemy is now flushed out, and I am now in a permanent minority in an occupied state.
Nor me to those who say I am mad, racist and stupid and who hope that I die soon for voting Leave.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/emerging-brexit-identities/ This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
There is some truth here. As one of the losing 48% I will never be reconciled to the moron who slithers up beside me to berate 'foreigners' with an automatic assumption that I would agree. The positions are fixed and after the referendum the philosophical and political enemy is now flushed out, and I am now in a permanent minority in an occupied state.
Nor me to those who say I am mad, racist and stupid and who hope that I die soon for voting Leave.
The referendum was only ever going to divide people along emotive grounds, such as age, opinions on immigration, right wing authoritarianism. Hoping brexit proves a resounding and obvious success that will heal all wounds (I'm more than happy for that eventuality!) Otherwise it'll go down as a truly horrific, stupid idea by some shiny faced pork stuffer trying to win a little bet with the lunatic fringe in his party.
Will May actually make a decision one way or the other over the customs union this week.
Yet again she dithers due to the crap heap that is the Tory party. She’s gonna alienate sections of her party and the nation regardless of whether she wants in or out - she should just toss a coin if she’s that worried
Making a decision that creates a border in Ireland, hard, soft, technical or frictionless is risking a lot of deaths as well as breaking an international treaty. Is this what brexiters voted for?
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/emerging-brexit-identities/ This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
There is some truth here. As one of the losing 48% I will never be reconciled to the moron who slithers up beside me to berate 'foreigners' with an automatic assumption that I would agree. The positions are fixed and after the referendum the philosophical and political enemy is now flushed out, and I am now in a permanent minority in an occupied state.
Nor me to those who say I am mad, racist and stupid and who hope that I die soon for voting Leave.
You have never had that stuff from me.
Nor me. Obdurate, excessively insular in outlook, yes. But still at the end of the day a fellow Charlton fan, with whom I often agree.
If civil war breaks out, it probably won't be between protagonists on this thread.
Making a decision that creates a border in Ireland, hard, soft, technical or frictionless is risking a lot of deaths as well as breaking an international treaty. Is this what brexiters voted for?
What was your position before then, when there was a border and there was loads of deaths and people like me had to look under their car every day and i had to go to work a different way every day and my wife and kids had to leave signs out to say all was ok... Oh for those glory days. Some times you need to take a good sniff of the crap you are peddling. Sympathy for the border, dont make me laugh.
Comments
For the benefit of those less well versed in English history, Edward III was the son of Edward !! and Isabella of France. The wars pursued by Edward the III was a family dispute with his brother. "England" was merely a province of the Kingdom that spanned both these islands and part of France that the Normans could lay claim to, so would more accurately be described as a reverse Norman invasion to reclaim disputed French territory they regarded as theirs, not "England's".
So if we are doing the 800 year blame game let's get the facts right and blame the French who came over here, colonised us, pissed all over us and used our conscripted labourers to fight their dirty wars.
So.
We hear today that it is the intention of a post brexit UK to not be part of a customs union with the EU so in practical terms how will you control the lengthy land border on the island of Ireland?
The border will be patrolled by elves mounted on unicorns. It’s really quite simple.
In your rush to support the barking mad conspiracy gaining traction you appear to happily overlook the fact we have ministers proven to be lying to the House btw. Why is that ok but the former heads of the service not allowed to correct the lies?
Alternative view, and no mention of wars causing the Peasants Revolt or being the fault of the "English".
A Reevaluation of the Impact of the Hundred Years War On The Rural Economy and Society of England
Brad Wuetherick
Abstract
Most scholars have argued that the Hundred Years War negatively impacted the economy and society of England. They have focused primarily on four aspects of the war: the burden of taxation on the English populace, the effects of purveyance on rural society, the effect of recruitment on the labour force of England and the costs of supporting military expeditions. However, in each case the actual degree of impact can be called into question or offset by appealing to other scholarship, or by drawing attention to related positive benefits that are too often overlooked. Beyond this, one must also consider the benefits of war in the form of new industry and the influx of money from high wages, rewards, ransoms, and the spoils of war.
This paper seeks to examine both the positive and negative impacts of the Hundred Years War on the rural society and economy of England and to demonstrate that the overall impact of the war was not as negative as the majority of historians have previously maintained.
So.
We hear toda I have read his carefully, but see no practical solution to the UK land border with the EU in a post brexit non customs union situation.
As a brexiters who knew what he was voting for can you estimate the cost of staffing and controlling this non open open border in Ireland.
You do realise that it is not actually anti-English to either a) view a current political decision as bonkers or b) seek to identify a more bonkers decision from history. It is a question of opinion and interpretation - which is the good thing about history, there is very rarely a situation where there is a fixed historical "truth" about events, historians love disputing every interpretation but their own, and every generation brings forward new interpretations (we are not obliged to forever accept the views of Froissart, Macaulay & co. - not the radio show).
Nor is it inappropriate, within the context of this particular article, to make use of the Hundred Years' War as an illustration (given that the author specifically relates his use of that conflict to the speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg at the Conservative Party Conference - unless, of course, it's just not okay for an Irishman to refer to the Hundred Years' War in the context of Brexit).
And, also in Mr O'Toole's defence, also, it is fair to point out that he did not try to suggest that "the insatiable demand for taxation" associated with the War was the only cause of the Peasants' Revolt, the wording that he used is entirely consistent with your statement that was the last straw.
I'm fairly certain that the family dispute was with a cousin, but it was not just a family dispute, it was clearly about wealth, prestige and power. But, then again, as many of those in possession of much of the wealth, prestige and power were related....
England was not merely a province of the French Kingdom, the English King (in the absence of the ability to make good his claim to the French throne) was also a major subject of the French King (with more possessions in Aquitaine and Gascony than Normandy).
However, none of this touches upon the main thrust of the article. Unless someone, somehow, is going to suggest that the Hundred Years' War was a massive success, or that we have all learned from history, and are prepared to admit to making a mistake in being seduced by the grand gesture (which is what Mr O'Toole very clearly believes Brexit to be).
I think O"Toole should have pointed out that if there had been a referendum the 100 years war wouldn't have started, so proving that we can learn from history and if we are going to invade France we should let the people decide.
The comparison between Edward III invading France in the 14th century to land grab, and UK citizens voting in the 21st century that it does not wish to be part of a new European experimental superstate, as a lesson to be learnt from history, is frankly ludicrous.
Mr O'Toole was obviously intent on finding an historic angle to show how the UK thinks it is Billy Big Bollox, and had to go back 800 years.
This research is interesting, whichever side you are on. If accurate it shows that Remain and Leave have become a fixed form of identity. If it is true then it will have long term effects on politics and society whatever unsatisfactory conclusion there is to the Brexit negotiations.
His article is simply an effort (in my opinion, well written) to highlight how grand gestures can come back to haunt those who make them.
He took as the basis of his article some examples of past glories (Agincourt and Crecy), originally used by Jacob Rees Mogg at the Conservative Party Conference.
He did not find the historical angle, it was provided for him.
All that he did was to highlight that, historically, Mr Rees Mogg might have chosen better examples.
The outcome of the Hundred Years' War was not favourable to the English Crown - winning battles, without winning the war, is not everything.
I have to admit that I thought that it was fairly obvious.
Yet again she dithers due to the crap heap that is the Tory party. She’s gonna alienate sections of her party and the nation regardless of whether she wants in or out - she should just toss a coin if she’s that worried
Is this what brexiters voted for?
If civil war breaks out, it probably won't be between protagonists on this thread.