This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing.
Are they a bad thing?
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
To borrow your favourite tactic* - do you have any evidence that "the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad [...] thing.?
* imitation is of course the sincerest form of flattery
To borrow your favourite tactic* - do you have any evidence that "the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad [...] thing.?
* imitation is of course the sincerest form of flattery
14
In reply to Postmanpat:
Let's abolish them so we can kick off a global war to settle on new borders.
Then we'll be able to get the ferry over to Russia in Calais.
Good or bad they're inevitable.
Let's abolish them so we can kick off a global war to settle on new borders.
Then we'll be able to get the ferry over to Russia in Calais.
Good or bad they're inevitable.
1
1
10
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Do you think that there are not many people who think that?
> To borrow your favourite tactic* - do you have any evidence that "the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad [...] thing.?
>
I have evidence of what I asserted, that "It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing" because that's the way it seems to me. Do you think that there are not many people who think that?
2
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think they're inevitable as we don't have the logistical capacity to unify and govern such large areas yet. (One reason why a European super state can't happen yet). Maybe in the distance future when the world can unit to fight aliens or something but for now there is no common cause which is strong enough.
That's not to say there isn't room for so!e tweaking though. For example I think for post Brexit UK it would be wise for England and the other home nations to unite into a single, truly united kingdom. Once we're out on our own it would be best for all parties to head towards working together again. Hopefully once Scotland in particular realises that it's stuck with us and stops being a pain in the arse we can work together for mutual benefit.
I think they're inevitable as we don't have the logistical capacity to unify and govern such large areas yet. (One reason why a European super state can't happen yet). Maybe in the distance future when the world can unit to fight aliens or something but for now there is no common cause which is strong enough.
That's not to say there isn't room for so!e tweaking though. For example I think for post Brexit UK it would be wise for England and the other home nations to unite into a single, truly united kingdom. Once we're out on our own it would be best for all parties to head towards working together again. Hopefully once Scotland in particular realises that it's stuck with us and stops being a pain in the arse we can work together for mutual benefit.
3
6
In reply to MG:
Let's go with "A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state "
"Bad thing": open to debate.
> Define nation and state and bad thing
Let's go with "A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state "
"Bad thing": open to debate.
4
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Just let us go FFS !
> Hopefully once Scotland in particular realises that it's stuck with us and stops being a pain in the arse we can work together for mutual benefit.
Just let us go FFS !
7
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
OK. The answer is "no" then. Obviously some nation states are at least arguably bad, but so are some other states. Similary some of both categories are good.
There aren't that many even vaguely clear cut nation states anyway (Japan, France?). Most states have significant internal cultural divisions.
OK. The answer is "no" then. Obviously some nation states are at least arguably bad, but so are some other states. Similary some of both categories are good.
There aren't that many even vaguely clear cut nation states anyway (Japan, France?). Most states have significant internal cultural divisions.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
USA, China, India?
> I think they're inevitable as we don't have the logistical capacity to unify and govern such large areas yet
USA, China, India?
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
We could all do worse than to listen to the current Reith Lectures by the amazingly erudite Kwame Anthony Appiah. Today's lecture deals with this very topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf
It's also an object lesson in public speaking.
We could all do worse than to listen to the current Reith Lectures by the amazingly erudite Kwame Anthony Appiah. Today's lecture deals with this very topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf
It's also an object lesson in public speaking.
8
In reply to MG:
Fair point. Maybe what I meant was to bring together separate independently developed nations together to form larger ones. The cultural and historical devides are too great for us to overcome at present unless done by force.
Fair point. Maybe what I meant was to bring together separate independently developed nations together to form larger ones. The cultural and historical devides are too great for us to overcome at present unless done by force.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Listening to BBC R4 is a good thing!
> It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing.
> Are they a bad thing?
Listening to BBC R4 is a good thing!
1
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
The mere fact that you separate out Scotland as a p.i.t.a. Demonstrates that total union is a nonstarter. But I'm sure you're being ironic.
To PP - I think that many nation states are a bit of an anachronism. But people, tribes are different - perhaps many smaller states (people's republic of Yorkshire or whatever) with another layer of admin, jurisdiction on top.
But I don't recall you as being a big fan of the EU? Aren't you happy to have your country back?
The mere fact that you separate out Scotland as a p.i.t.a. Demonstrates that total union is a nonstarter. But I'm sure you're being ironic.
To PP - I think that many nation states are a bit of an anachronism. But people, tribes are different - perhaps many smaller states (people's republic of Yorkshire or whatever) with another layer of admin, jurisdiction on top.
But I don't recall you as being a big fan of the EU? Aren't you happy to have your country back?
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
"the way something seems to me" isn't evidence, it's an opinion.
> I have evidence of what I asserted, that "It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing" because that's the way it seems to me.
"the way something seems to me" isn't evidence, it's an opinion.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
I can't see an issue with them. Where there is an issue is where they have expansionist or other war-based tendencies.
If, like Switzerland, they simply kept themselves to themselves, they would be fine, providing a granular enough level of Government for differing cultures. A World Government would never work, we are simply too disparate.
I can't see an issue with them. Where there is an issue is where they have expansionist or other war-based tendencies.
If, like Switzerland, they simply kept themselves to themselves, they would be fine, providing a granular enough level of Government for differing cultures. A World Government would never work, we are simply too disparate.
2
1
In reply to MG:
France has Alsace, Corsica and its Basque country and various overseas territories alongside plenty of regional variations. The rise of the Le Pens sadly shows a nation cracking apart if anything.
France has Alsace, Corsica and its Basque country and various overseas territories alongside plenty of regional variations. The rise of the Le Pens sadly shows a nation cracking apart if anything.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Yes but relatively small regions. Most countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, India etc etc are not even approaching the idea of a "nation state"
Yes but relatively small regions. Most countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, India etc etc are not even approaching the idea of a "nation state"
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I know nothing about politics or nation states. Therefore I am qualified to post on UKC on the topic.
One advantage I see of a nation state is that it gives the people therein ['nationals'?] some control over the edges/borders of the state. I've read people arguing that national borders should be abolished and free movement of mankind allowed - wherever they want to go. I am against that in the same way I am against removing the walls of my house and letting all and sundry wander in, eating my food and dossing in the bedrooms.
I know, I'm an extreme reactionary right-wing tosspot for holding these selfish opinions. Anyone who will allow all and sundry to enter their house, sign up below.
> It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing.... Are they a bad thing?
I know nothing about politics or nation states. Therefore I am qualified to post on UKC on the topic.
One advantage I see of a nation state is that it gives the people therein ['nationals'?] some control over the edges/borders of the state. I've read people arguing that national borders should be abolished and free movement of mankind allowed - wherever they want to go. I am against that in the same way I am against removing the walls of my house and letting all and sundry wander in, eating my food and dossing in the bedrooms.
I know, I'm an extreme reactionary right-wing tosspot for holding these selfish opinions. Anyone who will allow all and sundry to enter their house, sign up below.
7
6
In reply to abseil:
Of course the analogy breaks down because you expect services to come and go at no penalty. So you expect water, electricity, gas., broadband, food to come in from somewhere and you expect your shit to go somewhere. So who in your bubble deals with the shit ?
> I know, I'm an extreme reactionary right-wing tosspot for holding these selfish opinions. Anyone who will allow all and sundry to enter their house, sign up below.
Of course the analogy breaks down because you expect services to come and go at no penalty. So you expect water, electricity, gas., broadband, food to come in from somewhere and you expect your shit to go somewhere. So who in your bubble deals with the shit ?
2
4
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Obviously, which would be why I didn't claim it as evidence, except in so far as "what something seems to me" is evidence of "what something seems to me".
As far as evidence that people think this way, I infer that if people have the ambition of a "federal Europe" they prefer that to the concept of a series of nation states.
But if you disagree with this inference, of that many people have that ambition then just say so.
> "the way something seems to me" isn't evidence, it's an opinion.
Obviously, which would be why I didn't claim it as evidence, except in so far as "what something seems to me" is evidence of "what something seems to me".
As far as evidence that people think this way, I infer that if people have the ambition of a "federal Europe" they prefer that to the concept of a series of nation states.
But if you disagree with this inference, of that many people have that ambition then just say so.
Post edited at 10:24
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Thanks for your reply. Where in my post did you read that I "expect services to come and go at no penalty"? How could you know, from what I wrote, what I expect? Thanks again.
> Of course the analogy breaks down because you expect services to come and go at no penalty. So you expect water, electricity, gas., broadband, food to come in from somewhere and you expect your shit to go somewhere....
Thanks for your reply. Where in my post did you read that I "expect services to come and go at no penalty"? How could you know, from what I wrote, what I expect? Thanks again.
2
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Yes, that was a superb lecture.
> We could all do worse than to listen to the current Reith Lectures by the amazingly erudite Kwame Anthony Appiah. Today's lecture deals with this very topic.
> It's also an object lesson in public speaking.
Yes, that was a superb lecture.
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I would argue the opposite. The current nation states are irrelevant.
Arguably, there is a lot more in culturally in common between someone in London and Someone in Berlin, than there is between someone in London and someone from Essex, someone from the French Basque Country has a lot more in common with a Spanish basque than with someone from Paris etc etc...
In Europe at least, Political and cultural differences within nation states are much bigger than the differences between them.
The problem with Europe is simply that the nations states are taking all the decisions - but they simply do not represent their people anymore. It's particularly striking in the UK.
We'd be better off with independent regions united in an broader European framework.
> Fair point. Maybe what I meant was to bring together separate independently developed nations together to form larger ones. The cultural and historical devides are too great for us to overcome at present unless done by force.
I would argue the opposite. The current nation states are irrelevant.
Arguably, there is a lot more in culturally in common between someone in London and Someone in Berlin, than there is between someone in London and someone from Essex, someone from the French Basque Country has a lot more in common with a Spanish basque than with someone from Paris etc etc...
In Europe at least, Political and cultural differences within nation states are much bigger than the differences between them.
The problem with Europe is simply that the nations states are taking all the decisions - but they simply do not represent their people anymore. It's particularly striking in the UK.
We'd be better off with independent regions united in an broader European framework.
Post edited at 10:43
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
There are 65 million people in the UK, *some* of them will think that a federal states of europe is a good thing. I don't know whether that counts as "many" I don't know anyone personally who holds such a view, and on that basis it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.
You'd probably get more traction with an oblique "Feds under the bed" thread on the Daily Express comments section
> Obviously, which would be why I didn't claim it as evidence, except in so far as "what something seems to me" is evidence of "what something seems to me".
> As far as evidence that people think this way, I infer that if people have the ambition of a "federal Europe" they prefer that to the concept of a series of nation states.
> But if you disagree with this inference, of that many people have that ambition then just say so.
There are 65 million people in the UK, *some* of them will think that a federal states of europe is a good thing. I don't know whether that counts as "many" I don't know anyone personally who holds such a view, and on that basis it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.
You'd probably get more traction with an oblique "Feds under the bed" thread on the Daily Express comments section
3
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Scotland have the nukes.......
> The cultural and historical devides are too great for us to overcome at present unless done by force.
Scotland have the nukes.......
In reply to Postmanpat:
Or that they simply believe in a larger nation state than you do. eg Kernow vs the UK, UK vs EU. its elephants all the way down.
> As far as evidence that people think this way, I infer that if people have the ambition of a "federal Europe" they prefer that to the concept of a series of nation states.
Or that they simply believe in a larger nation state than you do. eg Kernow vs the UK, UK vs EU. its elephants all the way down.
In reply to KevinD:
Ah, yes. Which is not entirely different to what I have argued elsewhere: that all the complaints about parochialism, xenophobia etc etcthat the remainers accuse the brexiters of are true of the EU, but on a larger scale.
> Or that they simply believe in a larger nation state than you do. eg Kernow vs the UK, UK vs EU. its elephants all the way down.
Ah, yes. Which is not entirely different to what I have argued elsewhere: that all the complaints about parochialism, xenophobia etc etcthat the remainers accuse the brexiters of are true of the EU, but on a larger scale.
2
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
You are conflating xenophobia and parochialism with nationhood it seems.
There is nothing inherently xenophobic about leaving the EU in itself, for example.
Leaving the EU in order to get rid of foreigners, or prevent them from coming for no rational reason, however, that is xenophobic, by definition.
Xenophobia is not a dirty word and there is nothing really unnatural about fearing foreigners. But at least recognise it when you see it.
> Ah, yes. Which is not entirely different to what I have argued elsewhere: that all the complaints about parochialism, xenophobia etc etcthat the remainers accuse the brexiters of are true of the EU, but on a larger scale.
You are conflating xenophobia and parochialism with nationhood it seems.
There is nothing inherently xenophobic about leaving the EU in itself, for example.
Leaving the EU in order to get rid of foreigners, or prevent them from coming for no rational reason, however, that is xenophobic, by definition.
Xenophobia is not a dirty word and there is nothing really unnatural about fearing foreigners. But at least recognise it when you see it.
Post edited at 11:00
4
In reply to Andy Hardy:
> There are 65 million people in the UK, *some* of them will think that a federal states of europe is a good thing. I don't know whether that counts as "many" I don't know anyone personally who holds such a view, and on that basis it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.
>
Well, you know at least three on here But I'm glad that you are sleeping well In reply to Postmanpat:
Not inherently - but they tend to force together people who don't really have much in common and divide people who have a lot in common.
> It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing.
> Are they a bad thing?
Not inherently - but they tend to force together people who don't really have much in common and divide people who have a lot in common.
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
>
Lucky nobody is doing that then
> Leaving the EU in order to get rid of foreigners, or prevent them from coming for no rational reason, however, that is xenophobic, by definition.
>
Lucky nobody is doing that then
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
You're clearly in denial. It's pretty clear the government wants to end free movement and reduce immigration to the tens of thousand, as a priority over the economy. And unfortunately it seems to be what a narrow majority of the British people want as well. Although what they want is so contradictory or mutually exclusive, it's difficult to know.
> Lucky nobody is doing that then
You're clearly in denial. It's pretty clear the government wants to end free movement and reduce immigration to the tens of thousand, as a priority over the economy. And unfortunately it seems to be what a narrow majority of the British people want as well. Although what they want is so contradictory or mutually exclusive, it's difficult to know.
Post edited at 11:41
8
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Actually, its not unless you are paranoid. I prefer to wait and see.
Got any climbing coming up ?
> You're clearly in denial. It's pretty clear the government wants to end free movement and reduce immigration to the tens of thousand, as a priority over the economy.
>Actually, its not unless you are paranoid. I prefer to wait and see.
Got any climbing coming up ?
Post edited at 11:47
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yo don't need to wait. Parliament voted the other day not to allow existing EU citizens the right to stay.
Yo don't need to wait. Parliament voted the other day not to allow existing EU citizens the right to stay.
6
1
In reply to MG:
The government has acknowledged in parliament that 80% of them have an automatic right to stay and that its intention is that the balance should be granted that right.
> Yo don't need to wait. Parliament voted the other day not to allow existing EU citizens the right to stay.
The government has acknowledged in parliament that 80% of them have an automatic right to stay and that its intention is that the balance should be granted that right.
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
All but 2 Tories voted against
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-brexit-eu-right-to-live-an...
All but 2 Tories voted against
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-brexit-eu-right-to-live-an...
In reply to Postmanpat:
All but 2 Tories voted against
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-brexit-eu-right-to-live-an...
All but 2 Tories voted against
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-brexit-eu-right-to-live-an...
In reply to Postmanpat:
are guns a bad thing ? its what you do with a gun that determines if its bad right ?
same with a nation state.
are guns a bad thing ? its what you do with a gun that determines if its bad right ?
same with a nation state.
In reply to Postmanpat:
That's just not true. It just based on the fact that many will have PR, but this PR is meaningful only under EU treaty. So like anything else it will have to be decided by parliament whether they want to keep this right of PR or not, and so far they have explicitly voted against giving such guarantees.
Plus, this PR is an unworkable system anyway, it's an 85 pages form designed specficilly to elicit information to provide grounds for refusal of dubious legality.
Many of my friends who have done it have been rejected because of stupid rules around comprehensive sickness insurance or proof of travel they had lost, even though they've been working and paying taxes for decades.
> The government has acknowledged in parliament that 80% of them have an automatic right to stay and that its intention is that the balance should be granted that right.
That's just not true. It just based on the fact that many will have PR, but this PR is meaningful only under EU treaty. So like anything else it will have to be decided by parliament whether they want to keep this right of PR or not, and so far they have explicitly voted against giving such guarantees.
Plus, this PR is an unworkable system anyway, it's an 85 pages form designed specficilly to elicit information to provide grounds for refusal of dubious legality.
Many of my friends who have done it have been rejected because of stupid rules around comprehensive sickness insurance or proof of travel they had lost, even though they've been working and paying taxes for decades.
In reply to The Lemming:
How to reconcile the 'nations' (=culture and ethnicity) of the Gaels, the Anglo-Norman Lowlanders, the Dorics and Orkney-Shetland with the 'state' (='political entity' that is the state of Scotland), etc. I think Scotland is too diverse to qualify as a nation state.
How to reconcile the 'nations' (=culture and ethnicity) of the Gaels, the Anglo-Norman Lowlanders, the Dorics and Orkney-Shetland with the 'state' (='political entity' that is the state of Scotland), etc. I think Scotland is too diverse to qualify as a nation state.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
That's funny, everybody tells me that and then my worst predictions systematically happen. It's not fun.
I'm just being realistic, free movement will end, most likely EU citizens in the UK won't have the same rights as before, and will be gently pushed out of the door.
If past policy by Teresa May at the home office is anything to go by, I expect them to come up with some face saving right to stay for permanent resident EU citizens, but it will likely be so restricted and with so many caveat that many won't qualify for minor reasons or will just give up, or will be rejected for minor administrative reasons, with no right of appeal.
At the end of the day there is an overwhelming public pressure to reduce immigration, Teresa May did not hesitate breaking up thousands of families to try (unsuccessfully) to achieve that, why would she not do it with EU immigrants ? Worst case scenario it gets her some bad headlines in the guardian for a while, it's just more points scored for her.
> Actually, its not unless you are paranoid. I prefer to wait and see.
That's funny, everybody tells me that and then my worst predictions systematically happen. It's not fun.
I'm just being realistic, free movement will end, most likely EU citizens in the UK won't have the same rights as before, and will be gently pushed out of the door.
If past policy by Teresa May at the home office is anything to go by, I expect them to come up with some face saving right to stay for permanent resident EU citizens, but it will likely be so restricted and with so many caveat that many won't qualify for minor reasons or will just give up, or will be rejected for minor administrative reasons, with no right of appeal.
At the end of the day there is an overwhelming public pressure to reduce immigration, Teresa May did not hesitate breaking up thousands of families to try (unsuccessfully) to achieve that, why would she not do it with EU immigrants ? Worst case scenario it gets her some bad headlines in the guardian for a while, it's just more points scored for her.
Post edited at 12:51
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Rubbish. That would mean the UK which adds English, Welsh & Northern Irish diversities qualifies even less to be a nation state.
> How to reconcile the 'nations' (=culture and ethnicity) of the Gaels, the Anglo-Norman Lowlanders, the Dorics and Orkney-Shetland with the 'state' (='political entity' that is the state of Scotland), etc. I think Scotland is too diverse to qualify as a nation state.
Rubbish. That would mean the UK which adds English, Welsh & Northern Irish diversities qualifies even less to be a nation state.
Post edited at 12:48
1
In reply to elsewhere:
The UK clearly isn't a nation state.
> Rubbish. That would mean the UK which adds English, Welsh & Northern Irish diversities qualifies even less to be a nation state.
The UK clearly isn't a nation state.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Well, maybe the UK is not, in fact, a nation state, but is simply a modern state. The UK is considered to be an 'exceptional' example of a nation state, but I think that's special pleading. My opinion is that it's a term that's outlived it's usefulness.
Well, maybe the UK is not, in fact, a nation state, but is simply a modern state. The UK is considered to be an 'exceptional' example of a nation state, but I think that's special pleading. My opinion is that it's a term that's outlived it's usefulness.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't think I've read any responses on here that would lead me to believe that anybody wants a federal europe - although I'll happily admit I don't read every thread.
> Well, you know at least three [people who want a united states of europe] on here But I'm glad that you are sleeping well
I don't think I've read any responses on here that would lead me to believe that anybody wants a federal europe - although I'll happily admit I don't read every thread.
1
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
> That's funny, everybody tells me that and then my worst predictions systematically happen. It's not fun.
> I'm just being realistic, free movement will end, most likely EU citizens in the UK won't have the same rights as before, and will be gently pushed out of the door.
>
So fsr not much of anything has happened. Of course free movement will end, which is not the same as turfing out existing residents.In reply to MG:
You know very well that this is not a vote not to sllow it to happen. Its a vote not to declare a conclusion mow.
> All but 2 Tories voted against
You know very well that this is not a vote not to sllow it to happen. Its a vote not to declare a conclusion mow.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I wouldn't have any great objection if that's where we gradually ended up over the next 100 years or so, but pretty obviously it's not something that could be imposed. Equally obviously, it's significantly less likely to happen now than before the referendum.
> I don't think I've read any responses on here that would lead me to believe that anybody wants a federal europe - although I'll happily admit I don't read every thread.
I wouldn't have any great objection if that's where we gradually ended up over the next 100 years or so, but pretty obviously it's not something that could be imposed. Equally obviously, it's significantly less likely to happen now than before the referendum.
In reply to Postmanpat:
It's previously what it is. Read it!
It might be changed but I'm guessing, given the signals, it won't be.
I see we are £12b more down in revenues. Glad that emergency budget was just scaremongering.
> You know very well that this is not a vote not to sllow it to happen.
It's previously what it is. Read it!
> Its a vote not to declare a conclusion mow.
It might be changed but I'm guessing, given the signals, it won't be.
I see we are £12b more down in revenues. Glad that emergency budget was just scaremongering.
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I don't think there's anything so exceptional about the UK. Look at the divisions within Belgium, Spain or France. It's just that we usually don't pay so much attention to what the Corsicans, Basques, Walloons or Bretons want.
I agree that all we need is some convenient administrative unit that generally works whilst allowing a degree of regional autonomy that's consistent with that.
> Well, maybe the UK is not, in fact, a nation state, but is simply a modern state. The UK is considered to be an 'exceptional' example of a nation state, but I think that's special pleading. My opinion is that it's a term that's outlived it's usefulness.
I don't think there's anything so exceptional about the UK. Look at the divisions within Belgium, Spain or France. It's just that we usually don't pay so much attention to what the Corsicans, Basques, Walloons or Bretons want.
I agree that all we need is some convenient administrative unit that generally works whilst allowing a degree of regional autonomy that's consistent with that.
2
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I don't see signs of "the nation state" going away and where they change it is to create more nation states rather than fewer.
Loads of separatist movements worldwide, I can't think of any good examples of federalist* movements.
*I don't think the EU counts as the electorates don't want it.
I don't see signs of "the nation state" going away and where they change it is to create more nation states rather than fewer.
Loads of separatist movements worldwide, I can't think of any good examples of federalist* movements.
*I don't think the EU counts as the electorates don't want it.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ok l, at least you agree on the first point.
In my view ending freedom of movement is a xenophobic decision, simply because there is no rational argument against it. It's motivated mostly by an irrational fear of EU immigrants, for the most part in parts of the country where there are very few of them. In other words : xenophobia.
On the second point, I'm pretty convinced many eu immigrant who have been here for ages will be utterly shafted and pushed out, simply because I don't see any political incentive for the government not to do so. The more people leave, the more net migration figure goes down, the better it is for the government. It's my personal gut feeling from following very closely what Theresa May has done at the home office.
> So fsr not much of anything has happened. Of course free movement will end, which is not the same as turfing out existing residents.
Ok l, at least you agree on the first point.
In my view ending freedom of movement is a xenophobic decision, simply because there is no rational argument against it. It's motivated mostly by an irrational fear of EU immigrants, for the most part in parts of the country where there are very few of them. In other words : xenophobia.
On the second point, I'm pretty convinced many eu immigrant who have been here for ages will be utterly shafted and pushed out, simply because I don't see any political incentive for the government not to do so. The more people leave, the more net migration figure goes down, the better it is for the government. It's my personal gut feeling from following very closely what Theresa May has done at the home office.
Post edited at 14:36
In reply to RomTheBear:
So you think that the EU and almost every sovereign state in the world is xenophobic. Ok
> Ok l, at least you agree on the first point.
> In my view ending freedom of movement is a xenophobic decision, simply because there is no rational argument against it. It's motivated mostly by an irrational fear of EU immigrants, for the most part in parts of the country where there are very few of them. In other words : xenophobia.
So you think that the EU and almost every sovereign state in the world is xenophobic. Ok
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry, how is it paranoid to think that the express statements of the government are an indication of policy direction?
Sorry, how is it paranoid to think that the express statements of the government are an indication of policy direction?
4
In reply to elsewhere:
This isnt necessarily true. Some of the separatist movements can be federalist. Although the level of desired federalism varies massively. The idea seems to be being a small part of a large union is better than being in an unbalanced union.
Whether that will work though is another question.
> Loads of separatist movements worldwide, I can't think of any good examples of federalist* movements.
This isnt necessarily true. Some of the separatist movements can be federalist. Although the level of desired federalism varies massively. The idea seems to be being a small part of a large union is better than being in an unbalanced union.
Whether that will work though is another question.
In reply to Postmanpat:
To an extent, yes, for example in the EU at the exception of Germany and Sweden many countries did not want to accept many Syrian refugees. I can't see any rational reason for it, other than just fear, most need the working age population boost.
Same in the US with Trump etc etc...
As I said I don't think xenophobia is a dirty word, it's a reality, most people are afraid of spiders even though it's irrational for the most part, it's just human instinct, sane goes with foreigners.The danger is when politicians start playing with that.
> So you think that the EU and almost every sovereign state in the world is xenophobic. Ok
To an extent, yes, for example in the EU at the exception of Germany and Sweden many countries did not want to accept many Syrian refugees. I can't see any rational reason for it, other than just fear, most need the working age population boost.
Same in the US with Trump etc etc...
As I said I don't think xenophobia is a dirty word, it's a reality, most people are afraid of spiders even though it's irrational for the most part, it's just human instinct, sane goes with foreigners.The danger is when politicians start playing with that.
Post edited at 14:42
In reply to KevinD:
Can you name some good examples?
> This isnt necessarily true. Some of the separatist movements can be federalist.
Can you name some good examples?
In reply to elsewhere:
I'm for an independent Scotland in a federal Europe. I know many like me. Definitely not a mainstream view for sure.
> Can you name some good examples?
I'm for an independent Scotland in a federal Europe. I know many like me. Definitely not a mainstream view for sure.
Post edited at 14:45
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Sounds increasingly attractive to me, but the nation state would be Scotland rather than EU.
> I'm for an independent Scotland in a federal Europe. I know many like me. Definitely not a mainstream view for sure.
Sounds increasingly attractive to me, but the nation state would be Scotland rather than EU.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
> To an extent, yes, for example in the EU at the exception of Germany and Sweden many countries did not want to accept many Syrian refugees. I can't see any rational reason for it, other than just fear, most need the working age population boost.
>
Whats it got to with refugees or Trump? You have alreafy asserted that anything short of free movement is xenophobic. Ergo, the EU and nearly all states are xenophobicIn reply to andyfallsoff:
They haven't said that they will prioritise these things over the economy nor have they issued a post brexit immigration target
> Sorry, how is it paranoid to think that the express statements of the government are an indication of policy direction?
They haven't said that they will prioritise these things over the economy nor have they issued a post brexit immigration target
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
What happens in 100 years time is not going to bother me without some seismic shift in medical technology!
But it's not like you or PP have been on these forums demanding a federal super state take over from Westminster...
What happens in 100 years time is not going to bother me without some seismic shift in medical technology!
But it's not like you or PP have been on these forums demanding a federal super state take over from Westminster...
In reply to elsewhere:
Its closely tied into the federalist model though. A sort of hybrid between the two.
The Catalonia independence movement seems to share similar approach to the EU as the SNP although its somewhat confused by the Spanish governments absolute refusal to play.
> Sounds increasingly attractive to me, but the nation state would be Scotland rather than EU.
Its closely tied into the federalist model though. A sort of hybrid between the two.
The Catalonia independence movement seems to share similar approach to the EU as the SNP although its somewhat confused by the Spanish governments absolute refusal to play.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Do I detect a subtle campaign to undermine and eventually destroy the nation state together with democracy so that corporate feudalism can become the world system of government? I dare say one could argue that it's already taken place.
Do I detect a subtle campaign to undermine and eventually destroy the nation state together with democracy so that corporate feudalism can become the world system of government? I dare say one could argue that it's already taken place.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
?? What are you taking about, the EU does have freedom of movement, that's a core principle of the EU, and one if the main thing leave voters have rejected.
I wouldn't say stopping any sort of freedom of movement is necessarily xenophobic. It is only if there are no rational and substantial reason to stop it other than just fear and myths, which is clearly the case in the UK.
> Whats it got to with refugees or Trump? You have alreafy asserted that anything short of free movement is xenophobic. Ergo, the EU and nearly all states are xenophobic
?? What are you taking about, the EU does have freedom of movement, that's a core principle of the EU, and one if the main thing leave voters have rejected.
I wouldn't say stopping any sort of freedom of movement is necessarily xenophobic. It is only if there are no rational and substantial reason to stop it other than just fear and myths, which is clearly the case in the UK.
Post edited at 15:54
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
She has said that the "tens of thousands" target still stands, so there is no reason to think that this would only be for the period until brexit (indeed, that wouldn't make much sense given the repeated cries that brexit will allow us to control immigration as we can't now).
She has also said she will prioritise restricting free movement over the single market. You can only interpret that as not prioritising free movement over the economy by ignoring a lot (substantially all) the academic opinion / evidence.
She has said that the "tens of thousands" target still stands, so there is no reason to think that this would only be for the period until brexit (indeed, that wouldn't make much sense given the repeated cries that brexit will allow us to control immigration as we can't now).
She has also said she will prioritise restricting free movement over the single market. You can only interpret that as not prioritising free movement over the economy by ignoring a lot (substantially all) the academic opinion / evidence.
2
In reply to elsewhere:
Of course. I don't think you need to eliminate nations for a successful federalised Europe, on the contrary, they can be stronger than they are now. An Europe of the states" instead of a state of Europe, as De Gaulle envisioned it.
> Sounds increasingly attractive to me, but the nation state would be Scotland rather than EU.
Of course. I don't think you need to eliminate nations for a successful federalised Europe, on the contrary, they can be stronger than they are now. An Europe of the states" instead of a state of Europe, as De Gaulle envisioned it.
Post edited at 15:47
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Exactly. But I think PP is unfortunately deluded in the sense that the Brexit he wants, more based on some sort of Anglo-centric mythical illusion of sovereignty than an overwhelming urge to curb immigration at all costs, is just not aligned with the views of the electorate the Tories need to get on their side to stay in power, and critically, not aligned with the views of Theresa May, judging by her record at the home office, and her statements post brexit.
Not sure whether he is too partisan to admit it, or just overoptimistic.
The only "hope" at this point is, sadly, that immigration goes sharply down because the economy is wrecked and people don't feel welcome, at which point the numbers are low enough that there would be no need to be overly harsh with existing EU nationals and future EU migrants. Or parliament could get its ass into gear and force the government to adopt a soft brexit and guarantee the rights of EU nationals, but same problem again, they would lose their seats if they did...
> She has said that the "tens of thousands" target still stands, so there is no reason to think that this would only be for the period until brexit (indeed, that wouldn't make much sense given the repeated cries that brexit will allow us to control immigration as we can't now).
> She has also said she will prioritise restricting free movement over the single market. You can only interpret that as not prioritising free movement over the economy by ignoring a lot (substantially all) the academic opinion / evidence.
Exactly. But I think PP is unfortunately deluded in the sense that the Brexit he wants, more based on some sort of Anglo-centric mythical illusion of sovereignty than an overwhelming urge to curb immigration at all costs, is just not aligned with the views of the electorate the Tories need to get on their side to stay in power, and critically, not aligned with the views of Theresa May, judging by her record at the home office, and her statements post brexit.
Not sure whether he is too partisan to admit it, or just overoptimistic.
The only "hope" at this point is, sadly, that immigration goes sharply down because the economy is wrecked and people don't feel welcome, at which point the numbers are low enough that there would be no need to be overly harsh with existing EU nationals and future EU migrants. Or parliament could get its ass into gear and force the government to adopt a soft brexit and guarantee the rights of EU nationals, but same problem again, they would lose their seats if they did...
Post edited at 16:15
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
The nation state is a natural consequence of human progress. Oops, that sounds a bit too much like Lewis Henry Morgan, but even without Victorian rantings about barbarism, I think it remains true. There is an idea that the nation state is a concept that arose in the 17th or 18th century. However, that's a rather small-minded view from the point of view of warring west Europeans. We have been trying to fettle this concept for millennia. No doubt somebody will shoot me down with some fine definition of the nation state that requires modern political tools and infrastructure.
The nation state is a natural consequence of human progress. Oops, that sounds a bit too much like Lewis Henry Morgan, but even without Victorian rantings about barbarism, I think it remains true. There is an idea that the nation state is a concept that arose in the 17th or 18th century. However, that's a rather small-minded view from the point of view of warring west Europeans. We have been trying to fettle this concept for millennia. No doubt somebody will shoot me down with some fine definition of the nation state that requires modern political tools and infrastructure.
In reply to Postmanpat:
They already have an immigration target and have refused to scrap it, and also refused to remove foreign students from the count.
That tells you a lot as to what the priorities are.
I don't discount the possibility that the Tories, faced with economic reality of brexit, eventually betray their electorate and transform Britain into some kind of trading outpost with lax visa policy and unilateral free trade. But that would require some extraordinary leadership that isn't there, it just seems very unlikely.
My bets at the moment are just on Britain becoming more isolated and poorer, and eventually will rebuild everything as it was before step by step, fucking up one generation in the meantime. It wouldn't be the first time.
> They haven't said that they will prioritise these things over the economy nor have they issued a post brexit immigration target
They already have an immigration target and have refused to scrap it, and also refused to remove foreign students from the count.
That tells you a lot as to what the priorities are.
I don't discount the possibility that the Tories, faced with economic reality of brexit, eventually betray their electorate and transform Britain into some kind of trading outpost with lax visa policy and unilateral free trade. But that would require some extraordinary leadership that isn't there, it just seems very unlikely.
My bets at the moment are just on Britain becoming more isolated and poorer, and eventually will rebuild everything as it was before step by step, fucking up one generation in the meantime. It wouldn't be the first time.
Post edited at 17:18
2
In reply to elsewhere:
I think from a political science point of view this discussion is a bit hobbled by what I'm inferring to be a conflation of 'nation' with ' nation state' and perhaps even 'country'. I'm not being snarky, it's just an observation. If so, they aren't (necessarily) the same thing, although on a Venn diagram of political entities, they would probably overlap.
I think from a political science point of view this discussion is a bit hobbled by what I'm inferring to be a conflation of 'nation' with ' nation state' and perhaps even 'country'. I'm not being snarky, it's just an observation. If so, they aren't (necessarily) the same thing, although on a Venn diagram of political entities, they would probably overlap.
Post edited at 17:32
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
It's not political science, it's off belay on a climbing website so everyday meanings however conflated are the meanings assumed.
It's not political science, it's off belay on a climbing website so everyday meanings however conflated are the meanings assumed.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Or we could use it as an opportunity to learn. I've just had a grand time discovering Henry Lewis Morgan and the influence of his ideas. Genuinely fascinating, thank you Jim Fraser!
Or we could use it as an opportunity to learn. I've just had a grand time discovering Henry Lewis Morgan and the influence of his ideas. Genuinely fascinating, thank you Jim Fraser!
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
True, but you wouldn't go onto a politics website and assume knowledge of knots.
Anyway, teach me! What are the distinctions between nation, nation state and country.
True, but you wouldn't go onto a politics website and assume knowledge of knots.
Anyway, teach me! What are the distinctions between nation, nation state and country.
Post edited at 18:12
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Nation states have been an amazingly successful model.
Individuals give up the right to violence, accept the rule of law and pay there taxes; and in return get security etc.
For this to work, concepts of nationalism have to be fostered, fundamentally so young people will lay down there lives for it.
Within this contract between government and governed is an assumption that a government will look after it's own, and almost by definition a little xenophobia.
For some, when a lot of immigration is allowed, the contract has been broken.
Nation states have been an amazingly successful model.
Individuals give up the right to violence, accept the rule of law and pay there taxes; and in return get security etc.
For this to work, concepts of nationalism have to be fostered, fundamentally so young people will lay down there lives for it.
Within this contract between government and governed is an assumption that a government will look after it's own, and almost by definition a little xenophobia.
For some, when a lot of immigration is allowed, the contract has been broken.
Post edited at 21:03
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
We're entering into your kafkaesque world of "misunderstandings" sgain, so i'm out.
> ?? What are you taking about, the EU does have freedom of movement, that's a core principle of the EU, and one if the main thing leave voters have rejected.
>
God this is hard work. Dont be obtuse. Not for non EU citizens it doesnt, therefore on your definition it is xenophobic.We're entering into your kafkaesque world of "misunderstandings" sgain, so i'm out.
Post edited at 21:25
3
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Really ? Please show us where I said that somehow nothing less than global freedom of movement would be xenophobic.... it's just a gross misrepresentation of what I said, as usual.
Of course freedom of movement does not apply to non EU citizens, for the most part because such reciprocal agreements that necessitate so much integration have never been agreed with other non-eu countries, this doesn't even get to the stage where xenophobia gets into the mix.
Unfortunately for some countries overly restrictive visa policies are indeed driven by xenophobia. Again the UK (but not only) a prime example: a country you can't even visit anymore if you are from a poor country unless you can prove you have no reason to overstay...
This is completely different situation from pulling out of such a well established free movement arrangement for no good reason other than just fear, when it's been arguably hugely successful for society and the economy. If you can't see the difference between breaking something that is proven to work and hypothetical future free movement arrangements with other countries, I'm not sure I can help here.
Preventing EU immigrants from moving in the country freely at the expense of our economic well being, fucking up the prospects of our kids who won't be able to move and work freely in Europe, when all the evidence shows that the people who came here so far made an outstanding contribution at every level of society, is irrational, and by definition, xenophobic. I would not claim that ending freedom of movement was xenophobic if there was clear evidence of overall negative effects, but there just isn't, even worse, people who fear it the most live in places where there just isn't any.
> God this is hard work. Dont be obtuse. Not for non EU citizens it doesnt, therefore on your definition it is xenophobic.
Really ? Please show us where I said that somehow nothing less than global freedom of movement would be xenophobic.... it's just a gross misrepresentation of what I said, as usual.
Of course freedom of movement does not apply to non EU citizens, for the most part because such reciprocal agreements that necessitate so much integration have never been agreed with other non-eu countries, this doesn't even get to the stage where xenophobia gets into the mix.
Unfortunately for some countries overly restrictive visa policies are indeed driven by xenophobia. Again the UK (but not only) a prime example: a country you can't even visit anymore if you are from a poor country unless you can prove you have no reason to overstay...
This is completely different situation from pulling out of such a well established free movement arrangement for no good reason other than just fear, when it's been arguably hugely successful for society and the economy. If you can't see the difference between breaking something that is proven to work and hypothetical future free movement arrangements with other countries, I'm not sure I can help here.
Preventing EU immigrants from moving in the country freely at the expense of our economic well being, fucking up the prospects of our kids who won't be able to move and work freely in Europe, when all the evidence shows that the people who came here so far made an outstanding contribution at every level of society, is irrational, and by definition, xenophobic. I would not claim that ending freedom of movement was xenophobic if there was clear evidence of overall negative effects, but there just isn't, even worse, people who fear it the most live in places where there just isn't any.
Post edited at 23:44
2
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
It seems u were using a limited definition of free movement so missing my point.
You appear not to have been following. My point has been that the EU' is just as xenophobic as people say the Uk will become. Its just that it has different borders. The eu doesnt have free movement. It has free movement within. Just as the uk will have free movement within.
Bye
It seems u were using a limited definition of free movement so missing my point.
You appear not to have been following. My point has been that the EU' is just as xenophobic as people say the Uk will become. Its just that it has different borders. The eu doesnt have free movement. It has free movement within. Just as the uk will have free movement within.
Bye
4
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry but you appear to not have been following.
Breaking a successful free movement arrangement for no rational reason, that is xenophobic.
Nothing of the sort can be said of arrangements that simply don't exists / have never been made.
Let me give you an example, if suddenly Scotland said we want to stop free movement between England and Scotland, despite no evidence of english people doing anything wrong and strong evidence of a positive contribution, wouldnt you say it's xenophobic ? If you had lived in Scotland for decades, worked and paid taxes, and suddenly were told Scotland was breaking away from the union because of "too many English people coming and taking our jobs" even though it's completely untrue, wouldn't you feel some xenophobia around and very unwelcome ?
> It seems u were using a limited definition of free movement so missing my point.
> You appear not to have been following. My point has been that the EU' is just as xenophobic as people say the Uk will become. Its just that it has different borders. The eu doesnt have free movement. It has free movement within. Just as the uk will have free movement within.
Sorry but you appear to not have been following.
Breaking a successful free movement arrangement for no rational reason, that is xenophobic.
Nothing of the sort can be said of arrangements that simply don't exists / have never been made.
Let me give you an example, if suddenly Scotland said we want to stop free movement between England and Scotland, despite no evidence of english people doing anything wrong and strong evidence of a positive contribution, wouldnt you say it's xenophobic ? If you had lived in Scotland for decades, worked and paid taxes, and suddenly were told Scotland was breaking away from the union because of "too many English people coming and taking our jobs" even though it's completely untrue, wouldn't you feel some xenophobia around and very unwelcome ?
Post edited at 09:03
2
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
National Security - homegrown and domestic terrorism with freedom to move and cross borders.
Defence - EU army, I am sure Germany had a certain branch of the Military that answered only to the [undemocratic] Political group that was in charge of the country. I wonder how that worked out.
Economical - drives low skilled workers wages down.
Public services undermanned and at breaking point,
Welfare budget out of control
NHS crippled and at breaking point
Police unable to regain control, police and enforce the law in areas.
Speak to any one that follows the SNP cult, and that is precisely what they want.
And no evidence of doing anything wrong? Where were you when that truck ploughed through kids in Nice, or the Paris attacks? There is plenty wrong with freedom of movement and innocent people getting killed is a big one.
>If you had lived in Scotland for decades, worked and paid taxes, and suddenly were told Scotland was breaking away from the union because of "too many English people coming and taking our jobs" even though it's completely untrue, wouldn't you feel some xenophobia around and very unwelcome ?
That depends, are the Scottish people getting "multiculturism" stuffed down their throats and told that their workplaces are "not diverse enough" and that they need to employ more English people, rather than who's best for the job, or helping local economy by employing locals.
Freedom of movement? So you have a mortgage and pay for your house. I am homeless, I can just move into your house, expect you to feed and clothe me, and give me an allowance.
Your electricity and over services will go up, your food bill goes up etc.
We have a nation, we all contribute into our society. We all pay taxes and expect a level of service. We haven't even got that right, and you want more people, more costs and more cultures that maybe don't appreciate how a modern and free society lives?
Here's a crazy idea. How about we get it right for ourselves. Iron out our own problems and sort out our own services, to put us into a stronger position to help others.
> Breaking a successful free movement arrangement for no rational reason, that is xenophobic.
National Security - homegrown and domestic terrorism with freedom to move and cross borders.
Defence - EU army, I am sure Germany had a certain branch of the Military that answered only to the [undemocratic] Political group that was in charge of the country. I wonder how that worked out.
Economical - drives low skilled workers wages down.
Public services undermanned and at breaking point,
Welfare budget out of control
NHS crippled and at breaking point
Police unable to regain control, police and enforce the law in areas.
> Let me give you an example, if suddenly Scotland said we want to stop free movement between England and Scotland, despite no evidence of english people doing anything wrong and strong evidence of a positive contribution, wouldnt you say it's xenophobic ?
Speak to any one that follows the SNP cult, and that is precisely what they want.
And no evidence of doing anything wrong? Where were you when that truck ploughed through kids in Nice, or the Paris attacks? There is plenty wrong with freedom of movement and innocent people getting killed is a big one.
>If you had lived in Scotland for decades, worked and paid taxes, and suddenly were told Scotland was breaking away from the union because of "too many English people coming and taking our jobs" even though it's completely untrue, wouldn't you feel some xenophobia around and very unwelcome ?
That depends, are the Scottish people getting "multiculturism" stuffed down their throats and told that their workplaces are "not diverse enough" and that they need to employ more English people, rather than who's best for the job, or helping local economy by employing locals.
Freedom of movement? So you have a mortgage and pay for your house. I am homeless, I can just move into your house, expect you to feed and clothe me, and give me an allowance.
Your electricity and over services will go up, your food bill goes up etc.
We have a nation, we all contribute into our society. We all pay taxes and expect a level of service. We haven't even got that right, and you want more people, more costs and more cultures that maybe don't appreciate how a modern and free society lives?
Here's a crazy idea. How about we get it right for ourselves. Iron out our own problems and sort out our own services, to put us into a stronger position to help others.
Post edited at 09:57
4
10
In reply to RomTheBear:
This is simply not what happened, it's just your interpretation. There are many reasons to leave the EU, and leaving the EU entails leaving freedom of movement.
Would you accept that every country in the EU is individually xenophobic, as they all choose to keep in place restrictions on anyone from outside of the EU coming in? That's PMP's (blindingly obvious) point.
> Breaking a successful free movement arrangement for no rational reason, that is xenophobic.
This is simply not what happened, it's just your interpretation. There are many reasons to leave the EU, and leaving the EU entails leaving freedom of movement.
Would you accept that every country in the EU is individually xenophobic, as they all choose to keep in place restrictions on anyone from outside of the EU coming in? That's PMP's (blindingly obvious) point.
3
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
You're mixing things up. Yes it's only one of the reasons. Ending freedom of movement is is clearly one of the reasons behind leaving the EU, not the other way around. It seems to be one of the main motivation behind leaving the single market as well.
Unless you are denying the obvious, there is a huge political pressure to reduce EU immigration, coming mostly from areas of the country with very few of them,
Countries are not xenophobic, people are, and yes many across Europe are xenophobic. As I said it's pretty natural.
But the fact that the EU doesn't have freedom of movement with countries outside of the EU has nothing to with xenophobia at this point, it just has to do with the fact that it was never agreed. Even though they tried to include some pretty wide ranging visa liberalisation in CETA for example, but that obviously failed for other reasons.
> This is simply not what happened, it's just your interpretation. There are many reasons to leave the EU, and leaving the EU entails leaving freedom of movement.
You're mixing things up. Yes it's only one of the reasons. Ending freedom of movement is is clearly one of the reasons behind leaving the EU, not the other way around. It seems to be one of the main motivation behind leaving the single market as well.
Unless you are denying the obvious, there is a huge political pressure to reduce EU immigration, coming mostly from areas of the country with very few of them,
> Would you accept that every country in the EU is individually xenophobic, as they all choose to keep in place restrictions on anyone from outside of the EU coming in? That's PMP's (blindingly obvious) point.
Countries are not xenophobic, people are, and yes many across Europe are xenophobic. As I said it's pretty natural.
But the fact that the EU doesn't have freedom of movement with countries outside of the EU has nothing to with xenophobia at this point, it just has to do with the fact that it was never agreed. Even though they tried to include some pretty wide ranging visa liberalisation in CETA for example, but that obviously failed for other reasons.
Post edited at 10:47
In reply to RomTheBear:
No, I'm not. It's one of the reasons, not the only one, and they're not irrational. You don't understand the sovereignty argument, which is the main motivation.
Okay, the policies that all EU member states have that prevent foreigners coming in without restrictions are xenophobic then.
The EU is made up of the member states, it's not independent of them.
> You're mixing things up. Yes it's only one of the reasons. Ending freedom of movement is is clearly one of the reasons behind leaving the EU, not the other way around. It seems to be one of the main motivation behind leaving the single market as well.
No, I'm not. It's one of the reasons, not the only one, and they're not irrational. You don't understand the sovereignty argument, which is the main motivation.
> Countries are not xenophobic, people are, and yes many across Europe are xenophobic. As I said it's pretty natural.
Okay, the policies that all EU member states have that prevent foreigners coming in without restrictions are xenophobic then.
> But the fact that the EU doesn't have freedom of movement with countries outside of the EU has nothing to with xenophobia at this point, it just has to do with the fact that it was never agreed. If it ever comes to that and people reject it for no rational reason, then yes, it would be by definition, xenophobic.
The EU is made up of the member states, it's not independent of them.
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
But that's a separate reason unrelated to free movement. I don't see many practical obstacle to keep a reciprocal free movement with the EU, in fact it would probably be the rational thing to do as this would give us better leeway to arrange free trade.
Instead the government has indicated they would seek to stop freedom of movement at almost any cost - that strikes me as irrational and xenophobic.
You still don't get it. The EU doesn't have recripocal freedom of movement agreements with other countries at this point so this is a moot point. I suspect that if it was the case there would be xenophobic pressure against it, unfortunately.
Yes.
> No, I'm not. It's one of the reasons, not the only one, and they're not irrational. You don't understand the sovereignty argument, which is the main motivation.
But that's a separate reason unrelated to free movement. I don't see many practical obstacle to keep a reciprocal free movement with the EU, in fact it would probably be the rational thing to do as this would give us better leeway to arrange free trade.
Instead the government has indicated they would seek to stop freedom of movement at almost any cost - that strikes me as irrational and xenophobic.
> Okay, the policies that all EU member states have that prevent foreigners coming in without restrictions are xenophobic then.
You still don't get it. The EU doesn't have recripocal freedom of movement agreements with other countries at this point so this is a moot point. I suspect that if it was the case there would be xenophobic pressure against it, unfortunately.
> The EU is made up of the member states, it's not independent of them.
Yes.
Post edited at 10:58
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
As said, you simply don't understand the sovereignty argument. They are not at all separate, they're part and parcel of the same thing.
So it's xenophobic to put in place restrictions but it's not xenophobic to have restrictions in place?
> But that's a separate reason unrelated to free movement. I don't see many practical obstacle to keep free movement outside of the EU, in fact it would probably be the rational thing to do as this would give us better leeway to arrange free trade. Instead the government has indicated they would seek to stop freedom of movement at almost any cost - that strikes me as irrational and xenophobic.
As said, you simply don't understand the sovereignty argument. They are not at all separate, they're part and parcel of the same thing.
> You still don't get it. The EU doesn't have recripocal freedom of movement agreement with other countries at this point so this is a moot point.
So it's xenophobic to put in place restrictions but it's not xenophobic to have restrictions in place?
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
I do understand it - I think it is deluded but that's a separate thing.
I'm not sure why you think sovereignty is linked to freedom of movement, what would prevent us, as a sovereign country, to agree on keeping a free movement arrangement with the EU that has been highly beneficial to us ? Or even seek more freedom of movement, with, for example, some commonwealth country that could agree to it ?
It all depends on the reason behind the restriction. If the restriction is simply there because a reciprocal arrangement could never be agreed or never happened, or because the benefits would not be so clear, that's a pretty rational reason.
However if the restriction exists or is put in place because people fear it for no good reason, then by definition, it's xenophobic.
> As said, you simply don't understand the sovereignty argument. They are not at all separate, they're part and parcel of the same thing.
I do understand it - I think it is deluded but that's a separate thing.
I'm not sure why you think sovereignty is linked to freedom of movement, what would prevent us, as a sovereign country, to agree on keeping a free movement arrangement with the EU that has been highly beneficial to us ? Or even seek more freedom of movement, with, for example, some commonwealth country that could agree to it ?
> So it's xenophobic to put in place restrictions but it's not xenophobic to have restrictions in place?
It all depends on the reason behind the restriction. If the restriction is simply there because a reciprocal arrangement could never be agreed or never happened, or because the benefits would not be so clear, that's a pretty rational reason.
However if the restriction exists or is put in place because people fear it for no good reason, then by definition, it's xenophobic.
Post edited at 12:38
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
The current freedom of movement arrangement is based on us, and citizens of other member states, being European Citizens, which is based on the UK being members of the EU and the obligations created through EU law. We cannot keep this arrangement in place and leave the EU. If you understood the sovereignty argument you'd get this. A new arrangement would be a new arrangement.
Whether it's been beneficial is a matter of opinion, I'd say it's been detrimental.
So what do you think the reason is for others, as opposed to for us? Do you think they're different reasons? I take it you're saying that there are rational reasons - can you give an example of one?
That's meaningless, you're just saying if it's put in place because of xenophobia it's xenophobic.
> I'm not sure why you think sovereignty is linked to freedom of movement, what would prevent us, as a sovereign country, to agree on keeping a free movement arrangement with the EU that has been highly beneficial to us ? Or even seek more freedom of movement, with, for example, some commonwealth country that could agree to it ?
The current freedom of movement arrangement is based on us, and citizens of other member states, being European Citizens, which is based on the UK being members of the EU and the obligations created through EU law. We cannot keep this arrangement in place and leave the EU. If you understood the sovereignty argument you'd get this. A new arrangement would be a new arrangement.
Whether it's been beneficial is a matter of opinion, I'd say it's been detrimental.
> It all depends on the reason behind the restriction. If the restriction is simply there because a reciprocal arrangement could never be agreed or never happened, or because the benefits would not be so clear, that's a pretty rational reason.
So what do you think the reason is for others, as opposed to for us? Do you think they're different reasons? I take it you're saying that there are rational reasons - can you give an example of one?
> However if the restriction exists or is put in place because people fear it for no good reason, then by definition, it's xenophobic.
That's meaningless, you're just saying if it's put in place because of xenophobia it's xenophobic.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Super interesting topic, thanks. I wouldn't say that the concept is necessarily bad but of course it can be. The concept of the nation state - and with it the principle of self-determination - should get at least some of the credit for the end of colonialism (some people may see that as a bad thing; I don't).
But, large groups of people very rarely have a neatly consistent past and cultural present. ( the question raised in the Reith lecture as "who is us"?); the Catalans would like to be separate but the rest of Spain wants them to stay; ditto Scotland to a large extent; even within England, Cornish people will refer to a daytrip to Plymouth as having been to England. etc etc. So that sense of nationhood has always had to be invented to an extent. Typically this has been related to a shared history which gives rise to nativism and, at the extreme, racism.
I think the problem with the nation state is no so much that it is a bad or a good thing; more that the terms on which the nation is defined are changing; and the level at which government is required is diverging.
To take the first. Until now a sense of nationhood has been created by inventing a shared history. The founding fathers, the doomsday book, the french revolution, Hitlers wagnerian mythology etc. Never perfect as a way of defining a nation, this sense of shared history can surely not survive the modern world. With immigration growing, to what extent will a second generation Sunil or Pavel relate with Arthurian legends? At the same time, cultural influences are changing the national watercooler conversations. The nation no longer sits down at 9pm to watch the same news programe; we are logging on to Netflix and watching a documentary on the Food industry, which our neighbour isn't watching but perhaps someone 5,000 miles away is watching. Cultural references reach across geographies but atomise at the local level. Living in Spain for 13 years i have watched this process happen. When i arrived terrestrial TV was still the dominant form of cultural input and i missed out completely on whole cycles of the national conversation. I had no idea what my British friends were talking about when they referenced Little Britain. Today, among me and my friends, TV on demand is where its all and and we can share our experiences of House of cards, Homeland etc. One of thee cultural battles in the UK at the moment is that we are trying to reinvent the sense of nationhood to include a sense of inherent multi-culturalism and openness to the world, which a lot of people don't agree with.
To take the second point, the world is pushing towards a divergence of government into both more global and more local. Eliminating tax havens needs to be a global effort; in the pursuit of international trade, product standards will become global; disease control needs to be global; banking regulations don't work unless they are global. The easier it is to shift activities from one country to another the more that regulation needs to become global. At the same time, many of the functions of national government would be better done at the local level. The best people to decide which new roads to build in Manchester are, presumably, Mancunians. That leaves national governments with less and less to do. That leaves national governments with less and less to do.
Super interesting topic, thanks. I wouldn't say that the concept is necessarily bad but of course it can be. The concept of the nation state - and with it the principle of self-determination - should get at least some of the credit for the end of colonialism (some people may see that as a bad thing; I don't).
But, large groups of people very rarely have a neatly consistent past and cultural present. ( the question raised in the Reith lecture as "who is us"?); the Catalans would like to be separate but the rest of Spain wants them to stay; ditto Scotland to a large extent; even within England, Cornish people will refer to a daytrip to Plymouth as having been to England. etc etc. So that sense of nationhood has always had to be invented to an extent. Typically this has been related to a shared history which gives rise to nativism and, at the extreme, racism.
I think the problem with the nation state is no so much that it is a bad or a good thing; more that the terms on which the nation is defined are changing; and the level at which government is required is diverging.
To take the first. Until now a sense of nationhood has been created by inventing a shared history. The founding fathers, the doomsday book, the french revolution, Hitlers wagnerian mythology etc. Never perfect as a way of defining a nation, this sense of shared history can surely not survive the modern world. With immigration growing, to what extent will a second generation Sunil or Pavel relate with Arthurian legends? At the same time, cultural influences are changing the national watercooler conversations. The nation no longer sits down at 9pm to watch the same news programe; we are logging on to Netflix and watching a documentary on the Food industry, which our neighbour isn't watching but perhaps someone 5,000 miles away is watching. Cultural references reach across geographies but atomise at the local level. Living in Spain for 13 years i have watched this process happen. When i arrived terrestrial TV was still the dominant form of cultural input and i missed out completely on whole cycles of the national conversation. I had no idea what my British friends were talking about when they referenced Little Britain. Today, among me and my friends, TV on demand is where its all and and we can share our experiences of House of cards, Homeland etc. One of thee cultural battles in the UK at the moment is that we are trying to reinvent the sense of nationhood to include a sense of inherent multi-culturalism and openness to the world, which a lot of people don't agree with.
To take the second point, the world is pushing towards a divergence of government into both more global and more local. Eliminating tax havens needs to be a global effort; in the pursuit of international trade, product standards will become global; disease control needs to be global; banking regulations don't work unless they are global. The easier it is to shift activities from one country to another the more that regulation needs to become global. At the same time, many of the functions of national government would be better done at the local level. The best people to decide which new roads to build in Manchester are, presumably, Mancunians. That leaves national governments with less and less to do. That leaves national governments with less and less to do.
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
Absolute nonsense. Switzerland is not in the EU, so is Norway, or Iceland, and they still have a freedom of movement arrangement.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence and hard facts.
It depends on what "the other" is.
There could be lots of rational reasons, for example if there was evidence that the arrival of many people of country A to country B would be economic damaging to country B, then that's a pretty rational reason for country B to refuse such a deal.
Yes, it's pretty trivial really, I'm not sure why don't understand it.
And in the case of he UK, the whole idea of reducing immigration to the tens of thousands and stop freedom of movement is clearly driven by xenophobia, given that the evidence of benefits is overwhelming, and the evidence of negative effects minimal and shaky at best.
> The current freedom of movement arrangement is based on us, and citizens of other member states, being European Citizens, which is based on the UK being members of the EU and the obligations created through EU law. We cannot keep this arrangement in place and leave the EU. If you understood the sovereignty argument you'd get this. A new arrangement would be a new arrangement.
Absolute nonsense. Switzerland is not in the EU, so is Norway, or Iceland, and they still have a freedom of movement arrangement.
> Whether it's been beneficial is a matter of opinion, I'd say it's been detrimental.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence and hard facts.
> So what do you think the reason is for others, as opposed to for us? Do you think they're different reasons? I take it you're saying that there are rational reasons - can you give an example of one?
It depends on what "the other" is.
There could be lots of rational reasons, for example if there was evidence that the arrival of many people of country A to country B would be economic damaging to country B, then that's a pretty rational reason for country B to refuse such a deal.
> That's meaningless, you're just saying if it's put in place because of xenophobia it's xenophobia
Yes, it's pretty trivial really, I'm not sure why don't understand it.
And in the case of he UK, the whole idea of reducing immigration to the tens of thousands and stop freedom of movement is clearly driven by xenophobia, given that the evidence of benefits is overwhelming, and the evidence of negative effects minimal and shaky at best.
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
It would really help if you read things. To quote myself - "The current freedom of movement arrangement is...A new arrangement would be a new arrangement." We are not Switzerland, or Norway, or Iceland.
It's a matter of interpretation of facts, based on what things you find important and so on. Whether something is "good" depends on your definition of "good". Do you really not get that?
The argument in relation to the EU is that freedom of movement has been damaging to a proportion of UK citizens, those at the bottom end. That's a rational reason then.
I understand it, it just has as much meaning as saying blue is blue.
Nonsense.
> Absolute nonsense. Switzerland is not in the EU, so is Norway, or Iceland, and they still have a freedom of movement arrangement.
It would really help if you read things. To quote myself - "The current freedom of movement arrangement is...A new arrangement would be a new arrangement." We are not Switzerland, or Norway, or Iceland.
> It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence and hard facts.
It's a matter of interpretation of facts, based on what things you find important and so on. Whether something is "good" depends on your definition of "good". Do you really not get that?
> There could be lots of rational reasons, for example if there was evidence that the arrival of many people of country A to country B would be economic damaging to country B, then that's a pretty rational reason for country B to refuse such a deal.
The argument in relation to the EU is that freedom of movement has been damaging to a proportion of UK citizens, those at the bottom end. That's a rational reason then.
> Yes, it's pretty trivial really, I'm not sure why don't understand it.
I understand it, it just has as much meaning as saying blue is blue.
> And in the case of he UK, the whole idea of reducing immigration to the tens of thousands and stop freedom of movement is clearly driven by xenophobia, given that the evidence of benefits is overwhelming, and the evidence of negative effects minimal and shaky at best.
Nonsense.
1
3
2
In reply to elsewhere:
If it was pertinent to the discussion I most certainly would!
'Nations and Nationalism since 1780' by Eric Hobsbawm is a good and almost readable (but just not quite) introduction that I have been steadily ploughing my way through since 1993.
People have been struggling to define 'nation' for a long time. From memory (so someone correct me if I'm wrong), one the problems faced with creating the modern state of Italy and creating a unified nation was how to define 'nation': was it territory? language (even today Italy is peppered with Italian dialects and local languages)? ethnicity (see previous question)? something else? However, there seemed to be enough in common that Italy (and Germany) are usually (or have been, at any rate, depends on whether we think 'nation state' is obsolete or not) defined as nation states because they are political entities that combine the political entity of a state to the cultural/ethnic identity of a nation.
The problems with nation formation were characteristic of the states that formed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The empire was a state which held together many disparate, competing and occasionally mutually hostile nations. In terms of unifying characterstics, I can personally attest that Arabic differs massively from one side to the other side of the former Ottoman Empire, there are vast differences in religion that you may have heard of (and some you may have not), multiple ethnic identities, and what about the Bedouins...plus important characteristics to do with role of kinship in Arab society (it's all about the tribe and sub-tribe).
To quote Faisal I about Iraq: "In Iraq, there is still no Iraqi people, but unimaginable masses of human beings, devoid of any patriotic idea, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatsoever. Out of these masses we want to fashion a people which we would train, educate, and refine... The circumstances being what they are, the immenseness of the effort needed for this can only be imagined."
'Country' and 'state' are generally take to be synonomous: According to the Montevidoe Convention a State has 4 characteristics: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other States.
Also see: Karl Popper on 'Imprecision in the use of Language' - a lesson to me that I never should have said anything in the first place!
If it was pertinent to the discussion I most certainly would!
'Nations and Nationalism since 1780' by Eric Hobsbawm is a good and almost readable (but just not quite) introduction that I have been steadily ploughing my way through since 1993.
People have been struggling to define 'nation' for a long time. From memory (so someone correct me if I'm wrong), one the problems faced with creating the modern state of Italy and creating a unified nation was how to define 'nation': was it territory? language (even today Italy is peppered with Italian dialects and local languages)? ethnicity (see previous question)? something else? However, there seemed to be enough in common that Italy (and Germany) are usually (or have been, at any rate, depends on whether we think 'nation state' is obsolete or not) defined as nation states because they are political entities that combine the political entity of a state to the cultural/ethnic identity of a nation.
The problems with nation formation were characteristic of the states that formed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The empire was a state which held together many disparate, competing and occasionally mutually hostile nations. In terms of unifying characterstics, I can personally attest that Arabic differs massively from one side to the other side of the former Ottoman Empire, there are vast differences in religion that you may have heard of (and some you may have not), multiple ethnic identities, and what about the Bedouins...plus important characteristics to do with role of kinship in Arab society (it's all about the tribe and sub-tribe).
To quote Faisal I about Iraq: "In Iraq, there is still no Iraqi people, but unimaginable masses of human beings, devoid of any patriotic idea, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatsoever. Out of these masses we want to fashion a people which we would train, educate, and refine... The circumstances being what they are, the immenseness of the effort needed for this can only be imagined."
'Country' and 'state' are generally take to be synonomous: According to the Montevidoe Convention a State has 4 characteristics: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other States.
Also see: Karl Popper on 'Imprecision in the use of Language' - a lesson to me that I never should have said anything in the first place!
3
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Thanks.
My pet theory is the meanings are inherently uncertain because the 300+ million native English speakers and several billion non-native speakers don't share the same understanding or agree a single perfect meaning of every word in every context.
Good excuse for sloppy thinking too!
Thanks.
My pet theory is the meanings are inherently uncertain because the 300+ million native English speakers and several billion non-native speakers don't share the same understanding or agree a single perfect meaning of every word in every context.
Good excuse for sloppy thinking too!
1
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Afghanistan and Iraq are where they are today because our guys hadn't read Morgan.
> Or we could use it as an opportunity to learn. I've just had a grand time discovering Henry Lewis Morgan and the influence of his ideas. Genuinely fascinating, thank you Jim Fraser!
Afghanistan and Iraq are where they are today because our guys hadn't read Morgan.
In reply to thomasadixon:
Sure, but as you know it's not a new freedom of movement arrangement similar to the previous one that the government is seeking, it's an end to it.
Then it is up to this in favour of stopping free movement to tell us what is bad with it and prove it. So far their arguments have been based on outrageous lies, repeated in loop by the tabloid press.
Except that is simply untrue, a myth rebuked by every study ever made, including the meta studies made by the home office itself. And then Theresa May went to give a speech and said the exact opposite of what her department was telling her, purely for political gain.
You would think it's simple but apparentmy hard to swallow for some.
I can see you did not care developing your argument. If you chose to ignore the rise of UKIP and the fact that immigration has become the number one issue of many people who have very little contact with it, you need to wake up.
> It would really help if you read things. To quote myself - "The current freedom of movement arrangement is...A new arrangement would be a new arrangement." We are not Switzerland, or Norway, or Iceland.
Sure, but as you know it's not a new freedom of movement arrangement similar to the previous one that the government is seeking, it's an end to it.
> It's a matter of interpretation of facts, based on what things you find important and so on. Whether something is "good" depends on your definition of "good". Do you really not get that?
Then it is up to this in favour of stopping free movement to tell us what is bad with it and prove it. So far their arguments have been based on outrageous lies, repeated in loop by the tabloid press.
> The argument in relation to the EU is that freedom of movement has been damaging to a proportion of UK citizens, those at the bottom end. That's a rational reason then.
Except that is simply untrue, a myth rebuked by every study ever made, including the meta studies made by the home office itself. And then Theresa May went to give a speech and said the exact opposite of what her department was telling her, purely for political gain.
> I understand it, it just has as much meaning as saying blue is blue.
You would think it's simple but apparentmy hard to swallow for some.
> Nonsense.
I can see you did not care developing your argument. If you chose to ignore the rise of UKIP and the fact that immigration has become the number one issue of many people who have very little contact with it, you need to wake up.
Post edited at 17:26
In reply to RomTheBear:
If enough people are convinced and they make a decision (we did, there was that vote on leaving the EU remember) then it happens. The inconvincible, such as yourself, can be ignored. Do you understand that what's bad to me might not be bad to you? It might well be (seems likely) that you're not convincible because you simply don't care about the same issues.
I've been through it on here before, and given that you don't listen there seems very little point. I'd also note that you've made nothing but assertions, so pretending you have any sort of high ground is a bit silly. Where's your evidence for your claims?
Edit - I've just realised we're back to rehashing referendum stuff, and wildly off topic so I'll leave it here. If you want to start another thread feel free.
> Then it is up to this in favour of stopping free movement to tell us what is bad with it and prove it.
If enough people are convinced and they make a decision (we did, there was that vote on leaving the EU remember) then it happens. The inconvincible, such as yourself, can be ignored. Do you understand that what's bad to me might not be bad to you? It might well be (seems likely) that you're not convincible because you simply don't care about the same issues.
> I can see you did not care developing your argument. If you chose to ignore the rise of UKIP and the fact that immigration has become the number one issue of many people who have very little contact with it, you need to wake up.
I've been through it on here before, and given that you don't listen there seems very little point. I'd also note that you've made nothing but assertions, so pretending you have any sort of high ground is a bit silly. Where's your evidence for your claims?
Edit - I've just realised we're back to rehashing referendum stuff, and wildly off topic so I'll leave it here. If you want to start another thread feel free.
Post edited at 17:34
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
That's just not true, I can be easily convinced if I'm presented with clear evidence. So far I haven't seen much evidence of what is usually claimed (lowering the wages of native workers, strain on publis services and housing, higher unemployment and so on)
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/downloadpublication/1634_sri-perceptions-and-rea...
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA019.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
Amongst others. The migration observatory has an extensive collection of research paper on the topic.
I don't really pretend to have the high ground, the reality is that nobody knows for sure because data is hard to collect and make sense of, but given that it is a topic I'm passionate about at least I can claim I've done quite lot of reading from lots of different sources on that.
I suggest that you do your own research, and see if you change your mind.
Worst case scenario, if you doubt the evidence, you can always relate to your personal experience. Has any EU immigrant negatively impacted your life concretely in any way ? Generally when I ask this question to people who are against EU freedom of movement, they rarely can come up with an answer.
> If enough people are convinced and they make a decision (we did, there was that vote on leaving the EU remember) then it happens. The inconvincible, such as yourself, can be ignored. Do you understand that what's bad to me might not be bad to you? It might well be (seems likely) that you're not convincible because you simply don't care about the same issues.
That's just not true, I can be easily convinced if I'm presented with clear evidence. So far I haven't seen much evidence of what is usually claimed (lowering the wages of native workers, strain on publis services and housing, higher unemployment and so on)
> I've been through it on here before, and given that you don't listen there seems very little point. I'd also note that you've made nothing but assertions, so pretending you have any sort of high ground is a bit silly. Where's your evidence for your claims?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/downloadpublication/1634_sri-perceptions-and-rea...
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA019.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
Amongst others. The migration observatory has an extensive collection of research paper on the topic.
I don't really pretend to have the high ground, the reality is that nobody knows for sure because data is hard to collect and make sense of, but given that it is a topic I'm passionate about at least I can claim I've done quite lot of reading from lots of different sources on that.
I suggest that you do your own research, and see if you change your mind.
Worst case scenario, if you doubt the evidence, you can always relate to your personal experience. Has any EU immigrant negatively impacted your life concretely in any way ? Generally when I ask this question to people who are against EU freedom of movement, they rarely can come up with an answer.
Post edited at 18:25
2
In reply to elsewhere:
You're welcome. Much more fun than doing database admin.
Karl Popper would agree with you on your first point, but would be gut wrenchingly disappointed by your second. 😄
You're welcome. Much more fun than doing database admin.
Karl Popper would agree with you on your first point, but would be gut wrenchingly disappointed by your second. 😄
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not if the State runs the Nation well. But if the Nation is run badly enough where the State stops representing the views of all the tribes that make up that Nation fairly, or the State spends the collected tax on daft things, discontent will increase and may lead to one or many tribes challenging the legitimacy of the current State, and if not resolved, the discontented may wish to leave.
EG, London getting another runway when London is already very well serviced by runways in contrast to other UK cities that are not, and where a runway would be a significant benefit.
This could be an example of the state, the center of legitimate power of the Nation, making a decision that ultimately benefits the States location and tribe and furthers the dominance of that location as the center of power of the Nation, to the cost of the other members of the Nation.
I don't agree people tend to think Nation States are a bad thing, unless they are failing, then they often do, but it doesn't happen over night.
Respectfully, are you confusing the Nation State with extremist Nationals that have allot of hate in their brain and are not normally very bright and are led by crazy people... Nazis, Nazism etc?
NB before someone says it, I don't see the SNP as Nationals or Nationalist, I think it's a fairly broad section of the Scottish population that are disenchanted by the State (London) and that even at a possible cost, they would rather leave the UK and be in charge of their own affairs. And with the new wave of conservative desperados in charge, I think they probably will at some point. The only real barrier I see to them voting to leave is the currency issue. However, on that point, the reality is that the Euro ultimately handled the biggest financial crisis in history with a few scratches and no deep wounds. If the Euro was/is as crap as many pundits have the public believe, allot of Euro countries would have lost their nerve and run for the door. The fact that none have and the Euro survived such a global financial melt down is testament to the international confidence in the Euro. Irish seem happy enough. So I don't see a barrier. If the UK is out, I'd say it's an upside deal for Scotland.
But I doubt brexit does mean brexit and there will be a general election to decide one way or another. This is a huge decision... it's prudent we check with a general election. The State sbould create a coalition government to run the Nation while we figure things out.
> It seems that the underlying sentiment of many people is that nation states and are a bad and divisive thing.
> Are they a bad thing?
Not if the State runs the Nation well. But if the Nation is run badly enough where the State stops representing the views of all the tribes that make up that Nation fairly, or the State spends the collected tax on daft things, discontent will increase and may lead to one or many tribes challenging the legitimacy of the current State, and if not resolved, the discontented may wish to leave.
EG, London getting another runway when London is already very well serviced by runways in contrast to other UK cities that are not, and where a runway would be a significant benefit.
This could be an example of the state, the center of legitimate power of the Nation, making a decision that ultimately benefits the States location and tribe and furthers the dominance of that location as the center of power of the Nation, to the cost of the other members of the Nation.
I don't agree people tend to think Nation States are a bad thing, unless they are failing, then they often do, but it doesn't happen over night.
Respectfully, are you confusing the Nation State with extremist Nationals that have allot of hate in their brain and are not normally very bright and are led by crazy people... Nazis, Nazism etc?
NB before someone says it, I don't see the SNP as Nationals or Nationalist, I think it's a fairly broad section of the Scottish population that are disenchanted by the State (London) and that even at a possible cost, they would rather leave the UK and be in charge of their own affairs. And with the new wave of conservative desperados in charge, I think they probably will at some point. The only real barrier I see to them voting to leave is the currency issue. However, on that point, the reality is that the Euro ultimately handled the biggest financial crisis in history with a few scratches and no deep wounds. If the Euro was/is as crap as many pundits have the public believe, allot of Euro countries would have lost their nerve and run for the door. The fact that none have and the Euro survived such a global financial melt down is testament to the international confidence in the Euro. Irish seem happy enough. So I don't see a barrier. If the UK is out, I'd say it's an upside deal for Scotland.
But I doubt brexit does mean brexit and there will be a general election to decide one way or another. This is a huge decision... it's prudent we check with a general election. The State sbould create a coalition government to run the Nation while we figure things out.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...