Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Its an interesting critical reading. My main counter-criticism of your analysis is that I think you are falling into the trap of viewing this article as discussing, and approving, the actions of a monolithic 'British' entity.

Thus you are pouncing upon and flagging up inconsistencies in the 'British' position that arise from the fact that the British (even if you restrict yourself to the political classes and national talking shops such as the Guardian) have a lot of fundamental disagreements about what the EEC/EU is actually for, what it should be for and the best ways to achieve British objectives when engaging with the EEC/EU.

I don't have time to do a point-by-point discussion of your diary so I will give you just one example - your comments about the first two paragraphs of the article are focused upon Keegan's analysis of what the British governing classes were thinking and doing between the 50s and the 70s. You then criticise this analysis for diverging from the 'British policy script'. But Keegan has no obligation to stick to that script; he's not speaking for the British govt, indeed he's writing an article for a broadly pro-EEC/EU readership who probably view the British policies of that time as misguided and/or misjudged, so its hardly surprising that his comments don't jibe with the official position on this stuff.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:32:53 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series