(October 15, 2015 at 9:30 am)Ben Davis Wrote:(October 15, 2015 at 8:35 am)Dystopia Wrote: Everyone is a bit nationalist to some degree, it's not avoidable
Wrong. I'm in no way a nationalist. In fact, I'm a globalist. I advocate the dissolution of all borders and all concepts of 'nation' in favour of a secular, liberal-socialist 'United Earth' model. In terms of Europe, I'm pro-federal and would prefer a 'United States of Europe' to the current model as it would be a step in the right direction: ending the harms that result from political application of tribal principles.
In your case a more extreme position arises - I would not consider you a nationalist by the mere virtue that you reject completely the existence of nations and borders, but the majority of people in the world, even if they support federations, treaties and friendships, don't support your vision. The application of tribal principles is what made the existence of nations in the first place, there's no way going back from it - It would be great if we could live in the united States of earth with no military forces needed and peace lasting forever, but I don't see that happening - In fact, I see the fall of capitalism and the rise of nationalism and in some countries nazism/ethnocentrism as a more plasuible scenario for Europe. As always, Europe will have to rebuild itself. If you want to have a notion of what I'm talking about, just check out France's new-right/far-right.
Quote:I didn't claim that 'Europe has the same powers as the US', I claimed that the principles on which the EU are founded are as solid a basis for inter-state cooperation as the 'federal' model is for the US. Sorry if that wasn't clear.You can have lots of inter-state cooperation, treaties and transactions without creating a brand new country. The US federal model is fundamentally distinct and the USA were created back in the day when not everyone had the same influence to decide what was more desirable for such a huge piece of land. Back in the day, the leaders saw a federation as the best goal, but nowadays we have too much information to avoid knowing facts. Europe has a much more violent and different historical context than the US itself - It's not just the fact we were once at war with each other, it goes deeper than that. I don't see how a federation composed by lots of countries whose population hate each other would work.
Quote:Remove the corrupt politicians and properly apply the existing principles of democratic representation. Much easier said than done, I know but the solution seems clear to me.
Existing principles of democratic representation entail, just like in countries the more voted parties get more seats, that stronger economies and higher demographics means more representatives and more power - Therefore, it would be a country ran by Germany and also by France, which is already happening. A lot of Portuguese comedy is mocking German politicians, in particular Merker - Do you know why? Because our politicians are essentially obedient dogs who do whatever Germans tell them to do. How the hell are people supposed to accept a federation on behalf of those circumstances?
The EU is, by itself, built on corruption - If you remove that, there's no way back.
Quote:Each of those movements has a different rationale. Some are rightly unhappy with the way that their 'regional ethnicity' is represented in the national context (a symptom of tribal nationalism, the cure for which is federalism!); others are nothing more than right-wing nutters, yearning for special rights. One could argue that these 'regionalists' may not even oppose federalism if their ethnicity were to be properly represented. One thing is universal, however: they represent a tiny minority of the European population and are not part of a growing 'tendency'. I'm not aware of a single 'regionalist' movement whose basis of existence is opposition to the EU.So in the first point, you are basically saying that forcing a large number of people who want to be independent to be a part of a federation will cure them? How is that so? Have you ever thought that some people don't want to live with each other?
Not a growing tendency? Have you been on par with the rise of the far-right in Europe? I know Britain doesn't have this problem, but countries like France do. Do you think it is a coincidence there's so many young people supporting those movements? Do you think the Golden Dawn's rising in Greece and recent studies on what Greek think of Jews are not a sign of a troubling future?
Quote:That's a good challenge and one which was true for the regions of the US before it was formed. The answer has to be that each country would have to say 'yes', via public referendum to ensure proper democratic representation of a potential member state. That's what I'd do because anything else would be unfair. In the meantime, the EU is, on paper, a good compromise and if it can have the corruption driven out, it might be a vehicle which demonstrates the value of state cooperation, such that other countries might want to join.The issue is that our societies (western) are anything but cooperative - Capitalism is based on competition, not cooperation, and liberalism promotes individual fulfillment, not community oriented ethics - That's why many westerns feel a cultural impact when they travel to Asian and notice how community-oriented people are instead of the traditional individualism and individual rights we have here.
Quote:There are clearer advantages to being in the EU, especially as a small country. The advantages of being in the United Kingdom in doubt.
It just depends, modernization of industries, infrastructures and services done with the EU's money is one of the many good things the EU has brought - The downside is that more and more decisions can now be made by politicians who decide things for all of us and many times what works for one state may not work for another.
Quote:And I don't know if I want it survive in it's current state. In 1994, I voted for something different. For a political Union with guaranteed rights and social security for everyone living there. It has expanded too fast, including countries that only want to cherry pick the economical advantages but have no interest in a political or social Union.
You must be naive if you think the goal of an economic union was to expand social and Human rights. The only truly profitable goal was to import more workers and boost profits of corporations.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you