England..

[KUSA]

England used to own the world. Now it is a country of puss wads.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

England used to own the world. Now it is a country of puss wads.

'Payback's a right old bitch, innit?' India, South Africa, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, the ROI, etc etc.

Boru

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I thought England was already separated from Scotland and Wales.... It's the United Kingdom that binds all these... what do you call them?... states?... countries?...zones?

nations. Collectively a nation state.

England used to own the world. Now it is a country of puss wads.

No idea what that means. The age of empires is long gone; it went out with WWII. Nationalism can only bring about a narrow, selfish form of politics that ultimately disables a state relative to its more inclusive, forward thinking counterparts. The world is globalised, and will increasingly become so. Anyone who thinks their 'state' is special and requires special treatment on the world stage is fooling themselves, doubly so when they see their economy go down the pan because they wanted to engage in narrow, isolationist nationalism (which, imho, is what nationalist trends towards).

What the world should be moving towards, using a neo-liberal or rationalist perspective of world politics (Whichever you subscribe to), is an inclusive world economy that focuses on moving towards a united economic and social front (suppose that contradicts neo-liberal thought but whatever). This would naturally mean societal and economic reform worldwide but it's a goal I think will be realised at some point in humanity's evolution. For me nationalism roadblocks this goal.

[Cyberman]

England used to own the world. Now it is a country of puss wads.

You mean as distinct from America, which used to own America until the Saudis bought it?

[lifesagift]

I thought England was already separated from Scotland and Wales.... It's the United Kingdom that binds all these... what do you call them?... states?... countries?...zones?

nations. Collectively a nation state.

England used to own the world. Now it is a country of puss wads.

No idea what that means. The age of empires is long gone; it went out with WWII. Nationalism can only bring about a narrow, selfish form of politics that ultimately disables a state relative to its more inclusive, forward thinking counterparts. The world is globalised, and will increasingly become so. Anyone who thinks their 'state' is special and requires special treatment on the world stage is fooling themselves, doubly so when they see their economy go down the pan because they wanted to engage in narrow, isolationist nationalism (which, imho, is what nationalist trends towards).

What the world should be moving towards, using a neo-liberal or rationalist perspective of world politics (Whichever you subscribe to), is an inclusive world economy that focuses on moving towards a united economic and social front (suppose that contradicts neo-liberal thought but whatever). This would naturally mean societal and economic reform worldwide but it's a goal I think will be realised at some point in humanity's evolution. For me nationalism roadblocks this goal.

I think I get what you're alluding to, and it's a noble path, but surely human nature, by definition, also blocks this route?

---

Also please forgive me, I am English, living in England, and I didn't realise the potential geographic diversity amongst the posters on here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Q: Why does the sun never set on the British Empire?

A: Because even God doesn't trust the fucking limeys in the dark.

Boru

[Fidel_Castronaut]

nations. Collectively a nation state.


No idea what that means. The age of empires is long gone; it went out with WWII. Nationalism can only bring about a narrow, selfish form of politics that ultimately disables a state relative to its more inclusive, forward thinking counterparts. The world is globalised, and will increasingly become so. Anyone who thinks their 'state' is special and requires special treatment on the world stage is fooling themselves, doubly so when they see their economy go down the pan because they wanted to engage in narrow, isolationist nationalism (which, imho, is what nationalist trends towards).

What the world should be moving towards, using a neo-liberal or rationalist perspective of world politics (Whichever you subscribe to), is an inclusive world economy that focuses on moving towards a united economic and social front (suppose that contradicts neo-liberal thought but whatever). This would naturally mean societal and economic reform worldwide but it's a goal I think will be realised at some point in humanity's evolution. For me nationalism roadblocks this goal.

I think I get what you're alluding to, and it's a noble path, but surely human nature, by definition, also blocks this route?

---

Also please forgive me, I am English, living in England, and I didn't realise the potential geographic diversity amongst the posters on here.

It's already happening. Globalisation will naturally unify those that subscribe to it, be it economically or socially. Personal and corporate connections today are a million times easier to make than even 10 years ago, and will continue to get easier as time goes on. Supranational organisations like the EU and trading partnerships such as those in South America are unifying economies on a level never before seen.

It's certainly going to be a rocky road, and will undoubtedly suffer set backs, but I think it will happen. Not in our life time, but eventually it will IMHO.

[jesus_wept]

What will England look like in 20 years?

Probably a cross between Pakistan and Somalia.

[Cyberman]

People were saying that twenty years ago, and twenty before that. Presumably the Saxons were expressing the same sentiments when the Normans turned up (but then they were French, so slack where slack is due).

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What will England look like in 20 years?

Probably a cross between Pakistan and Somalia.

Why?