How it really was

List of posts: June 2017 - March 2020

30 March 2020

For anyone reading this blog for the first time, I completed a PhD in history as a mature student in 2014, and am now a Visiting Research Fellow at Kings College London.

My main area of interest is the Allied Occupation of Germany after the Second World War, in particular the British zone of occupation. What did British people aim to achieve in Germany, and why, and how did this change over time? My current research focuses on military occupation as a form of government and system of rule, and the impact of war and occupation on the history of post-war Germany and Europe.

My first book, Winning the Peace: The British in occupied Germany, 1945-1948, was published by Bloomsbury Academic in January 2017. My second book Transforming Occupation in the Western Zones of Germany: Politics, Everyday Life and Social Interactions, 1945-1955, edited jointly with Camilo Erlichman, was published in August 2018. 

I also have a particular interest in history & policy, the use and application of history in government, and the relevance of the past to the present.

In my view, history is a process of discovery. I started writing this blog in October 2005 and since then have posted around 150 articles.

I have listed below all articles published on this blog since 22 June 2017. For earlier posts see: Full list of earlier posts on this blog

 

Epitaph for a lost cause, or hope for the future? 13 December 2019

Another referendum is the best and only way to ‘honour the result’ of the 2016 referendum? 27 March 2019

‘Stealing Brexit’ – Who are the real thieves? 22 March 2019

Led by donkeys 19 March 2019

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (5) 14 March 2019

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (4) 14 March 2019

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (3) 14 March 2019

Brexit and The Price of Victory 26 February 2019

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU 19 December 2018

Better to stay in the EU 12 December 2018 

Winning the Peace: now available in paperback 3 December 2018

Transforming Occupation in the Western Zones of Germany – the book 29 August 2018 

History & Morality - some guiding ethical principles 22 June 2017

For earlier posts, see the links below: 

List of posts January 2017 - July 2011

List of posts July 2011 - September 2009

List of posts June 2009 - May 2007

List of posts March 2007 - October 2005

Epitaph for a lost cause, or hope for the future?

13 December 2019

Writing this on Friday 13th December 2019 (unlucky for everyone), the day after the UK general election which ended all hope of stopping Brexit and ensuring that Britain remains in the European Union, I am reminded of the words of William Morris, who wrote (I paraphrase):

‘We try to achieve something and fail

And what we tried to achieve happens despite our efforts

And turns out to be not what we wanted

So others have to start from the beginning, and try again.’ 

Do these words give us hope for the future: that we can learn from our mistakes when we try to achieve something and fail, and inch forward as we start again from the beginning and try something new?

Or is it more like the Myth of Sisyphus: that whether you want Britain to leave or remain in the EU, we are all now condemned to the endless torture of having to push a rock nearly to the top of the hill, only to see it fall to the bottom again, and again, and again … for ever?

The words William Morris actually wrote, in A Dream of John Ball, published in 1888, are:

‘I pondered all these things: how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.’

 

Another referendum is the best and only way to ‘honour the result’ of the 2016 referendum?

27 March 2019

The government claims that it is not democratic to hold another referendum, as we need to ‘honour the result’ of the 2016 referendum.

Why do we need to ‘honour the result’ of the 2016 referendum? Legally it was only advisory, not binding. It showed what people thought at the time, based on what they knew then. Since then things have changed.

No referendum can bind the future. Firstly, you cannot expect people who were too young to vote in a referendum to be bound by the result. Secondly, circumstances change and people change their minds.

Democracy means trying to do what is right for everyone. That means protecting the rights and interests of everyone and listening to minorities, not about doing whatever a majority wanted, at the time, for whatever reason, and ignoring the rest.

In the 2016 referendum, a small majority, of 52% to 48%, voted to leave the EU. If people change their mind, or as young people become old enough to vote, the majority can easily change into a minority and vice versa, after only a year or two.

That is why we have a representative democracy in this country and referenda are generally not a good idea. We elect people – MPs - to represent our interests in Parliament, make the laws of the country, choose the government and hold it to account. MPs have a duty to do what they believe is best for ALL their constituents, young and old, those who voted for them and those who did not. Parliament is sovereign and MPs can change their minds if circumstances change. If we don’t like what our MPs do, we, the people, the voters, can choose someone else as our representative at the next election.

But for better or worse, we had a referendum in 2016 and a small majority voted to leave the EU. If Parliament (not the government) decides that circumstances have changed and we should stay in the EU, Parliament is legally and constitutionally entitled to instruct the government to take action to do this, for example by revoking Article 50.

But in order to ‘honour the result’ of the first referendum, it may be sensible hold a second referendum. Holding a second referendum is not undemocratic. Parliament and the government can still honour the result of the 2016 referendum, by deciding to hold a second referendum, asking electors to confirm, or reject, the decision taken by their representatives in Parliament. That is the only sensible way to ‘honour the result’ of the 2016 referendum.

 

‘Stealing Brexit’ – Who are the real thieves?

22 March 2019

According to Brexiteer Liam Fox, there is a dastardly plot by Remain-supporting MPs to steal Brexit from the people.

But the real thieves are the Brexiteers, who have stolen our membership of the EU and stolen our country, as it was for forty years, by breaking electoral laws, sending unsolicited messages, and pretending we could save £350 million a week if we voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum?

We used to live in a country that was open, tolerant, peaceful, stable and, compared to most other countries, fairly prosperous. Since the 2016 referendum Britain has been none of these things. Our borders are closing, which is making it more difficult to travel in and out of the country, people are becoming intolerant and hostile, MPs are receiving death threats, the government is in chaos, running out of money for public services, and businesses are not investing any more. Brexit, if it happens, can only make things worse.

Not all countries in the EU are as open, tolerant, peaceful, stable or prosperous as I would like, but they are all more so for being members of the EU, which is good for them and good for us.

Can we still recover the country we seem to be losing, that the Brexiteers have stolen from us?

Led by donkeys

19 March 2019

We are led by donkeys!

1. This Brexit chaos is founded on the forgotten lies of the Brexiteers.  
2. A small group of friends are exposing their hypocrisy on giant billboards.
3. Shame on J C Decaux! The biggest billboard company in the country has refused to let the posters appear on their sites.

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (5)

14 March 2019

Here are another three reasons why leaving is such a bad idea and staying in the EU would be better for Britain.

1. Britain does not have an Empire any more.
2. The EU is bigger than Britain.
3. Britain is four nations, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, not one nation. Staying together outside the EU will not be easy.

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (4)

14 March 2019

Here are another three reasons why leaving is such a bad idea and staying in the EU would be better for Britain.

1. It is not a good idea to leave the restaurant without paying the bill.
2. If you tell your friends you don’t want to see them any more, they might leave you on your own.
3. It might be harder to make new friends than you think.

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU (3)

14 March 2019

Here are another three reasons why leaving is such a bad idea and staying in the EU would be better for Britain.

If we stay in the EU we would have:

1. Better security cooperation with other countries in Europe (and across the world), so a little less chance of being mugged, or attacked by some terrorist somewhere.
2. Better regulation of large global companies trying to avoid paying tax, so if they pay more tax, we might pay a bit less.
3. Better protection of our personal data, so less chance of being targeted by some fraudster who has stolen our personal information.

Brexit and The Price of Victory

26 February 2019

I have recently read The Price of Victory, by the BBC journalist, Michael Charlton, first published in 1983. The book attempts to explain why Britain decided not to join the European Union when it was first created after the war. The debates that took place then seem remarkably similar to those taking place now over Brexit, such as concerns over sovereignty, a belief in the ‘glittering prospects’ of trade with the Commonwealth and Empire, and the view that Britain can stand alone in the world and has no need of support from other countries in Europe.

Michael Charlton interviewed fifty-two politicians and civil servants, including many who were responsible for British relations with Europe between 1945 and 1963. All of them, without exception, whatever their views had been at the time, assumed that there had been ‘a failure of British policy over Europe in the vital decade of the 1950s', when the decision was taken not to join the organisations that later became the European Community and the European Union. Had Britain joined earlier, they believed they could have had more influence over how the organisation developed, and could probably have negotiated better terms than those agreed when Britain did eventually join, on 1 January 1973.

Michael Charlton claimed in the book that British politicians and civil servants failed to appreciate the importance of initiatives taken by other countries in Europe – France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg – to create the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, to discuss greater economic cooperation at the Messina conference in 1955, and to form a Customs Union by signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

‘Alone among the old nation states of Europe, Britain emerged from the Second World War with an experience which was fundamentally different … It was victory which induced Britain to misinterpret and to misjudge the strength and relevance to her of the movement for unity in Europe. … The refusal to take part in the formative years proved to be at the cost of any decisive British influence in moulding the eventual outcome … That was the Price of Victory’.

One of the civil servants interviewed, Con O’Neill, is quoted as saying that the Foreign Office did not think that the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community was a significant development, adding ‘We were wrong, but we did not realise its significance’.

Another diplomat and politician interviewed by Charlton, Anthony Nutting, recalled the Belgian Prime Minister and statesman, Paul-Henri Spaak, telling him after the Treaty of Rome had been signed that he still hoped Britain would join in future, because Europe needed Britain’s moral leadership. Britain was the one country that had not had to face occupation, or fascist rule, and so remained untainted by the compromises that others had to make during and immediately after the war.

But what could have been an advantage, that Britain had survived the war with its traditions and values intact, proved to be a disadvantage. British policy, then as now, was ‘cooperation without commitment’ in the (mistaken) belief that we could always get what we wanted later, that we could obtain all the advantages of greater economic and political cooperation, without making any commitment.

The final quote in the book is from the French diplomat, Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Community, answering the hypothetical question: why did British politicians decide not to join an organisation that was so much in their own interest?

‘I came to the conclusion that it must have been because it was the price of victory – the illusion that you could maintain what you had, without change’.

Now, in 2019, we have to ask the same question: why has the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, decided to leave an organisation that is so much in our own interest? Is it the same reason, the same illusion that we can leave the European Union and maintain all the benefits it has given us, without change? That we can get all we want and offer nothing in return? Is that the Price of Victory?

 

Another three reasons why it is better to stay in the EU

19 December 2018

Here are another three reasons why leaving is such a bad idea and staying in the EU would be better for Britain.

If we stay in the EU we would have:

1. Better workers’ rights.
2. Better environmental protection.
3. And it would be easier and cheaper to travel to and from Europe (and probably the rest of the world as well).