Calling all brexiteers please sign this if you aint already

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
What a load of codswallop. We didn’t even have a flag in the Saxon period as far as I’m aware (certainly not today’s flag), and I suppose you’d even have complained about the Saxon monarch imposing on the independent English shires. Old English itself derives from the continent, the same other place as Norman French.

The SNP is an ideological hotch-potch. I share a lot of their current views, except those relating to independence - and thankfully the Scots are of a similar opinion. Jesus, without the SNP we’d be without some of the most vigorous left-leaning MPs at Westminster! I’d probably have voted SNP myself in 2015 if they’d have fielded candidates down here!

Admittedly the origins of the Cross of St George are reputedly post Franco Norman conquest however in this case its meaning remains the same as the Dragon,that of an independent England v the Scottish Saltire for example let alone the evil EU flag.As part of a modern Confederal UK which reflects ( what should be ) the local democratic control of all sovereign parts of the ‘UK’ bearing in the mind that Confederal/Indpendent,locally accountable,government isn’t mutually exclusive with Scotland staying loyal to the Queen if that’s what they choose.As opposed to them preferring to keep their own which is a choice for them to make.Which I’d guess is probably how Anglo Saxon England would have progressed had it won out in 1066.As for the King imposing his will on the shires if that was ever the motive there obviously wouldn’t have been any point in having the shire courts.

This is imaginary history, Carryfast. Your idea of “local democracy” is not democracy at all, it is your personal control unfettered by the demands of others - which as I’ve said, would be alright if it were possible to live any sort of life without ever bearing on anybody else, and without ever having to have your interests adjudicated against those of others.

The “shire courts” were not local democracy - they were local dictatorship, often blatantly corrupt in the same way that local government always has been when governors or representatives are too friendly (on a personal level) with a particular section of the governed.

And the effect of so many local powers on trade is simply that every locality and township has a toll bar and no infrastructure exists, with the effect that traders cannot do business because it simply becomes too expensive and high=risk to move goods around, and producers cannot scale (i.e. do the things that require a larger scale than one or two townships) because the breadth of market does not exist.

As for the SNP are you saying that they aren’t actually a Nationalist party in your view assuming by ‘left’ you mean Socialist ?.In which case why are they masquerading under the Nationalist heading when it’s obviously a Scottish Socialist Party with a typically Socialist Soviet ideological position regarding centralised Federal government.

On the contrary, I’m saying they are a nationalist party, and mores the pity.

It’s that obvious contradiction which contains the real agenda going on here.That being a Soviet Socialist takeover of Europe’s nation states taking advantage of the democratic process and local democracy as and when it suits them to hand us over to their Stasi handlers like Merkel.Bearing in mind the last time something similar happened.In the form of Hitler pretending that he was a Nationalist.Using democracy when it suited him to impose centralised Socialist dictatorship across Europe together with his ally Stalin.

It’s like I’ve said, nationalism is not about respect for the sovereignty of other nations - because that would just be a fatal policy. Nationalism is about the assertion of your own sovereignty. The Germans (like the other major European powers) had been nationalist long before Hitler, but it always eventually poses the question of who is going to cede sovereignty: you, or your opponents.

Having said that it would be karma.Regarding a country that submitted to the foreign Franco Norman takeover of the country and then helped it to subjucate the rest of the British Isles and then allowed Heath to finally finish the job.

You could peddle this version of history on the comedy circuit!

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Admittedly the origins of the Cross of St George are reputedly post Franco Norman conquest however in this case its meaning remains the same as the Dragon,that of an independent England v the Scottish Saltire for example let alone the evil EU flag.As part of a modern Confederal UK which reflects ( what should be ) the local democratic control of all sovereign parts of the ‘UK’ bearing in the mind that Confederal/Indpendent,locally accountable,government isn’t mutually exclusive with Scotland staying loyal to the Queen if that’s what they choose.As opposed to them preferring to keep their own which is a choice for them to make.Which I’d guess is probably how Anglo Saxon England would have progressed had it won out in 1066.As for the King imposing his will on the shires if that was ever the motive there obviously wouldn’t have been any point in having the shire courts.

This is imaginary history, Carryfast. Your idea of “local democracy” is not democracy at all, it is your personal control unfettered by the demands of others - which as I’ve said, would be alright if it were possible to live any sort of life without ever bearing on anybody else, and without ever having to have your interests adjudicated against those of others.

The “shire courts” were not local democracy - they were local dictatorship, often blatantly corrupt in the same way that local government always has been when governors or representatives are too friendly (on a personal level) with a particular section of the governed.

And the effect of so many local powers on trade is simply that every locality and township has a toll bar and no infrastructure exists, with the effect that traders cannot do business because it simply becomes too expensive and high=risk to move goods around, and producers cannot scale (i.e. do the things that require a larger scale than one or two townships) because the breadth of market does not exist.

As for the SNP are you saying that they aren’t actually a Nationalist party in your view assuming by ‘left’ you mean Socialist ?.In which case why are they masquerading under the Nationalist heading when it’s obviously a Scottish Socialist Party with a typically Socialist Soviet ideological position regarding centralised Federal government.

On the contrary, I’m saying they are a nationalist party, and mores the pity.

It’s that obvious contradiction which contains the real agenda going on here.That being a Soviet Socialist takeover of Europe’s nation states taking advantage of the democratic process and local democracy as and when it suits them to hand us over to their Stasi handlers like Merkel.Bearing in mind the last time something similar happened.In the form of Hitler pretending that he was a Nationalist.Using democracy when it suited him to impose centralised Socialist dictatorship across Europe together with his ally Stalin.

It’s like I’ve said, nationalism is not about respect for the sovereignty of other nations - because that would just be a fatal policy. Nationalism is about the assertion of your own sovereignty. The Germans (like the other major European powers) had been nationalist long before Hitler, but it always eventually poses the question of who is going to cede sovereignty: you, or your opponents.

Having said that it would be karma.Regarding a country that submitted to the foreign Franco Norman takeover of the country and then helped it to subjucate the rest of the British Isles and then allowed Heath to finally finish the job.

You could peddle this version of history on the comedy circuit!

Why should the demands of the English voters be imposed on Scottish voters and vice versa.Or the European vote in England.Especially when neither has any democratic control over each other’s MP’s.

On what evidence do you base your idea that Nationalism isn’t all about respect of the right to self determination of others.Are you saying that Catalans are expansionist nutters looking to take over Spain or that Ireland was out to take over the UK.Also bearing in mind that both the Nazis and Stalinists were allies in the Socialist anti nation state subjugation of Europe before falling out with each other.

As for local democracy you don’t seem to have answered the question as to whether you aree that MP’s in mining constituencies should have had the power to VETO or at least opt out of Thatcher’s mine closure policy ?.

Oh wait you’re happy to sacrifice democracy and the nation state when you think that you’ve got more foreign allies for your personal ideology than you’ve got at home.

You say that the SNP are Nationalists.In which case how can they possibly be allied with your Federal European agenda,which exchanges undemocratic rule from Westminster with even more undemocratic rule from Brussels,which as we all know and as you’ve admitted yourself they definitely are.

While it seems clear that your idea will just enlarge the same Socialist v Nationalist arguments onto a European scale and platform in which case I’d guess that we’ve got as many allies across Europe as you have such as in Catalonia and parts of Eastern Europe and increasingly Germany,Swiss and Austria.Ironically possibly even more so.In which case ironically we might just as well go along with your European agenda and argue those ideological differences out on a European basis.As for that being a comedy.Unfortunately for Europe probably anything but in the long term. Especially when you try to impose your open door immigration policies and social engineering agenda in places like Poland against the consent of the Polish people and where they won’t give a zb about EU bribes to toe the line paid for at our expense.Or your BBC pravda type propaganda broadcasts because they’ve heard and seen it all before in the form of the Soviet Union’s rule over them.That ended well.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Why should the demands of the English voters be imposed on Scottish voters and vice versa.Or the European vote in England.Especially when neither has any democratic control over each other’s MP’s.

Because the MP is not the controller. The MP is the person you send to Parliament to represent you as part of the democratic process. Other voters send their MP. (The Parliamentary democracy we have is not necessarily the only kind of democracy, though.)

When your position here is boiled down, it amounts to a rejection of democracy because you don’t have control over the other voters! That’s not the purpose of democracy. Part of the function of democracy is to rehearse the mentality that you act as peers influencing collective policy, not as individual sovereigns bargaining for your own immediate benefit. We tolerate collective policies because they are mutually beneficial in the round. At some point in the past people have experienced the effects of acting as individual sovereigns themselves and of trying to deal with other individual sovereigns on those terms.

Another function of democracy is to provide a forum where common policies are discussed, and to embed the habit and expectation of discussion, and where individual voters are expected to familiarise themselves with policy and contribute to the collective understanding of the nature and effects of common policy (including proposed policy), and to help integrate different aspects of common policy.

Voting helps not only iron out individual idiosyncracies, but acts as a declaration that any particular policy has the commitment of the most people for the time being (which can always be changed later by another vote after a period of reflection, if a policy is put to the test and perceptions of it change). Voting is not the method by which policies are assured to be correct, only a measure of what the most people perceive to be correct, and hence it helps (more so than any other method) to maintain the integrity of the political whole.

On what evidence do you base your idea that Nationalism isn’t all about respect of the right to self determination of others.

There is a great deal of evidence that, within that mentality, if your own right of self-determination comes into conflict with others’ equivalent rights to self-determination, it is your own right that is prioritised over the others’ rights. Many political conflicts arise that involve the interests of more than one sovereign, and they don’t always arise in such a fashion that the problem can be simply put into abeyance or the status quo maintained indefinitely.

Few sovereigns are in practice willing to constrain themselves only to activities that absolutely do not impugn the rights and interests of others, because so little in life can be done within those terms. Other sovereigns who attempt to reinforce the principle on those whose commitment to the principle starts to slip, must themselves violate the principle and often much more grossly by interfering in the other’s affairs. And because the sovereign who was initially slipping from the mutual principles of respect had already begun to prioritise their own interests and reject mutual respect, the intervention of other sovereigns is rarely perceived as the firm but helping hand of discipline, but as a cause for a much greater grievance.

Are you saying that Catalans are expansionist nutters looking to take over Spain or that Ireland was out to take over the UK.

Not for the time being, but look at Israel and the Zionists. And bear in mind that I’m not saying nationalism is inherently expansionist geographically. I’m saying that it inevitably seeks to impose upon its neighbours even if it does not want to destroy them - and not always as an aggressive act, but as an expression of self-determination and a by-product of the wielding of power and what it seeks to achieve. The seeking to destroy comes later, once tensions and grievances have accumulated, when those neighbours refuse to be imposed upon, and indeed seek to impose in their turn.

Also bearing in mind that both the Nazis and Stalinists were allies in the Socialist anti nation state subjugation of Europe before falling out with each other.

Hitler was allies with everyone before he fell out with everyone. He had a peace treaty with Chamberlain at the same time as he was running the concentration camps (a practice that had itself been an innovation of the British only a few decades before).

As for local democracy you don’t seem to have answered the question as to whether you aree that MP’s in mining constituencies should have had the power to VETO or at least opt out of Thatcher’s mine closure policy ?

I thought I had answered that, when I said no, they should not in principle have the power to veto (although I can see why it sometimes exists initially in democracies whilst work is done to dissolve old divisions and dismantle degenerate local allegiances, such as in Northern Irish politics).

And even in your terms, it would follow that other MPs would have the right to veto access to their coal markets, their use of common infrastructure, and so on - which would still have the same effect of closing down mining activity, but by wielding power and vetoes on the assumptions that underpinned large-scale mining activity (such as the existence of outlet markets for coal in other Tory MPs’ territories), rather than simply controlling the activity directly.

The irony is that Thatcher (and those of her mentality) could have done substantial collective damage with such local vetoes, even in the absence of actually winning a majority in a general election, which is why such absolute local control is demolished in the course of building nations historically.

If miners as workers didn’t want a right-wing government, then maybe workers shouldn’t have voted for one, or maybe it reflects an underlying division amongst workers themselves that had to be resolved (and for which they’ll suffer in the meantime against bosses who are united).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Why should the demands of the English voters be imposed on Scottish voters and vice versa.Or the European vote in England.Especially when neither has any democratic control over each other’s MP’s.

Because the MP is not the controller. The MP is the person you send to Parliament to represent you as part of the democratic process. Other voters send their MP. (The Parliamentary democracy we have is not necessarily the only kind of democracy, though.)

When your position here is boiled down, it amounts to a rejection of democracy because you don’t have control over the other voters! That’s not the purpose of democracy. Part of the function of democracy is to rehearse the mentality that you act as peers influencing collective policy, not as individual sovereigns bargaining for your own immediate benefit. We tolerate collective policies because they are mutually beneficial in the round. At some point in the past people have experienced the effects of acting as individual sovereigns themselves and of trying to deal with other individual sovereigns on those terms.

Another function of democracy is to provide a forum where common policies are discussed, and to embed the habit and expectation of discussion, and where individual voters are expected to familiarise themselves with policy and contribute to the collective understanding of the nature and effects of common policy (including proposed policy), and to help integrate different aspects of common policy.

Voting helps not only iron out individual idiosyncracies, but acts as a declaration that any particular policy has the commitment of the most people for the time being (which can always be changed later by another vote after a period of reflection, if a policy is put to the test and perceptions of it change). Voting is not the method by which policies are assured to be correct, only a measure of what the most people perceive to be correct, and hence it helps (more so than any other method) to maintain the integrity of the political whole.

On what evidence do you base your idea that Nationalism isn’t all about respect of the right to self determination of others.

There is a great deal of evidence that, within that mentality, if your own right of self-determination comes into conflict with others’ equivalent rights to self-determination, it is your own right that is prioritised over the others’ rights. Many political conflicts arise that involve the interests of more than one sovereign, and they don’t always arise in such a fashion that the problem can be simply put into abeyance or the status quo maintained indefinitely.

Few sovereigns are in practice willing to constrain themselves only to activities that absolutely do not impugn the rights and interests of others, because so little in life can be done within those terms. Other sovereigns who attempt to reinforce the principle on those whose commitment to the principle starts to slip, must themselves violate the principle and often much more grossly by interfering in the other’s affairs. And because the sovereign who was initially slipping from the mutual principles of respect had already begun to prioritise their own interests and reject mutual respect, the intervention of other sovereigns is rarely perceived as the firm but helping hand of discipline, but as a cause for a much greater grievance.

Are you saying that Catalans are expansionist nutters looking to take over Spain or that Ireland was out to take over the UK.

Not for the time being, but look at Israel and the Zionists. And bear in mind that I’m not saying nationalism is inherently expansionist geographically. I’m saying that it inevitably seeks to impose upon its neighbours even if it does not want to destroy them - and not always as an aggressive act, but as an expression of self-determination and a by-product of the wielding of power and what it seeks to achieve. The seeking to destroy comes later, once tensions and grievances have accumulated, when those neighbours refuse to be imposed upon, and indeed seek to impose in their turn.

Also bearing in mind that both the Nazis and Stalinists were allies in the Socialist anti nation state subjugation of Europe before falling out with each other.

Hitler was allies with everyone before he fell out with everyone. He had a peace treaty with Chamberlain at the same time as he was running the concentration camps (a practice that had itself been an innovation of the British only a few decades before).

As for local democracy you don’t seem to have answered the question as to whether you aree that MP’s in mining constituencies should have had the power to VETO or at least opt out of Thatcher’s mine closure policy ?

I thought I had answered that, when I said no, they should not in principle have the power to veto (although I can see why it sometimes exists initially in democracies whilst work is done to dissolve old divisions and dismantle degenerate local allegiances, such as in Northern Irish politics).

And even in your terms, it would follow that other MPs would have the right to veto access to their coal markets, their use of common infrastructure, and so on - which would still have the same effect of closing down mining activity, but by wielding power and vetoes on the assumptions that underpinned large-scale mining activity (such as the existence of outlet markets for coal in other Tory MPs’ territories), rather than simply controlling the activity directly.

The irony is that Thatcher (and those of her mentality) could have done substantial collective damage with such local vetoes, even in the absence of actually winning a majority in a general election, which is why such absolute local control is demolished in the course of building nations historically.

If miners as workers didn’t want a right-wing government, then maybe workers shouldn’t have voted for one, or maybe it reflects an underlying division amongst workers themselves that had to be resolved (and for which they’ll suffer in the meantime against bosses who are united).

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.

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 ).On that note whatever treaties Chamberlain fooled Hitler with 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.

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.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.

[rjan]

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.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
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.

It’s clear that I was making the case that our present system of democracy isn’t fit for purpose.In that there needs to be seperation of decision making on localised issues.IE industrial policy in mining areas for example.Or development policy which should only be decided at local level not MP’s from Lincolnshire deciding on mine closures in Yorkshire and Kent.Or MP’s around the country deciding development policy in the South Eastern counties which should be left to those counties to decide at local council level.Meanwhile no surprise that ‘your lot’ wish to turn all that round when it suits you.As in the case of Kahn and Sturgeon wanting to use the idea of self determination when it suits them to overturn a National democratic decision on what is unarguably a National issue in order to impose foreign Federal government on the country and turn it into a state of your USSR.You couldn’t make it up.

As for Stalin and Hitler I said their invasion of Poland didn’t set them ‘apart’.It showed that they were Socialists acting ‘together’ in a typical Socialist agenda of aggressive expansionist invasion and Federal takeover of a sovereign Nation State among others.

As for local democracy this is real local democracy in action.No doubt you’ll abhorr it on the grounds that you think all of Europe’s nation states let alone Swiss cantons should be dissolved and the EU politiburo should decide everything just so long as it’s in line with your ideological aims.

ch.ch/en/demokratie/politica … l-referen/

As for Chamberlain.No ‘the record’ shows he was a genius who saved the country by fooling Hitler and buying us the time needed to stand a chance of getting the hardware together needed to fight with.Unless you think that the Battle of Britain could have been won with broom handles or the RAF was armed to the teeth with Spitfires and the trained pilots to fly them in 1938.While if you think he was an appeaser do you really think that he’d have over seen and implemented that re armament programme while at the same time calling for peace for the German public’s consumption.While no doubt you’d have been supporting Stalin on the grounds that bringing Europe into the Soviet Union before Hitler could get us first would have been a better move for us all.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
…

It’s clear that I was making the case that our present system of democracy isn’t fit for purpose.In that there needs to be seperation of decision making on localised issues.IE industrial policy in mining areas for example.Or development policy which should only be decided at local level not MP’s from Lincolnshire deciding on mine closures in Yorkshire and Kent.Or MP’s around the country deciding development policy in the South Eastern counties which should be left to those counties to decide at local council level.

But you haven’t addressed my point that mining is not (and never really has been) an inherently local concern. The Yorkshire miners weren’t just supplying coal for people’s front room fires in the Yorkshire counties - in fact two majors users of coal, electric power generation and steel production, are both national concerns in turn. If the miners were expecting to just supply Yorkshire’s purely local consumption of coal, most of them would be sent down the road jobless anyway, because the scale of employment in coal mining was never based on meeting purely local need.

Meanwhile no surprise that ‘your lot’ wish to turn all that round when it suits you.

It would be nice if you’d point out where I’m flip-flopping when it suits me. As far as I’m concerned I’m being remarkably consistent on democracy.

As in the case of Kahn and Sturgeon wanting to use the idea of self determination when it suits them to overturn a National democratic decision on what is unarguably a National issue in order to impose foreign Federal government on the country and turn it into a state of your USSR.You couldn’t make it up.

I don’t support Scottish nationalism myself, but the point is that if you do support any kind of nationalism, then Sturgeon’s argument makes perfect sense - the Scottish people voted to Remain, so that ought to be their local choice to remain inside the EU if they want to. So too, the London constituencies voted to Remain, so they are entitled to have their local choice respected. The fact that this would smash the national government entirely is no different to how your localism would smash national government (and is intended to smash all higher-level government, because you object to MPs in other constituencies having a say on matters that affect your constituency).

I’m a Remainer but I’m not in favour of any overriding of democracy.

As for Stalin and Hitler I said their invasion of Poland didn’t set them ‘apart’.It showed that they were Socialists acting ‘together’ in a typical Socialist agenda of aggressive expansionist invasion and Federal takeover of a sovereign Nation State among others.

But nobody seriously characterises all the 19th century European empires as “socialist”, just because they were all aggressively expansionist.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But you haven’t addressed my point that mining is not (and never really has been) an inherently local concern. The Yorkshire miners weren’t just supplying coal for people’s front room fires in the Yorkshire counties - in fact two majors users of coal, electric power generation and steel production, are both national concerns in turn. If the miners were expecting to just supply Yorkshire’s purely local consumption of coal, most of them would be sent down the road jobless anyway, because the scale of employment in coal mining was never based on meeting purely local need.

It would be nice if you’d point out where I’m flip-flopping when it suits me. As far as I’m concerned I’m being remarkably consistent on democracy.

I don’t support Scottish nationalism myself, but the point is that if you do support any kind of nationalism, then Sturgeon’s argument makes perfect sense - the Scottish people voted to Remain, so that ought to be their local choice to remain inside the EU if they want to. So too, the London constituencies voted to Remain, so they are entitled to have their local choice respected. The fact that this would smash the national government entirely is no different to how your localism would smash national government (and is intended to smash all higher-level government, because you object to MPs in other constituencies having a say on matters that affect your constituency).

I’m a Remainer but I’m not in favour of any overriding of democracy.

But nobody seriously characterises all the 19th century European empires as “socialist”, just because they were all aggressively expansionist.

So we have a flawed system of government that didn’t allow the wishes,or at least democratic control over the wishes,of MP’s in mining constituencies,to trump those of others in other parts of the country,that had no mining industries to lose,over the specific issue of mine closures.In the dash to replace uk mined coal with imported coal and more expensive nuclear power etc.To the point where the country is now a net importer of energy.How did EU membership fix that.As opposed to it helping the French nuclear power industry and foreign miners etc to not only take UK miners’ jobs but also went against the national interest.By making us dependent on foreign energy provision and with it adding to the trade deficit which adds to the country’s debt mountain which means less money for the NHS and the net loss of jobs in the mining industry and dependent industries.With not a word from the EU defending the interests of UK miners.So that was the NUM smashed.

How can it be possible for any so called ‘Nationalist’ to support handing the sovereignty of the ‘Nation’ over to the EU Federal government ?.IE Scotland can’t possibly be a sovereign nation state as an EU member state.Just as it can’t be a sovereign nation state as part of the UK.As opposed to being subject to the sovereignty of the EU commissioners and EU qualified majority MEP vote.Just as the rule of the UK parliament trumps the Scottish one.On that note I don’t believe that you even believe your own bs in that regard.As for the Scottish voting for remain they also voted to remain part of the UK Federation too.In which case it’s obvious that whatever the Scottish in general and the SNP vote is voting for it ain’t Nationalism and they obviously don’t believe that the SNP is a Nationalist Party either.Which is why the so called Nationalist vote is mostly made up of remainers including its lying leader who is anything but a Nationalist.

As I said Nationalist by definition means the respect of the right to self determination and national borders of others.On that note I view Scotland as a sovereign nation while not London which is definitely a part of England and should be subject to the rule of England not the Mayor of London ( in regards to National matters ).With the issue of the sovereignty of England v the EU Federation being a national matter not a local one and therefore not part of the remit of that hypocritical Soviet Socialist zb and his Soviet leaning London vote.As for Scotland wanting to be part of the EUSSR on the basis of Socialists masquerading as so called Nationalists I wouldn’t view that type of typical Socialist fraud as worthy of the respect of self determination either.More like the same as the lying nazis who again were Socialists pretending to be Nationalists to hijack the Nationalist vote and the federalist zb’s before them in the case of Prussia’s federalist dictatorship hijacking the seperate sovereign states that existed before 1871.IE not respecting the right of self determination of others so certainly not Nationalists.Then obviously not being satisfied with that in wanting to take over the rest of Europe one way or another.Just like Hitler’s socialist ally Stalin.

It really is tiring to keep on having to defend Nationalism against the fraudulent accusations in the Socialists trying to twist Nationalism as meaning expansionist takeover of others when history proves that is the MO of Socialists allied/combined with Federalism.Unless that is self determination and local democracy suits their fraudulent aims in using it when it suits them to hand the sovereignty of the country over to any foreign power who they perceive as being on ‘their’ side.In this case that being the EUSSR.Let alone in the case of Kahn that being based on the interests of London’s bankers losing out on their German investments rather than him giving a zb about the lost revenue to the NHS of our EU ‘contributions’.Or his support of Brit jobs for European workers and European immigration policy regarding non EU immigration and the effect of all that on the trade deficit,unemployment,wage levels and the demand for services and housing.Then him wanting to trample all over the self determination of the neighbouring counties by wanting to impose housing development outside London’s borders,if not as usual the effective expansion of London’s borders,to house his resulting unsustainable population growth.You couldn’t make it up.Oh wait that of course increases his remit and potential vote.Socialists again distorting democracy by changing boundaries and moving in an alien vote for their own interests,helped by their federalist Conservative allies wanting yet more cheap labour and loyal EU voters brought in.Who would have thought it.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
It really is tiring to keep on having to defend Nationalism…

It is a tough gig for sure.

…against the fraudulent accusations in the Socialists trying to twist Nationalism as meaning expansionist takeover of others when history proves that is the MO of Socialists allied/combined with Federalism.

What I think we’ve established is that you’re not even really a nationalist. You’re an inveterate separatist, along whatever gerrymandered fracture lines happen to suit your agenda or argument at any one moment, and apparently oblivious to the fact that your opponents gain just as much additional veto power as you do every time a political fracture occurs. It may well mean that they can impose what they wanted to impose on you anyway, especially if the majority of other local interests are hostile to the agenda of your locality, but what is permanently lost is the higher-level structures that frequently enable real cooperation and economic integration.

In your case of the miners, if each constituency had had a long-standing veto over national matters, all that would have happened was that mineshafts would never have been sunk in Yorkshire, and power stations and steelworks would never have been built there, because taxpayers around the country (never mind private investors) would not have tolerated sinking billions in capital into large fixed works, only to be beholden to a complex national matrix of local interests, local vetoes, and varying local laws that could change at any moment (and without any regard to the greater good or the national body of opinion).

That’s why most major canals, turnpike roads, and later railways, used to need a specific act of Parliament to enable them, because it involved expropriating landowners, eliminating local powers to tax trade, and better transport links always threatened local vested interests in a variety of ways, and it was only with the force of the (national) state that such projects could be organised and achieved and guaranteed to be operable as going concerns free of local interference and obstruction.

As for national expansionism, it’s simply a historical fact that every nation or kingship in Europe has done it throughout their history - they have expanded, conquered, and colonised the larger part of the Earth. That is, there is no history in Europe of this mutual national respect which you advocate - not at any time, whether fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago.

I’ve said before that I’m aware of only one example in modern history that resembles what you advocate, which is Japan under the Tokugawa regime, and they abandoned the policy after 250 years because it left them economically backward, and they then became an expansionary nation (like the European nations already were) as their economy grew and they needed access to raw materials and export markets that couldn’t be provided for within their own borders.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
It really is tiring to keep on having to defend Nationalism…

It is a tough gig for sure.

…against the fraudulent accusations in the Socialists trying to twist Nationalism as meaning expansionist takeover of others when history proves that is the MO of Socialists allied/combined with Federalism.

What I think we’ve established is that you’re not even really a nationalist. You’re an inveterate separatist, along whatever gerrymandered fracture lines happen to suit your agenda or argument at any one moment, and apparently oblivious to the fact that your opponents gain just as much additional veto power as you do every time a political fracture occurs. It may well mean that they can impose what they wanted to impose on you anyway, especially if the majority of other local interests are hostile to the agenda of your locality, but what is permanently lost is the higher-level structures that frequently enable real cooperation and economic integration.

In your case of the miners, if each constituency had had a long-standing veto over national matters, all that would have happened was that mineshafts would never have been sunk in Yorkshire, and power stations and steelworks would never have been built there, because taxpayers around the country (never mind private investors) would not have tolerated sinking billions in capital into large fixed works, only to be beholden to a complex national matrix of local interests, local vetoes, and varying local laws that could change at any moment (and without any regard to the greater good or the national body of opinion).

That’s why most major canals, turnpike roads, and later railways, used to need a specific act of Parliament to enable them, because it involved expropriating landowners, eliminating local powers to tax trade, and better transport links always threatened local vested interests in a variety of ways, and it was only with the force of the (national) state that such projects could be organised and achieved and guaranteed to be operable as going concerns free of local interference and obstruction.

As for national expansionism, it’s simply a historical fact that every nation or kingship in Europe has done it throughout their history - they have expanded, conquered, and colonised the larger part of the Earth. That is, there is no history in Europe of this mutual national respect which you advocate - not at any time, whether fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago.

I’ve said before that I’m aware of only one example in modern history that resembles what you advocate, which is Japan under the Tokugawa regime, and they abandoned the policy after 250 years because it left them economically backward, and they then became an expansionary nation (like the European nations already were) as their economy grew and they needed access to raw materials and export markets that couldn’t be provided for within their own borders.

Nationalist by definition means seperatist because national borders are there to seperate not unify.As opposed to you being obviously ideologically Soviet Socialist Federalist.

As for what I advocate that would obviously be along the lines of Switzerland in terms of our government not a bunch of alien oriental retards.So tell us when exactly did Switzerland attempt to subjugate and invade anyone and how is the Swiss system of government in any way shape or form compatible with the EU Federal government system.As opposed to Socialism and Federalism in whatever form in everything from the Soviet Union to the Yugoslav Federation.With Empire building obviously fitting the definition of Federalism not Nationalism as part of that.

As for the birth and in fact most of the life of our mining industry we obviously weren’t and didn’t need to be a part of the EU to create that.While remind us what happened to it after 1973.While it’s so much better for us to be dependent on foreign energy supplies and suppliers adding to an unsustainable trade deficit and ripping off UK customers to subsidise the energy costs of European consumers.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
As for what I advocate that would obviously be along the lines of Switzerland in terms of our government not a bunch of alien oriental retards.So tell us when exactly did Switzerland attempt to subjugate and invade anyone and how is the Swiss system of government in any way shape or form compatible with the EU Federal government system.As opposed to Socialism and Federalism in whatever form in everything from the Soviet Union to the Yugoslav Federation.With Empire building obviously fitting the definition of Federalism not Nationalism as part of that.

But Switzerland is not a self-contained country. It’s economic interest has always been in cross-border activity. If it vetoed anything the countries around it didn’t like, they’d just embargo the place.

As for the birth and in fact most of the life of our mining industry we obviously weren’t and didn’t need to be a part of the EU to create that.While remind us what happened to it after 1973.While it’s so much better for us to be dependent on foreign energy supplies and suppliers adding to an unsustainable trade deficit and ripping off UK customers to subsidise the energy costs of European consumers.

I’m not making a point about the EU with mining. I’m making a point about the absurdity of the local vetoes which you have supported. I’m not trying to make out that I’m in favour of mines shutting - I’m simply saying that localism is no answer to centralised Toryism which has widespread democratic support.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
As for what I advocate that would obviously be along the lines of Switzerland in terms of our government not a bunch of alien oriental retards.So tell us when exactly did Switzerland attempt to subjugate and invade anyone and how is the Swiss system of government in any way shape or form compatible with the EU Federal government system.As opposed to Socialism and Federalism in whatever form in everything from the Soviet Union to the Yugoslav Federation.With Empire building obviously fitting the definition of Federalism not Nationalism as part of that.

But Switzerland is not a self-contained country. It’s economic interest has always been in cross-border activity. If it vetoed anything the countries around it didn’t like, they’d just embargo the place.

As for the birth and in fact most of the life of our mining industry we obviously weren’t and didn’t need to be a part of the EU to create that.While remind us what happened to it after 1973.While it’s so much better for us to be dependent on foreign energy supplies and suppliers adding to an unsustainable trade deficit and ripping off UK customers to subsidise the energy costs of European consumers.

I’m not making a point about the EU with mining. I’m making a point about the absurdity of the local vetoes which you have supported. I’m not trying to make out that I’m in favour of mines shutting - I’m simply saying that localism is no answer to centralised Toryism which has widespread democratic support.

The fact remains that Switzerland hasn’t ever compromised its system of national government and sovereignty by joining the EU.While the jury is still very much out there among its people,regarding the argument as to whether they should compromise at all regarding the acceptance of ‘any’ EU ruling based on the blackmail of trade.Which is why they also ditched their EEA membership.Which means that EU rulings regarding free movement for example are still subject to Swiss referendum vote.

rt.com/news/416134-swiss-eu-free-movement/

Assuming the SVP hopefully wins the vote and the Swiss government then refuses to toe the line with the EU in that regard are you saying that it’s right for the EU to then impose trade sanctions on the Swiss on the basis that EU law must trump Swiss law and isn’t that just typical Federalist aggression in trying to impose the EU’s will on a sovereign country ?.Again that makes the EU the expansionist aggressor in that case not Switzerland.Let alone the EU refusing to recognise Swiss and UK passports as part of that which would effectively be an even more aggressive act of war.

As for that blackmail and aggression applied to ( what should be ) a Swiss and UK/English alliance in the form of EFTA bring it on bearing in mind that the EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to it.While if the EU really wants to ramp that up to effectively putting Switzerland under siege and refusing to recognise the rights of Swiss and UK passports then that is effectively an act of war and all bets should be off at that point.Again obviously the result of Stalinist/Napoleonic/■■■■ style Federalist aggression not Nationalist.

On that note why do you view the idea of Nationalism and National sovereignty as being mutually exclusive with also being left wing in view point.IE you don’t have to be a Socialist to support the working class struggle.While in fact actually seeing the idea of National sovereignty and democracy as an asset in that regard against the forces of the globalist elites.With free movement just effectively being a form of people trafficking based on similar economics as slavery.While the Socialists obviously see the effective dissolution of National borders as a way to move in a foreign demographic which they perceive as being advantageous to their centralised Soviet style anti nation state ideology.In which its obviously you who’s allied with centralised Conservative Unionism not Nationalists like me.All based on a typical aggressive Soviet/Federalist MO of do as we tell you to do or we’ll attack you in whatever form we choose and then you’ve got the nerve to blame the resulting fight on Nationalists standing up for their rights to self determination.Also no surprise that you’d deliberately confuse what I said in the form of ‘local democracy’ trumping National parliamentary government in the case of ‘local decision’ making.With the idea of closing down our mining industry in favour of us being a net importer of energy instead definitely being a local decision for MP’s in mining areas and preferably their constituents in the form of local referendum,not bleedin Thatcher.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Assuming the SVP hopefully wins the vote and the Swiss government then refuses to toe the line with the EU in that regard are you saying that it’s right for the EU to then impose trade sanctions on the Swiss on the basis that EU law must trump Swiss law and isn’t that just typical Federalist aggression in trying to impose the EU’s will on a sovereign country ?

No, trade sanctions (by which we mean the willingness of one nation to trade with another, and on what terms) aren’t “federalist aggression”, they’re an expression of the sovereignty of other nations (including the EU nations collectively) who get to decide the terms on which they themselves trade with the Swiss. And if another sovereign nation like Switzerland doesn’t like it, then they lump it, and they don’t trade with the EU.

You really need to grasp this point about sovereignty Carryfast, because I’m convinced that if you were to do so, the rest of the jigsaw will fall into place, and we would be able to have a sensible conversation - instead of me constantly facing a word-salad of “federalist aggression” and “socialist totalitarianism” and all the rest of it.

Again that makes the EU the expansionist aggressor in that case not Switzerland.Let alone the EU refusing to recognise Swiss and UK passports as part of that which would effectively be an even more aggressive act of war.

No, it isn’t, it’s the expression of the sovereignty of the EU. That’s what sovereign nations get to do - they say you either deal on our terms, or you go and swivel and we don’t deal, and that’s what sovereignty is. The EU doesn’t have to accept UK or Swiss passports, or do any trade with them, because they themselves get to decide who they do and don’t deal with.

If you can’t see that you’re talking utter bunk when you accuse other nations of an “act of war” because they insist on the right to decide whose passports they’re willing to accept at their own frontiers, then there really is no hope for you.

If you don’t like other nations having the right to decide whether they accept your passports or not, and see it as an “act of war” when they refuse to let you in, then you’re clearly not in favour of self-determining, mutually-respected national sovereignty, despite all the fuss you make about it.

As for that blackmail and aggression…

No, not “blackmail and aggression”, sovereignty!

It’s high time you wake up and realise that, in the world - especially a world where such a big deal is made about asserting sovereignty - you’re not the only one who is going to assert it.

On that note why do you view the idea of Nationalism and National sovereignty as being mutually exclusive with also being left wing in view point.

I’ve already taken great pains to explain why nationalism (in the context of global trade) is antithetical to democracy, and why any sort of truly self-contained nationalism (the examples of which are thin on the ground throughout history, and totally unheard of in the 20th century) would be an economic shot to the temple for living standards.

IE you don’t have to be a Socialist to support the working class struggle.

I’m afraid you have to be some sort of socialist to “support working class struggle”, unless you don’t know what any of these words mean. That is the case even if we accept that there are many radically different visions for what exactly socialism is - but one thing is for sure, no kind of socialist is against political unification as a matter of principle. Even those who in the past have argued for “socialism in one country”, it is a practical compromise rather than an ideological principle - a way to establish socialism gradually and a lever for eventually extending socialism into other countries once the working classes of other countries see that it can be achieved.

While in fact actually seeing the idea of National sovereignty and democracy as an asset in that regard against the forces of the globalist elites.

It isn’t an asset against global elites, it’s a hobble. The greatest asset against global elites is more global democracy, otherwise they simply play the workers of one nation off against another.

With free movement just effectively being a form of people trafficking based on similar economics as slavery.

But I’m not in favour of low-wage workers being shipped around for exploitation. What you can’t seem to separate is the distinction between being in favour of workers being treated equally in a common democracy, unimpeded by national borders and corrupt local agendas, and the dysregulated capitalist system we have which is based on moving workers around to undercut and drive down existing wage rates.

The latter could be abolished simply and straightforwardly by imposing a wage policy - that is, through minimum wages, wage councils, and better unionisation, none of which are remotely radical policies and all of which have already been proven to work spectacularly within living memory.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Assuming the SVP hopefully wins the vote and the Swiss government then refuses to toe the line with the EU in that regard are you saying that it’s right for the EU to then impose trade sanctions on the Swiss on the basis that EU law must trump Swiss law and isn’t that just typical Federalist aggression in trying to impose the EU’s will on a sovereign country ?

No, trade sanctions (by which we mean the willingness of one nation to trade with another, and on what terms) aren’t “federalist aggression”, they’re an expression of the sovereignty of other nations (including the EU nations collectively) who get to decide the terms on which they themselves trade with the Swiss. And if another sovereign nation like Switzerland doesn’t like it, then they lump it, and they don’t trade with the EU.

You really need to grasp this point about sovereignty Carryfast, because I’m convinced that if you were to do so, the rest of the jigsaw will fall into place, and we would be able to have a sensible conversation - instead of me constantly facing a word-salad of “federalist aggression” and “socialist totalitarianism” and all the rest of it.

Again that makes the EU the expansionist aggressor in that case not Switzerland.Let alone the EU refusing to recognise Swiss and UK passports as part of that which would effectively be an even more aggressive act of war.

No, it isn’t, it’s the expression of the sovereignty of the EU. That’s what sovereign nations get to do - they say you either deal on our terms, or you go and swivel and we don’t deal, and that’s what sovereignty is. The EU doesn’t have to accept UK or Swiss passports, or do any trade with them, because they themselves get to decide who they do and don’t deal with.

If you can’t see that you’re talking utter bunk when you accuse other nations of an “act of war” because they insist on the right to decide whose passports they’re willing to accept at their own frontiers, then there really is no hope for you.

If you don’t like other nations having the right to decide whether they accept your passports or not, and see it as an “act of war” when they refuse to let you in, then you’re clearly not in favour of self-determining, mutually-respected national sovereignty, despite all the fuss you make about it.

As for that blackmail and aggression…

No, not “blackmail and aggression”, sovereignty!

It’s high time you wake up and realise that, in the world - especially a world where such a big deal is made about asserting sovereignty - you’re not the only one who is going to assert it.

On that note why do you view the idea of Nationalism and National sovereignty as being mutually exclusive with also being left wing in view point.

I’ve already taken great pains to explain why nationalism (in the context of global trade) is antithetical to democracy, and why any sort of truly self-contained nationalism (the examples of which are thin on the ground throughout history, and totally unheard of in the 20th century) would be an economic shot to the temple for living standards.

IE you don’t have to be a Socialist to support the working class struggle.

I’m afraid you have to be some sort of socialist to “support working class struggle”, unless you don’t know what any of these words mean. That is the case even if we accept that there are many radically different visions for what exactly socialism is - but one thing is for sure, no kind of socialist is against political unification as a matter of principle. Even those who in the past have argued for “socialism in one country”, it is a practical compromise rather than an ideological principle - a way to establish socialism gradually and a lever for eventually extending socialism into other countries once the working classes of other countries see that it can be achieved.

While in fact actually seeing the idea of National sovereignty and democracy as an asset in that regard against the forces of the globalist elites.

It isn’t an asset against global elites, it’s a hobble. The greatest asset against global elites is more global democracy, otherwise they simply play the workers of one nation off against another.

With free movement just effectively being a form of people trafficking based on similar economics as slavery.

But I’m not in favour of low-wage workers being shipped around for exploitation. What you can’t seem to separate is the distinction between being in favour of workers being treated equally in a common democracy, unimpeded by national borders and corrupt local agendas, and the dysregulated capitalist system we have which is based on moving workers around to undercut and drive down existing wage rates.

The latter could be abolished simply and straightforwardly by imposing a wage policy - that is, through minimum wages, wage councils, and better unionisation, none of which are remotely radical policies and all of which have already been proven to work spectacularly within living memory.

So all you’ve done is to enlarge the same nationalist v socialist argument onto a wider bigger European platform.What are the EUSSR supporters going to do then just ignore us all ?.That’ll work.IE we can be just as collectively Nationalist as you can be collectively Socialist nothing has changed only the size of the two opposing sides.Bearing in mind that bribing East Euro with our cash is obviously no longer working for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=dpkLZP6SxL8

youtube.com/watch?v=PJG7o62dFNk

[rjan]

Carryfast:
So all you’ve done is to enlarge the same nationalist v socialist argument onto a wider bigger European platform.What are the EUSSR supporters going to do then just ignore us all ?.That’ll work.IE we can be just as collectively Nationalist as you can be collectively Socialist nothing has changed only the size of the two opposing sides.Bearing in mind that bribing East Euro with our cash is obviously no longer working for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=dpkLZP6SxL8

youtube.com/watch?v=PJG7o62dFNk

You spend too much time listening to rightwing rubbish Carryfast.

I stopped on the first video shortly after he talked about Spain cracking down on Catalan independence as an example of Europe “looking the other way” on democracy, but of course it isn’t looking the other way on democracy, it’s respecting the national democracy and democratically-elected government of Spain, in the same way that it is respecting the national democracy of Britain and their referendum (rather than sending in the troops to remove the British government and protect the interests and rights of all EU remainers here).

That’s not to support Spain’s ludicrous actions in sending in the police with batons against voters, but if you support nations (especially with their 1960s borders - which is especially laughable, as Spain wasn’t even a democracy then), then you essentially support the right of Spain to protect the rights of it’s own citizenry against a minority of separatists (and they are still a minority, make no mistake) and remove a regional government acting illegally.

For my part, I locate the problem of separatism elsewhere, with the crisis of capitalism.