[lmm]

England has been a land apart for nearly a thousand years - ruled by the same monarchy, no part of it successfully invaded by violence, nor really (in the minds of most English) united with other kingdoms on equal terms. So there is a much stronger national identity than in Germany (where many were Prussian or Bavarian or Silesian until the late 19th century), and a political policy of "splendid isolation" was followed until relatively recently. We have strong ties to Europe, but arguably stronger ties to the US ("51st state" is a joke, but with an element of truth to it) and Commonwealth.

I think any businessperson in the UK understands the economic value that the EU brings to us all. But most voters aren't businesspeople. When ordinary people hear about the EU it's about regulations, subsidies, or funding for things that seem relatively frivolous, none of which really make a great case for it.

[barry-cotter]

> England has been a land apart for nearly a thousand years - ruled by the same monarchy, no part of it successfully invaded by violence

I'm no scholar of English history but the Glorious Revolution was at least as big a breach in political continuity as the American Revolution and resulted in a foreigner (Dutch) on the English throne. And the Hannoverians are another separate royal line that had continental European holdings.

[lmm]

> the Glorious Revolution was at least as big a breach in political continuity as the American Revolution

Not really, not post-Civil War. It was a reaffirmation of the same principle - that Parliament governed the country and could determine who sat on the throne. William of Orange came at the invitation of Parliament (and although he was declared King that was more a matter of being married to Mary than of being King in his own right or by force of arms). The Hannoverians were placed on the throne by the Act of Settlement. We don't see either as an invasion or revolution.