Pat Doesn't Think Much of the EU

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not all nationalism is bad

Nationalism is basically my dick is bigger than yours. That's primitive, exclusive and ultimately bad.

Not always. There is the concept of civic nationalism in Scotland which is inclusive. The core theme of it is that Scotland is for the people who live and work here regardless of where they are originally from. And if we all work together we can make the country a better place to be.

[Minimalist]

I really do not see the EU surviving in the long term.  A noble experiment but one which is doomed.

[abaris]

I really do not see the EU surviving in the long term.  A noble experiment but one which is doomed.

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.

[Dystopia]

Well as has been mentioned it can just be taking an interest in where you live and recognising that that is why you like it.

No, it can't because there's a distinct line between a cultural interest and heritage and waving a flag at every given opportunity. Cultural lines go smack through the middle of many countries. To take the UK for an example, I don't think, the Scotts or Welsh want to be culturally the same as the English. Same goes for most countries obviously. The Germans are an assembly of many cultural groups and heritages.

So, one is nationalism, the other is simply feeling at home in a certain place.

Which sources are you getting your definition from? Most nationalists are not skinheads waving a Swastika and a national flag - In fact, most people are nationalist to some degree, as long as they support the right to sovereignty of the territory and the independence of their people. The Brazilian integralists promoted race-mixing and were fascist-nationalists.

[abaris]

Which sources are you getting your definition from? Most nationalists are not skinheads waving a Swastika and a national flag

What gives you the impression I'm drawing the lines at Skinheads and Nazis? These are only the ultimate extremes of nationalism. But I stand by what I said. If someone puts their country on a pedestal, it's usually exclusive and primitve.

[Reforged]

I don't think we should send legal migrants back who are already here but it does seem ridiculous we haven't closed the floodgates by now.

This is a complex issue and we are a nation that is far from full. I think people in cities get a distorted view of things like this.

How is "we're far from full" a reason for anything? There is no other country who is allowing this to happen and thats because they understand that its first priority is to look after its current citizens and their future generations. By the time we're full its a little redundant to close the floodgates. The level to which we've permitted migration is nothing short of absurd, it even exceeds the economic reasons for doing it. Its not even like we're just taking in highly educated individuals.

I want to make it clear I'm not a "nationalist". I consider the people already here British citizens but I was hard pressed to find anything inaccurate in alot of what he said. Their culture is fundamentally incompatible and most make no effort to bridge the gap. 
What he said about a rape culture, ok, yes thats shocking and rather inappropriately dramatized. But is it inaccurate? Is what he said about their cultures concept of human rights inaccurate? Is it inaccurate to say the more people you bring over from that culture the more of that culture you bring over? Is anything he said actually inaccurate or is it simply incompatible with the world we want to live in? Can we actually look at whats going on in some of those other countries on a massive scale based on culture, not simply individual will, and say "Nope, he has no point whatsoever"?

And before someone says "Oh well theres alot of good people too...". Yes, ok. And? You don't make national decisions based on the behavior of afew, you make them based on current trends. Look at their leaders, look at their laws, look at their traditions, look at their behaviors once they get over here. 
Lets stop basing conclusions on the world we want to live in and observe the one we do. Does this man have a point?

[Dystopia]

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.

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. 

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Minimalist]

Their culture is fundamentally incompatible and most make no effort to bridge the gap.

This seems to be a basic difference between immigration into the US and immigration into Europe.  Every ethnic group which has arrived in waves in the US has made efforts withing a generation to assimilate into the culture.  Once again, the issue seems to come down to religion.

[Dystopia]

Their culture is fundamentally incompatible and most make no effort to bridge the gap.

This seems to be a basic difference between immigration into the US and immigration into Europe.  Every ethnic group which has arrived in waves in the US has made efforts withing a generation to assimilate into the culture.  Once again, the issue seems to come down to religion.

I think the difference is that in America there's this idea that immigrants must accept American culture (whatever that means) or else they will be marginalized, while in Europe the mentality is one of cohexistence between different cultures to the extent we create special privileges for those who refuse to accept the majority's culture and values. In fact, if you look at free speech in America (I think it is the 1st amendment, right?) and how restricted it is in Europe you'll see what I mean exactly.

I don't know if the fact the US uses an absolute criteria of Ius Solis to grant citizenship might have something to do with this - There's nowhere in Europe where you get citizenship by randomly being born on a specific territory.

I also think racism, to some extent, is much worse in Europe though for different reasons than in the US. Police violence and mass incarceration are not a big problem in Europe, but to balance things - While in the US there's a black president and even active movements who created terms like "African-American" and "Indian-American" (etc.) to promote the idea that everyone who is born in America is an American, in Europe you're pretty much screwed if your'e not white - The majority of natives might see you as a new-citizen with acquired citizenship, but you'll never be seen as a true European(insert nationality).

[Reforged]

Their culture is fundamentally incompatible and most make no effort to bridge the gap.

This seems to be a basic difference between immigration into the US and immigration into Europe.  Every ethnic group which has arrived in waves in the US has made efforts withing a generation to assimilate into the culture.  Once again, the issue seems to come down to religion.

I agree but theres afew other differences.
The test for entrance into the US is more stringent. They have to be able to speak English and actually know quite abit about the country to pass.
People in the US are less forgiving when it comes to dangerous cultural differences. If someone in the US performs an honor killing they go down for life. 
I think finally its respect. Its not that the US has an overwhelming amount of respect from its migrants, its that the UK has none. Getting into this country is a joke and we make every effort to accommodate those who get in illegally but yes, we respect their religion more than we respect our laws.
If a country gives you official citizenship you should make damn sure you conform to that countries way of doing things like an actual citizen. They don't. Theres no pressure to. Its why London is factionized, divided among cultural and religious lines.