EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 744
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 01 2017 19:55 warding wrote: One question though, do you believe different ethnic groups can coexist in the same political framework or do you also hold the view that they will inevitably cause a break up? Considering every country of more than ~100 people tends to have multiple ethnic groups - there is no reason why, as a rule, they cannot. Though there are of course endless counterexamples to peaceful coexistence of multiple ethnic groups, which makes it clear that you absolutely can't assume so by default. You can't just put some ethnic groups together, say you have this political framework, and say that it works. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 01 2017 19:51 a_flayer wrote: I think if you foster the concept of appropriate representation with clear lines to maintain a certain level of sovereignty in nations, then it won't be nearly as problematic as you seem to suggest. What kind of sovereignty are we talking about? Enough to be a meaningful union but not so close that you start to tread on people's national identities? If such a thing exists it's certainly not the EU. On April 01 2017 19:51 a_flayer wrote: Comparing the Soviet Union with the European Union and expecting the same results would be like comparing Russia with the United States and expecting that everything should be the same in terms of governments, political culture, etc. Comparing East Europe with East Europe and expecting the same results is fair though. All the same tendencies are there in ways that are impressively predictable for anyone who is familiar with the countries in question. I mean, the biggest difference I can see in East Europe specifically is that "free movement" tends to be far more unidirectional than it was in a system where quality of life was pretty uniform across the board. The "shared community" was there, the "being a part of a larger whole" concept, close political and economic ties, rooting for sporting teams, and so on. The luckiest of the EE's have a flatlining population with an impending demographic disaster; the less lucky ones (Baltics) just straight up lose giant chunks of their working people. Which leads to a downward economic spiral that will reawaken some of the ugly nationalistic tendencies that are present within the EEs - which always surface at their worst in troubled times. Of course, not exactly inevitable because it doesn't seem quite ready to happen right now, and there are far more pressing issues within the EU than disaster in 20 years. Could end up working better than I'm saying it will. But Poland already took a populist leader after some economic troubles so we may be well on our way if we don't get an economic miracle soon. A European Union of just France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, and possibly but not necessarily Britain would very likely last a lot longer than one that took upon itself the lion's share of the ex-Warsaw countries, parts of Yugoslavia, and Greece/Portugal/Spain/Ireland (financial liabilities). But it's too late for that now. You can't un-invite the majority of the countries in the union. | ||
|
ZBiR
Poland1092 Posts
On April 01 2017 20:14 LegalLord wrote: Comparing East Europe with East Europe and expecting the same results is fair though. Being annexed and kept by force and joining something voluntarily are quite different things. The rest of the post depends on this false equivalence. On April 01 2017 16:28 LegalLord wrote: As for Poland, the one that was once the golden boy of the EU, well they elected someone who the European leadership just can't quite stomach and every Pole here seems to be quite enamored with their new government I can't speak for the other posters, but this government had just about 18% of voter base in elections, it's just the low attendance and and a lot of parties not making the threshold that gave them the power. It's also the government with most protests against it in this century, so it's pretty far from having country-wide support. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 01 2017 20:14 LegalLord wrote: What kind of sovereignty are we talking about? Enough to be a meaningful union but not so close that you start to tread on people's national identities? If such a thing exists it's certainly not the EU. Just do it like russia and china, arrest everyone else, drive them away, kill them and give their land to russians and chinese and pretend everyone is better of under their control. The true fear of Putin and nationalists is that there might be a liberal or European identity that becomes an example for other supressed people within countries and which might cause multicultural empires like "russia" to explode. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
You overestimate the pressures towards separation in a large, multicultural historical nation-state like Russia or China though. There simply isn't much of a movement towards that anymore. China had Tibet but frankly the younger generation seems to accept being Chinese with little complaint. Europe on the other hand... historical national divides are rather similar to what you see right now. Sucks since the aftermath of WWII essentially meant that these nations were individually at the mercy of larger states that were as big and powerful as a union of European states. Some form of European integration clearly made sense. When it turned into a "we will destroy nationalism and create a new United States of Europe" project... well it was quite stupid to incorporate a dozen countries with ultranationalist tendencies and underdeveloped economies so quickly without really understanding how that would have an effect on the union as a whole. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 01 2017 19:00 LegalLord wrote: That "blending of identity" may not end up as permanent as you might think it to be. I speak from experience. Poorly conceived conglomerates of nations aren't a new concept. The 20th century alone has seen quite a lot of those. During their heyday, they can certainly foster a sense of shared community. But as certain realities force them apart, it tends to happen that the divisions separate them... across the lines of historical nation-states. Just on this page, you talked about how no nation will look for a national referendum on EU membership. That speaks to the forces trying to level an identity-sharing on their subject irregardless of the direction their citizens feel their identity is moving towards. I think we're seeing in Europe how shared values are coming apart, which hurts international identities and raises national identities. When half your population, or two thirds, or one third, don't like immigration decisions that affect them being decided by foreigners, they're frozen out. That's a large separating force to the kind of cohesion that must exist to keep the EU together and prosperous. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 02 2017 01:14 LegalLord wrote: Ethnic cleansing and then repopulating with your own is actually a very good way to avoid future ethnic conflicts within your borders. You mention Russia and China but you might also want to mention the US which did murder almost the entirety of their native population. The rest were kept as slaves until they kept dying, or pushed far into the west until people finally started to feel bad about taking their entire country away. Sure, it's not morally acceptable anymore, but if we're talking about how you actually form an empire that will last, that will do it. And no, that's not an advocacy for ethnic cleansing. You overestimate the pressures towards separation in a large, multicultural historical nation-state like Russia or China though. There simply isn't much of a movement towards that anymore. China had Tibet but frankly the younger generation seems to accept being Chinese with little complaint. Europe on the other hand... historical national divides are rather similar to what you see right now. Sucks since the aftermath of WWII essentially meant that these nations were individually at the mercy of larger states that were as big and powerful as a union of European states. Some form of European integration clearly made sense. When it turned into a "we will destroy nationalism and create a new United States of Europe" project... well it was quite stupid to incorporate a dozen countries with ultranationalist tendencies and underdeveloped economies so quickly without really understanding how that would have an effect on the union as a whole. Must suck to be a nationalist minority these days with that kind of attitude. I just hope for you that your movements don't provoke what you recommend, just as a pro-European fascism that would put you against the wall. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 02 2017 04:16 Big J wrote: Must suck to be a nationalist minority these days with that kind of attitude. I just hope for you that your movements don't provoke what you recommend, just as a pro-European fascism that would put you against the wall. Honestly I'm not even sure where or what you're trying to argue. All I can gather is that you don't think highly of nationalism; beyond that it's hard to pin down where you're going with any of what you're trying to say. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 02 2017 05:20 Nyxisto wrote: I think he's just somewhat upset about you casually waving away ethnic cleansing two posts ago, which for some reason happens in this threat about every 50 pages Hey, I'm not the one who mentioned it: On April 02 2017 00:54 Big J wrote: Just do it like russia and china, arrest everyone else, drive them away, kill them and give their land to russians and chinese and pretend everyone is better of under their control. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
It's pretty much the poor man's problem solver. Whenever something doesn't work stoke nationalism to make the people happy for a while, but it always comes back to bite them | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 02 2017 04:21 LegalLord wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure where or what you're trying to argue. All I can gather is that you don't think highly of nationalism; beyond that it's hard to pin down where you're going with any of what you're trying to say. I'm saying that you are dead wrong if you think that people will march for the nation state nowadays. The may march against the EU and globalization, but those movements will go down once people realize that what they preach does not solve any of their problems. | ||
|
Yurie
11929 Posts
On April 02 2017 05:29 Big J wrote: I'm saying that you are dead wrong if you think that people will march for the nation state nowadays. The may march against the EU and globalization, but those movements will go down once people realize that what they preach does not solve any of their problems. There are two ways to look at this. The EU and globalization isn't causing their problems either. Automation and too cheap transports are more concrete things to focus on. They are still good things though, we just need to acknowledge they happen and put what measures we can in place. The trend won't stop no matter what you do, unless you make a world government and force it to stop (which is the opposite of what you want it seems). If say France stops improving to keep their jobs and so on then Germany profits and this means nation states can't solve the problem. If the entire EU puts things in against it then China profits and we can end up with an opposite of the opium war in a century. Though the cases where the others followed up after Great Britain is more likely to happen, the power balance shifts enough that appeasement is the only possibility. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On April 01 2017 18:27 warding wrote: Nationalism hardly exists in Portugal. Maybe where you live. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 02 2017 05:29 Big J wrote: I'm saying that you are dead wrong if you think that people will march for the nation state nowadays. The may march against the EU and globalization, but those movements will go down once people realize that what they preach does not solve any of their problems. They will march out of frustration, seeing that the future of the EU and globalization is a disaster for them, until things start to unravel. And in such times, the historical boundary of nation-states will be most stable. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. The EU took upon much more than it should have, turning a trade pact into a massive trans-European political unity project that later chose to incorporate an impressive number of corrupt ethnic shitholes. The only solution that can be thought of to its many faults is to have more Europe until we just feel so European that it's ridiculous. And at this rate we will see it collapse upon itself unless somehow, somewhere the economy just saves everyone from being unhappy. Wouldn't be a moment too soon at this rate. Nationalist sentiments are buried under the surface. They're especially strong in the nations of the East where nationalistic, often fascist, movements have been boiling for decades and have finally been released. Europe took on much more than it could chew and this integration project will fall apart because of it. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
No political party with seats in parliament runs on a nationalistic agenda. The only nationalistic rhetoric I've heard is from the communist party but it's marginal to their platform. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
| ||
| ||
