Carryfast:
Rjan:
…You seem to be trying to deliberately twist the idea of me just wanting the freedom of ‘my’ MP to reject the wishes of a foreign MP to impose ‘his’ will on ‘me’,as supposedly ‘me’ wanting to impose ‘my’ will on the foreign MP’s constituency/country.When it’s clear that I said Nationalism means the respect of the right to self determination of others just as I expect them to respect mine.IE their MP’s decisions should only apply in ‘their’ country not mine and vice versa.Because I have no democratic control over their MP and they have no democratic vote over mine.Then for whatever reason you seem to want to erroneously or deliberately want to judge that situation by your own undemocratic Soviet style standards.
But individual MPs don’t make decisions - parliaments do. So there’s no question of an individual “foreign” MP imposing his will on you - it is the parliament that does that, democratically.
To say you have no control over the other MPs, because they represent different constituencies, is true at any level of democracy. Even if it is democracy so local that it is purely in your own village, you will still have no ultimate “control” on the other voters.
And I don’t think you’ve grasped my point that I’m not against “self-determination” as a matter of principle, it’s just not workable in any human community. Even in the confines of the family home - and it really doesn’t get any lower level than that - it is a flight of fancy to think that each can live exclusively in his own bedroom and that nothing that each may wish to do (particularly if their entire life must be conducted within its confines, and each house contains several generations of a single family) can possibly bear on the others.
I guess your mentality is very similar to that of the original European settlers of Australia, Africa, and America, of carving out a piece of land for yourself and making a living on it, but even there it was based on a political policy of wilfully disregarding the lifestyle and culture of indigenous people who already inhabited those regions, and the European states from whence they came always loomed in one way or another.
As for the miners you’re saying that it was right for the MP representing Grantham to impose policy in mining areas where she had no democratic mandate.As opposed to the MP’s in those areas being able to VETO or opt out of her imposition.In which case how would that be Yorkshire voters imposing anything on Lincolnshire voters.When Lincolnshire had no bleedin coal mines to decide to keep open or close and even if they had they then wouldn’t have given a zb if she wanted to close only those in her own constituency.IE the miners didn’t vote for Maggie to close their pits because she was never voted for by any constituent in any mining constituency.While it’s obviously you who’s all about imposing your unelected rule in other people’s constituencies ( countries ).
But you’re not understanding that the miners don’t have any inherent rights over those mines - they were not born inside them, in many cases the pit villages had not existed for more than a few generations, and many who resided in them originally hailed from elsewhere.
By the time of the strike, it was the British government that ran them for heaven’s sake and were paying their wages, and immediately before that large national concerns. The days when local private owners ran mines were the days when men regularly died down the mines, and their wives and kids were told to go and swivel - and it was national legislation in the late Victorian period that compelled owners to implement professional management and basic safety precautions.
It was also large national concerns that installed the railways that allowed coal to be moved around effectively. It was the country as a whole that provided the market for the mined coal which underpinned the large amount of employment in those mines.
You’re living in an imaginary world where coal miners were somehow originally local, self-sufficient, self-built communities who were just doing their own thing within their constituency borders, and who had an inherent right to control those mines against the will of anyone else in the country - against the lawmakers who regulated them, the financiers who provided the capital to build them, the taxpayers who provided all the infrastructure they depended on, the other workers who provided all the machinery that is part and parcel of the operation, and so on.
On that note whatever treaties Chamberlain fooled Hitler with
I rather think the record shows that Chamberlain was the fool! 
the fact is it was Stalin who joined Hitler in invading Poland to impose Soviet Socialist rule in Poland.Just as Hitler invaded Poland for similar ■■■■ imposition reasons.The common link being that neither respected the right of self determination of others and their National borders.See the pattern here.
But neither did any other European nation! The Weimar regime folded partly because of the imposition of reparations and the refusal of the victors to go back to respecting borders. But even leaving aside internal European relations, each Empire was romping around the world all through the 19th century carving up the world geography for themselves. America was founded as an outpost of the British state, along with the involvement of a few other nations. Etc etc. The idea that a lack of respect for other people’s nations or geographic boundaries sets Hitler and Stalin apart is an utterly ludicrious analysis of the situation. In fact, there is nothing that sets them apart on matters of principle - they are notable only for initiating the sheer scale of death and destruction inflicted over such a short period of time.
As for Israel it seems strange that you seem to have no issues with the Arabs trying to impose their ideology on Israel when the Arabs have got more than enough territory of their own in the region.
The “Arabs” are not a coherent group or nation. In fact, the national borders were largely drawn by British rulers (in both senses of the word). Moreover, the Jews did not even have a significant presence before the late 40s, and certainly they did not have the nation of Israel in its current form.
Oh wait they’re not bright enough to make that territory a place worth living in for themselves so want to take what Israel has made for itself by its own efforts.Not to mention racism obviously only being an issue when it suits the Socialist agenda not when it’s Arabs hating Jews.
I’ve nothing against Jews - who are certainly not all Zionists - but Israel was built as much with Arab labour as Jewish. It still runs on Arab labour, that’s why they can’t just build walls and exclude Arabs from their society. The people who lived in the area before Israel was formed were expropriated by force of the state, and still are being from time to time.
And my point is this, that it’s one of the most recent and one of the starkest possible examples of one set of people muscling in on the geography of another, and your approach to things leaves you with no option but to condemn it unconditionally.