Foreign Workers [Merged]

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
141

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Perhaps to move forward you should focus on explaining exactly what you think the disadvantages are of a dose of collectivisation and centralisation

I thought I’d already done that by reference to the right to self determination and national sovereignty in the form of the Nation State.While having pointed out that your support,of the so called ‘advantages’ of centralisation etc,puts you on the same side as such notables as Stalin,Hitler and Tito,among other Socialist/Federalist despots,whose regimes ( Soviet Union/Third Reich/Yugoslav Federation ) all ended the same.Having rightly been slaughtered by the rightful aims of Nationalism as described above.You can obviously add Edward 1’s ‘UK’ to that to a lesser degree at the hands of William Wallace and the Bruce and then Irish Nationalists like Michael Collins.

But this puts me on the same side of basically anyone who has ever governed (for better or for worse). Even Michael Collins, William Wallace, frankly anyone worth remembering, has organised and governed a collective of individuals (often a larger, better functioning collective than they inherited themselves). At a smaller level, our brains govern all four of our limbs - which would not be better off apart.

Perhaps ideologically you are in the category of naïve American anarchism - naïve because it does not logically reconcile the problem that the world consists of more than one non-interacting individual, and that the benefits to individuals of participating in collectivisation flows from getting individuals to interact with each other in positive ways (the alternative in the jungle not being non-interaction, but rather interaction in negative ways).

I agree that collectives can be oppressive, but so can individual opponents, or opposing collectives (even ones consisting of just a few individuals). For all your waffle about returning to the freedom of an individual nation state, we’ve seen where that leads already, and when it involves disintegration from an already larger whole, we have a pejorative term for it: “balkanisation”.

The challenge for humanity is not against collectivisation. It is in ensuring that the resulting collectives are civil and cooperative, retain high rates of legitimacy amongst all individuals, and so forth.

In your case, I can understand why the existing system has low legitimacy because civility is deteriorating (in Britain even, political choices mean people are struggling to secure food, shelter, and adequate long-term incomes), but I can’t for the life of me understand why you promote nationalism as a solution rather than more collectivisation. It was not the development of the EU that has led to deterioration in (and less security of) living standards, it is the permeation of markets and market norms (and the socially de-collectivising effects it has).

As social security and public provision has been increasingly restricted since the 1980s (a political choice nationally, and a tendency which is still being counter-balanced for the better by political membership of Europe), and almost all incomes and needs must now be sought and satisfied in the market, that is why we have a rich society where people are struggling to eat and stay dry and warm, because if the market is permitted to determine that people will starve, then it will, and it is.

142

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Perhaps to move forward you should focus on explaining exactly what you think the disadvantages are of a dose of collectivisation and centralisation

I thought I’d already done that by reference to the right to self determination and national sovereignty in the form of the Nation State.While having pointed out that your support,of the so called ‘advantages’ of centralisation etc,puts you on the same side as such notables as Stalin,Hitler and Tito,among other Socialist/Federalist despots,whose regimes ( Soviet Union/Third Reich/Yugoslav Federation ) all ended the same.Having rightly been slaughtered by the rightful aims of Nationalism as described above.You can obviously add Edward 1’s ‘UK’ to that to a lesser degree at the hands of William Wallace and the Bruce and then Irish Nationalists like Michael Collins.

But this puts me on the same side of basically anyone who has ever governed (for better or for worse). Even Michael Collins, William Wallace, frankly anyone worth remembering, has organised and governed a collective of individuals (often a larger, better functioning collective than they inherited themselves). At a smaller level, our brains govern all four of our limbs - which would not be better off apart.

Perhaps ideologically you are in the category of naïve American anarchism - naïve because it does not logically reconcile the problem that the world consists of more than one non-interacting individual, and that the benefits to individuals of participating in collectivisation flows from getting individuals to interact with each other in positive ways (the alternative in the jungle not being non-interaction, but rather interaction in negative ways).

I agree that collectives can be oppressive, but so can individual opponents, or opposing collectives (even ones consisting of just a few individuals). For all your waffle about returning to the freedom of an individual nation state, we’ve seen where that leads already, and when it involves disintegration from an already larger whole, we have a pejorative term for it: “balkanisation”.

The challenge for humanity is not against collectivisation. It is in ensuring that the resulting collectives are civil and cooperative, retain high rates of legitimacy amongst all individuals, and so forth.

In your case, I can understand why the existing system has low legitimacy because civility is deteriorating (in Britain even, political choices mean people are struggling to secure food, shelter, and adequate long-term incomes), but I can’t for the life of me understand why you promote nationalism as a solution rather than more collectivisation. It was not the development of the EU that has led to deterioration in (and less security of) living standards, it is the permeation of markets and market norms (and the socially de-collectivising effects it has).

The fact is that if we don’t have ‘local’ democratic accountability then we don’t have democracy.As for your ideas they don’t put you on the same side as anyone ‘who ever ruled’ they put you on the same old undemocratic Socialist totalitarian side as Stalin or Tito.While ironically it was exactly the solution of so called ‘Balkanisation’,in the form of secession and the return to the original nation states of the former Yugoslavia,which ‘stopped’ the fighting which was predictably ‘caused’ by Tito’s Socialist ideas of collectivisation and centralisation and forced inter ethnic integration. :unamused:

143

Carryfast:
The fact is that if we don’t have ‘local’ democratic accountability then we don’t have democracy.

I don’t see why. Democracy can operate at any scale, and the EU can also be influenced by national parliaments (and whenever all national parliaments agree on an issue, they are in a position to entirely govern the EU structure and policy).

As for your ideas they don’t put you on the same side as anyone ‘who ever ruled’ they put you on the same old undemocratic Socialist totalitarian side as Stalin or Tito.While ironically it was exactly the solution of so called ‘Balkanisation’,in the form of secession and the return to the original nation states of the former Yugoslavia,which ‘stopped’ the fighting which was predictably ‘caused’ by Tito’s Socialist ideas of collectivisation and centralisation and forced inter ethnic integration. :unamused:

But those Balkan states are now political non-entities, like when Haiti split from France - separation is the regrettable final solution to their problems. In fact, most nations east of Germany are on their hands and knees begging to be a member of the EU. The members have even put poor Greece through the mill, and even they still want in the EU rather than out.

144

Rjan:

Carryfast:
The fact is that if we don’t have ‘local’ democratic accountability then we don’t have democracy.

I don’t see why. Democracy can operate at any scale, and the EU can also be influenced by national parliaments (and whenever all national parliaments agree on an issue, they are in a position to entirely govern the EU structure and policy).

As for your ideas they don’t put you on the same side as anyone ‘who ever ruled’ they put you on the same old undemocratic Socialist totalitarian side as Stalin or Tito.While ironically it was exactly the solution of so called ‘Balkanisation’,in the form of secession and the return to the original nation states of the former Yugoslavia,which ‘stopped’ the fighting which was predictably ‘caused’ by Tito’s Socialist ideas of collectivisation and centralisation and forced inter ethnic integration. :unamused:

But those Balkan states are now political non-entities, like when Haiti split from France - separation is the regrettable final solution to their problems. In fact, most nations east of Germany are on their hands and knees begging to be a member of the EU. The members have even put poor Greece through the mill, and even they still want in the EU rather than out.

Democracy can’t operate at any scale other than local or at the very least National.IE at worse Federalisation/Centralisation/Collectivism just puts the power to make policy in the hands of unelected despots like Stalin or Hitler or Tito or in this case unelected European Commissioners etc.Or at best majority Federal vote in which a majority of foreign MP’s can make irreversible decisions affecting us here with no right of opt out or substitution.

As for Slovenia and Croatia being ‘non entities’ that’s exactly the justification which Tito used to create the Socialist Yugoslav Federation and the Yugoslav Federal Government and JNA used to try to stop their secession when it all inevitably ended in tears.In which case not surprisingly the Slovenian and Croatian governments and electorate and national militias rightly didn’t agree.As for them then jumping out of the frying pan of Yugoslavia into the fire of the EU,or for that matter whether Greece is better off in or out.The jury is still out in that their respective electorates have obviously been naively bought off on false economic promises paid for by us,in exchange for hard won sovereignty.Greece actually already heading for a possibly dangerous split along Nationalist v Socialist lines with Socialism and the pro EU side having already taken the economy to disaster.

145

God forbid that ye ever bump into carryfast or rjan in the pub … enough said.

146

volvo2:
God forbid that ye ever bump into carryfast or rjan in the pub … enough said.

or both

147

Carryfast:
Democracy can’t operate at any scale other than local or at the very least National.

I’d be interested to understand why - particularly when “nations” have a highly variable number of constituent citizens (and so it can’t be a numerical restriction).

IE at worse Federalisation/Centralisation/Collectivism just puts the power to make policy in the hands of unelected despots like Stalin or Hitler or Tito or in this case unelected European Commissioners etc.

What’s notable is that none of these despots (except the anonymous European Commissioners!) were EU members. Good grief, look at history’s despotic monsters, with their gulags, concentration camps, and clean diesel engines!

Or at best majority Federal vote in which a majority of foreign MP’s can make irreversible decisions affecting us here with no right of opt out or substitution.

That is the nature of the beast - that there is a law making procedure, and the rule of law binds us collectively. Exactly what decisions do you disagree with?

If Britain believed the procedure for law making was unfair it needn’t have joined, but I think your objection is simply to the idea that the EU might (i.e. could conceivably) come up with laws to which Britain was completely opposed. Am I right?

That is no different to how Westminster can (and does) frequently implement laws to which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and even large parts of England are completely opposed.

As for Slovenia and Croatia being ‘non entities’ that’s exactly the justification which Tito used to create the Socialist Yugoslav Federation and the Yugoslav Federal Government and JNA used to try to stop their secession when it all inevitably ended in tears.In which case not surprisingly the Slovenian and Croatian governments and electorate and national militias rightly didn’t agree.As for them then jumping out of the frying pan of Yugoslavia into the fire of the EU,or for that matter whether Greece is better off in or out.The jury is still out in that their respective electorates have obviously been naively bought off on false economic promises paid for by us,in exchange for hard won sovereignty.Greece actually already heading for a possibly dangerous split along Nationalist v Socialist lines with Socialism and the pro EU side having already taken the economy to disaster.

Greece has not ceded any sovereignty. The issue was put directly to the people: in or out. The only menaces arising from situation were the natural consequences of leaving - nobody in the EU has threatened to send gunboats, or levy any sanctions. And the Greek people have decided to remain in, for now.

I agree that Greece has been taken to disaster by the other Euro members. It’s very worrying. But they haven’t acted that way because of the EU - they’d have behaved the same way if they were individual nation states. And because this sort of behaviour is eroding the legitimacy of the EU, and canaries are falling from their perches, it appears to be having a moderating effect on the stronger nations. Even the IMF (good heavens!) is telling Germany to lay off. We haven’t heard the last of this yet.

Meanwhile, Britain has its own problems. This Tory government, implementing purely its own policies, has been taken to task by the EU, the UN, the IMF, and god knows how many other organisations.

The real diktats that Britain is subject to is not from the EU but from markets - “markets” which are really just a byword for the votes of the rich under a scheme of “one pound one vote”. The real crisis in democracy at the moment is that democratically-elected politicians simply refuse to overrule the rich - instead politicians pander to the rich and to the judgments of markets. If democratic politicians refuse to regulate the economy and subject it to the democratic will of ordinary people, then people rightly ask, what is the point of democracy?

148

F*****g hell. I can’t think of anything else, me brains gone to sleep.