|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On February 10 2017 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote:
India. India was a country of numerous regions and an extremely diverse population (still to this day). Not to mention extreme language barriers. Yet they have slowly managed to unify. I don't see why the Europe can't.
I don't know where you get this revision of history but India was pretty clearly unified by the British and their independence from said British.
On February 10 2017 03:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote:
The funny thing about your list of 'nation states' there is that all of them consisted of distinct ethnicities amalgamated into unnatural unions which then broke down into actual nation states based roughly on historical/ethnic ties. Yes, like the US of A. Oh no. Wait. Not that one. Like Brazil! Oh no. Wait. Not that one either. Well, then like South Africa! Nuh, shit. Wait. I got it. Like Belgium! Crap. Spain? Damn. Oh hell. I give up.
the USA is hardly an example as its a whole artificial nation that slowly but steadily expanded westword and accepted the immigrants from other nations to fill said land after all the natives were killed off/ moved. Brazil came from a treaty between Spain and Portugal. South Africa was a British creation of their two south African colonies they got from the dutch in order to administer them easier. Belgium clearly is a low lands nation creation that was made to hamstring dutch ambitions in the face of french imperialism. And Spain's the product of a cultural union between the last two relevant Iberian kingdoms in the face of the reconquista.
What part of history do you even reference?
On February 10 2017 04:32 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:31 Sermokala wrote:On February 10 2017 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote:
India. India was a country of numerous regions and an extremely diverse population (still to this day). Not to mention extreme language barriers. Yet they have slowly managed to unify. I don't see why the Europe can't. I don't know where you get this revision of history but India was pretty clearly unified by the British and their independence from said British. This dude was a Brit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AshokaThis dude was a Brit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
Neither proclaimed themselves "emperor of india". one was a horse lord and the other was more then 2000 years ago. Neither of them are a modern unifying force.
|
On February 10 2017 04:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote:
India. India was a country of numerous regions and an extremely diverse population (still to this day). Not to mention extreme language barriers. Yet they have slowly managed to unify. I don't see why the Europe can't. I don't know where you get this revision of history but India was pretty clearly unified by the British and their independence from said British.
This dude was a Brit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
This dude was a Brit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
|
Even the idea of a nation-state is, to some degree, a coalition of necessity. Frankly we could split along further cultural lines in any real country because that's just the reality of such a coalition. And you also have such oddities such as the Ukraine, where half the country would not particularly mind being part of Russia while the other half is about as rabid as the Baltics in its hatred for all things Russia. It's not a clear-cut nor inflexible construct.
And yet, vaguely along ethnic lines, nations are established and persist over the centuries, through endless variations in actual borders.
The problem is that Europe isn't anywhere near a borderline case. It's a very clear-cut example of nations delineated so strongly by ethnic differences that they simply don't belong together as a political union with a single government that enforces rules on everyone and a military force that belongs to "Europe." The force that is pushing Europe apart is, in a vague sense, just old-fashioned nationalism along lines that are older than a 25-year-old union.
|
On February 10 2017 04:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote:
India. India was a country of numerous regions and an extremely diverse population (still to this day). Not to mention extreme language barriers. Yet they have slowly managed to unify. I don't see why the Europe can't. I don't know where you get this revision of history but India was pretty clearly unified by the British and their independence from said British. Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:28 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote:
The funny thing about your list of 'nation states' there is that all of them consisted of distinct ethnicities amalgamated into unnatural unions which then broke down into actual nation states based roughly on historical/ethnic ties. Yes, like the US of A. Oh no. Wait. Not that one. Like Brazil! Oh no. Wait. Not that one either. Well, then like South Africa! Nuh, shit. Wait. I got it. Like Belgium! Crap. Spain? Damn. Oh hell. I give up. the USA is hardly an example as its a whole artificial nation that slowly but steadily expanded westword and accepted the immigrants from other nations to fill said land after all the natives were killed off/ moved. Brazil came from a treaty between Spain and Portugal. South Africa was a British creation of their two south African colonies they got from the dutch in order to administer them easier. Belgium clearly is a low lands nation creation that was made to hamstring dutch ambitions in the face of french imperialism. And Spain's the product of a cultural union between the last two relevant Iberian kingdoms in the face of the reconquista. What part of history do you even reference?
From my neighbour who works in Brussels at the EU and is Indian of a very large family..
|
The existence of basically every state is arbitrary. Separatist movements really only make sense if they're on behalf of some persecuted minority group like the Basques.
Saying that we should redraw the world map so it's more in-line with our relatively modern, artificial concept of the ethno-linguistic nation-state is ridiculous. Either we can build roads, form unions, and destroy walls for mutual benefit, or we can do the opposite of that.
|
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines.
|
You seem to be just waffling. Kudos for citing the basques but you could just as easily cite the corsicans or catalans (yes they speak catalan in an area of France as well). Unifying does not necessarilly mean an all controlling entity. But globally speaking I believe it is objectively necessary. I mean I'd love a true anarchy but that simply won't work due to basic human nature.
|
Then your arguing for a Confederacy instead of a federalist system of unification. At the end of the day though you still have to deal with various imbalances that people won't be happy with.
A federalist government may be iron handed but it's much easier and more stable then whatever the hell people wanted the EU to turn into.
|
|
|
On February 10 2017 04:26 Sermokala wrote:
Neither proclaimed themselves "emperor of india". one was a horse lord and the other was more then 2000 years ago. Neither of them are a modern unifying force.
Oh, okay then -- so since nobody has proclaimed themselves "Emperor of the USA", the USA is not a united country? Your standard makes no sense. The Mughal Empire was a singular state by any real metric, sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview.
On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines.
Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution.
|
On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines.
Not really. Ethnicities have also been unified multiple times throughout history. Generally if the majority is not a complete able, countries work just fine with multiple minorities. Similarly, ethnicity is just one of many lines along which minorities can be persecuted.
|
On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution.
The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU.
"Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit.
The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely.
|
On February 10 2017 05:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Not really. Ethnicities have also been unified multiple times throughout history. Generally if the majority is not a complete able, countries work just fine with multiple minorities. Similarly, ethnicity is just one of many lines along which minorities can be persecuted.
And you think that such a unity is always possible, within a timespan as desired?
|
On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely.
Well, tell me this: can you show me a poll that indicates that, not on any particular issue but as a general reality, most people currently in the EU don't want any decisions made on a supranational level? Because if the answer to that is "no", you don't have much of a case, do you?
|
On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely.
Most of those problems were faced by the US and we solved them by created a central government to play referee between the states. The EU will likely create a strong center government or leave like the UK. But these countries are not physically moving. Modern technology makes us more mobile than ever.
|
On February 10 2017 05:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely. Well, tell me this: can you show me a poll that indicates that, not on any particular issue but as a general reality, most people currently in the EU don't want any decisions made on a supranational level? Because if the answer to that is "no", you don't have much of a case, do you?
That's sort of a strawman. "Don't want any decisions made on a supranational level?" Are we going to dissolve the UN then as well? And let's say that trade deals can fuck off in their entirety. Law of the jungle beyond our borders.
The polls I could find tend to say that people are neither fond of their national governments nor of the EU. Kind of hard to separate one from the other because who is to blame if a nation's leaders are loyal puppy dogs of the EU when the people don't want that. And, to be fair, the view of the EU is not fully negative.
But if you can't see, for example, that the argument for Brexit was in large part one of sovereignty, then I'm not sure what you want.
|
On February 10 2017 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely. Most of those problems were faced by the US and we solved them by created a central government to play referee between the states. The EU will likely create a strong center government or leave like the UK. But these countries are not physically moving. Modern technology makes us more mobile than ever.
I have a feeling that this might just be harder than it was for the US - if for no other reason that France and Britain would be far more likely to resist giving up their sovereignty than Virginia or New York.
Among peasant tiny nations it would probably be mostly the same, though. Free stuff is free stuff and sovereignty for tiny nations is in name only - at best they can choose a master.
|
On February 10 2017 05:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:15 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely. Most of those problems were faced by the US and we solved them by created a central government to play referee between the states. The EU will likely create a strong center government or leave like the UK. But these countries are not physically moving. Modern technology makes us more mobile than ever. I have a feeling that this might just be harder than it was for the US - if for no other reason that France and Britain would be far more likely to resist giving up their sovereignty than Virginia or New York.
I agree. Creating new things is hard. It couldn't be like the way the US is set up at all. It would be a challenging process and one that would need to be championed and defended. I am sure there are nations that would not go along.
|
On February 10 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:15 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely. Most of those problems were faced by the US and we solved them by created a central government to play referee between the states. The EU will likely create a strong center government or leave like the UK. But these countries are not physically moving. Modern technology makes us more mobile than ever. I have a feeling that this might just be harder than it was for the US - if for no other reason that France and Britain would be far more likely to resist giving up their sovereignty than Virginia or New York. I agree. Creating new things is hard. It couldn't be like the way the US is set up at all. It would be a challenging process and one that would need to be championed and defended. I am sure there are nations that would not go along.
If such a union is to be created at some point in the future, the EU in its current state is not the union that will work. If nationalism can eventually be contained reliably enough to make such a union work, it certainly isn't the EU that is capable of doing so.
|
On February 10 2017 05:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:15 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
What we "should and shouldn't" do in redrawing international borders isn't really the issue that should be considered. The real question is, will a certain type of border have any real stability?
Such a stability has a tendency to develop, broadly speaking, across ethnic lines. Okay, but I'm not seeing why that's a strong argument to dissolve the EU. Clearly most Europeans want to be united with each other, the -exit movements are all based off of either fear of immigrants or economic woes, which can both be solved without dissolution. The movements aren't just immigration or economics. That may be the issue of the moment but the overarching issue runs deeper. Basically the people of the individual nations want to make their own decisions as to what laws they do and don't want, rather than being forced into decisions by the EU. "Most" Europeans want some degree of unity and are not yet ready to walk away from the EU project. Some want EU creep towards a single European government. Some want exit. The project perhaps shouldn't be "dissolved" per se as in "everyone fends for themselves" - but downsized to properly account for the reality that nationalism can't be erased? Absolutely. Most of those problems were faced by the US and we solved them by created a central government to play referee between the states. The EU will likely create a strong center government or leave like the UK. But these countries are not physically moving. Modern technology makes us more mobile than ever. I have a feeling that this might just be harder than it was for the US - if for no other reason that France and Britain would be far more likely to resist giving up their sovereignty than Virginia or New York. I agree. Creating new things is hard. It couldn't be like the way the US is set up at all. It would be a challenging process and one that would need to be championed and defended. I am sure there are nations that would not go along. If such a union is to be created at some point in the future, the EU in its current state is not the union that will work. If nationalism can eventually be contained reliably enough to make such a union work, it certainly isn't the EU that is capable of doing so.
History has taught me not to subscribe to that type of fatalism. Things change and so does public opinion. People could turn on nationalism as quickly as it arrived back on the scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
