Europe

[Beskar]

Actually, Furunculus, wouldn't you not want Turkey in the EU?

As it will drive down wages due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey, plus, more immigrants.

[Vladimir]

As it will drive down wages due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey, plus, more immigrants.

Don't say that. You'll make Fragony panic.

[Furunculus]

actually, i positively support turkey in the EU.

for they have earned their place by defending the front line of 'western' europe from soviet ideology and aggression for fifty years.

for another, i have no 'european' ambitions, so i care for nothing if turkey doesn't fit into some peoples definition of an ideal europe.

finally, the fact the turkey is so different that it will destroy any notions of creating a european demos, which as long as we are in danger of being sucked into, i am all in favour of.




let us be clear; i don't give a damn about immigration, my sole interest is that representative government actually represents the will of its people, and unlimited immigration is something that has pissed off a lot of british people.

[Furunculus]

interesting op-ed looking at european disunion sentiment within france, germany and spain:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...o-survive.html

it rather confirms my belief that peoples are fundamentally different, and trying to centrally govern them is an absurdity that can only have two results; collapse or authoritarianism.

[Banquo's Ghost]

it rather confirms my belief that peoples are fundamentally different, and trying to centrally govern them is an absurdity that can only have two results; collapse or authoritarianism.

I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.

[Furunculus]

I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.

how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples

[Subotan]

China and India are good examples of "Civilisation States".

[Furunculus]

what is a civilisation state, and how is china a good example of anything to someone living in a western liberal democracy?

[gaelic cowboy]

China and India are good examples of "Civilisation States".

Hmm Civilisation States sounds like something from Samuel P Huntington's thesis on the Clash of Civilisation's not entirely sure what he is talking about either.

[Meneldil]

how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.

The nation state does exist, but not as a tangible object.

An abstract concept does not need to have perfect boundaries, everything within being part of it, everything outside, not. 'Within' consisting here of historical, social, physical, territorial, demographic delineations.


I, for one, can with great accuracy tell what, and who, belongs to the British nation state and what to the Thai nation state.
A nationstate is better thought of as a few 'centres of gravity', that pull people, places and history together. Even if these centres are prone to shift, even if are no clear boundaries, even if other centres exist too which exert their influence over the same objects, one can still identify and construct (two verbs with near identical meanings in this instance) nation states.



There is an irony in that if a cross-channel Norman - England state construct would've survived, inhabitants of Kent and Caen would now desperately insist that they have absolutely nothing in common with Scots or Burgundians respectively, and that it is simply preposterous to think they should ever form a nation with 'them'.
Or, closer in time, if Ireland would still be part of the UK, national narratives would've evolved completely different than they have been constructed since 1922

[Furunculus]

The concept of nation state is by definition an abstract concept. Have you ever seen a nation state? Have you ever met or touched one? Have you ever talked to one? No, simply because they don't actually exist. It's something people put into your head to make you feel better. That ain't necessarily bad, but the fact that for some reason you seem to vastly favor a nation state (Britain, God save the queen and what not) over another (an hypothetical European nation state) is funny. It's exactly the same thing as the Scots who resisted the annexation of their country by England. Same old stuff.

Which by no mean means I'm in favor of an European (con)federation. I just find it funny that you can't seem to grasp that your little nation doesn't actually exist.

while what you say sounds lovely in an abstract political science kind of way, i laugh at this wonderful abstraction as an irrelevance at a time with europeoan integration is violently rejected by germans having to pay greeks.

Louis descibes it quite well.