Europe

[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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

The forging of the UK was something done by a narrow and privilaged elite, whom it would never directly advantage. You and I both know that all four countries suffered cultural persecution, economic trouble and bloody insurrection because of the Union.

So my question would be why certain Europhiles are trying to ramn the same thing through our individual governments, in order to cause the same pain? I though we had progressed beyond that.

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

To be fair, "Britishness" is really "Englishness, which is also adopted by anglicised peoples in the other two Kingdoms and the Principality. I don't think that, for example, the majority of the Welsh population feel the need to protect the "English" monarchy or what they see as the "English" parliament.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The forging of the UK was something done by a narrow and privilaged elite, whom it would never directly advantage.

Should've been “who kept their position of power”. There's this illusion that the UK was some sort of rock solid monarchy and always has been. That illusion was forged then, that is the illusion of the UK, and it is a tradition invented to make the monarchy a bit more stable. In other words it benefited those in power; because the alternative -from their perspective- was their heads on public display severed from their body.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

Well one can't deny that in China more than other countries there has been a persistent and concerted (political) effort to `push' a single elite (Han) culture, blotting out everything that isn't of the same culture.

[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.

[Furunculus]

Hannan on the double standard that exists between europhiles and skeptics when it comes to tolerence of activities of their more eccentric members:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-them-extreme/

Supporters of the EU can be as xenophobic as they like, and no one will call them extreme

Is it “far Right” to posit a link between immigration and crime? Can a mainstream political party demand that legal immigrants have their nationality stripped away if they commit certain offences? Can it argue that juvenile offenders should be denied nationality when they reach adulthood? Can it couple such a campaign with proposals to dismantle gipsy camps and expel Roma?

Nicolas Sarkozy borrows Le Pen's language, but backs Brussels

The answer, it seems, depends on whether the party in question supports political integration in Europe.

You can imagine what The Guardian would be saying if one of the Conservatives’ allies in the European Parliament started making such noises. (Actually, you don’t have to imagine: read this for a flavour of how deranged that newspaper has become on the issue). But when it’s Nicolas Sarkozy, that’s different. His party, the UMP, is in the EPP, and so cannot possibly be extreme, for all that it sits alongside a number of parties with anti-American, anti-gypsy, protectionist and homophobic tendencies (see here for a selection).

This really shouldn’t need saying but, in most parties, you will find good and bad people. A few minutes with Google will reveal some hair-raising statements from minor figures attached to virtually every political movement in Europe. I’m getting slightly sick of the double standard whereby support for the EU serves as a magical vaccination against accusations of extremism, whereas Euro-scepticism reverses the burden of proof.

Plenty of fascists, from the 1930s onwards, have wanted a federal Europe: Oswald Mosley, for example, was an obsessive Euro-zealot, whose final act in politics was to campaign for a “Yes” vote in 1975. This obviously doesn’t mean that all Europhiles are secret Nazis; but it would be nice if they acknowledged, just occasionally, the liberal, internationalist and democratic case against the EU.

he has a point, the number of people singling out the ECR for containing fruitcakes, even here, when the other big euro parties are exactly the same if not worse.

a wonderful godwin from the guardian:

Although the fringe event was carefully stage-managed – terse political lines trotted out and limited time for questions – there was one unfortunate mistake. The basement room in which delegates gathered to hear the controversial Tory allies was in Manchester’s Midland Hotel, a building Hitler is said to have liked so much that he would have made it his northern residence if he had invaded.

[Beskar]

It depends.

There is not only the goal, but the means to get there. There is also the similarity in goals, which lead to completely different situations.

Let's say two people are working towards world peace:
One person wants lets say America, to conquer the world, with the end result of everyone being lorded over by the United Global Federation.
Another person wants the UN to become stronger, with more countries falling into line, spreading human rights, civil rights, and other things across borders, and eventually ending up with the United Global Federation.

These two things are completely different, but they share a similar goal.

There is also another case too. Two people share the same goal on one thing, but another goal on another.

Person A is convinced to follow things via Person B, so they campaign together to bring world peace through the United Global Federation. However, Person A is still more militarist than Person B, so while a rogue naughty state needs a speanking, Person A might advise invading them, while Person B uses other measures. Should Person B be tainted because of Person A's view on that matter?

These are the questions.