Transervice - UK needs Polish drivers!

Rjan:
The answer is international co-operation and co-ordination. Eliminate tax rate competition, then the rich can’t shop around for low tax rates. That is the current challenge, to globalise politically, because whilst the economy has already become globalised (and it is the global economy from which the wealthy are extracting their “earnings”) but political control has not, the rich will just shop around and vote with their feet.

And even in the meantime, the risk of exodus is overstated - particularly if the rich understand that the political will is there to override extreme market verdicts and to bind them into economic regulations to which they may not individually consent.

That in the end is why the rich are all natural Brexiteers and anti-EU, because political integration threatens them with democratic control. Just like now, the Tories can only abolish human rights or employment rights (on behalf of their wealthy donors) by violating previous European treaties - whereas they’d quite like to give prisoners a kicking to make the law-abiding poor feel better about austerity, and they’d quite like to abolish paid holidays, and they’d quite like to abolish limits on working time, and so forth.

However I can still remember my father being left on a trolley in a corridor while waiting for A and E assessment for hours with numerous broken vertebrae among other serious injuries having been involved in a collapsed roof incident at the factory he was working in at the time.That was during the Wilson government of 1965-70.While even the ward surroundings were more Soviet Union dormitory accomodation than US private room standards.Which is a situation which hasn’t changed much well into the 21st century.

Things certainly haven’t changed here in that respect.

The difference is that in the US in 1965, lots of people weren’t waiting for treatment on trolleys in the corridor, they were waiting on pavements to die. Any comparison that is ever made with the US system (and especially historically), has to bear in mind that lots of people (often the sickest and most impaired) simply do not get inside the hospital in the first place in the US.

The Queen has a private doctor in Buckingham Palace, but you wouldn’t seriously suggest that that is the luxurious standard of UK healthcare, because most people can simply never afford such a facility, and will simply never see the inside of Buckingham Palace with its gaggle of private doctors.

On that note the relevant figure is around £100 billion in a country with a working population of around 38,000,000 which seems like less than £4,000 each on average more like £2,500 ?.But which still puts that US $89 per month figure into perspective and what the US health care system manages to do with it.

Well you do the maths, but it’s clearly still a modest amount (relative to the per-adult GDP of £80k a year) for what amounts to the basic maintenance of the human body.

While obviously answering the questions of the so called ‘bad’ US health care system which is anything but.IE give it realistic funding per capita in the form of decent insurance premiums then make the same comparison.Bearing in mind that even at $89 per month the US is still an attractive destination for disillusioned emigrant NHS doctors on the grounds of better funding. :unamused:

$89 dollars a month doesn’t even begin to reflect what the real average costs of healthcare are in the US. Which, to be clear, the cost of US healthcare is substantially higher than the UK. If you’re paying that, then it means some pensioner is paying $500 dollars a month (or dying of conditions they can’t afford to treat), or it means some unemployed fellow who can’t afford even $89 a month is suffering with an untreated condition.

Firstly proportional tax disparity is more a reflection of wage disparity between the higher earners v lower.IE concentrating too much on the taxation angle is a red herring in attacking the problem from the wrong end.When the priority should be to get general income levels up so that everyone is able to contribute more across the board among the ( at present ) excessively low wage groups.It’s only ‘after’ that has been done that you can then fine tune the taxation system.Which would obviously be a lot easier to do from a point of less wage/incomes disparity.

As for thinking that you can fix all the problems by the same old hit the rich mantra let alone more centralised globalised Socialist inspired government :open_mouth: :unamused: I think that’s what we rightly fought the cold war to stop happening.While yes the idea of selective globalisation to create profits for a few at the expense of the national interest is just as bad as Socialism.On that note we’ve obviously more or less agreed on the problem but we’re equally obviously looking at solving it from totally opposite ends.IE yourself seemingly the Socialist point of view and myself Nationalist.Which hopefully people will be bright enough to realise is what’s at stake and the lines that ( should ) divide the pro from the anti EU argument. :bulb:

As for the US health care system.Which part of massive amounts of UK doctors,are clearly voting with their feet,to leave the NHS,for the US system,because the US system is more ‘efficiently’ funded,didn’t you understand.On that note yes whatever problems the US system might have they are obviously a result of people paying in too little.Not what they are provided with for the money, unlike here. :bulb:

Carryfast:
On that note we’ve obviously more or less agreed on the problem but we’re equally obviously looking at solving it from totally opposite ends.IE yourself seemingly the Socialist point of view and myself Nationalist.Which hopefully people will be bright enough to realise is what’s at stake and the lines that ( should ) divide the pro from the anti EU argument. :bulb:

I can’t see why you would be a nationalist on this issue. The EU is the remedy to the problems of everybody in Europe pursuing their own ‘nationalist solution’.

And if you’re only a nationalist because you want effective political control over the free market (for example, if you want to stifle free movement), then there’s no good reason why you wouldn’t want to integrate at least with the more developed nations like Germany and France.

And like I’ve said before, the reason we’re subsidising the development of Eastern Europe, is for strategic political and economic reasons. It’s not just because we want to be nice to Poles. It’s because we want to make sure Poland remains allied to the West and not to a resurgent Russia (or other growing Eastern powers).

Ceasing that subsidy outright will simply mean that in 10 or 20 years time, Putin will have tanks parked at the German border, and European liberal ideals will have hundreds of millions of fewer adherents!

The real issue isn’t that the development of Eastern Europe is a folly. It is that, with inadequate regulation of labour markets, those bearing the cost of developing EE, are workers in Britain who are seeing their wages and job opportunities undermined.

That is not a political necessity - the rich in our society could obviously bear more of the cost, but political choices have been made (by centre-right governments, from Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, through to Cameron and Clegg) to impose the burden on low-paid workers.

In fact, one could imagine that the way in which European political strategy (i.e. subsidising EE development) has been sold to bosses in the developed economies, is by promising them an influx of cheap labour. If EE development had been funded by taxation, the bosses would have been up in arms about it.

As for the US health care system.Which part of massive amounts of UK doctors,are clearly voting with their feet,to leave the NHS,for the US system,because the US system is more ‘efficiently’ funded,didn’t you understand.On that note yes whatever problems the US system might have they are obviously a result of people paying in too little.Not what they are provided with for the money, unlike here. :bulb:

People aren’t paying too little in the US - they spend more than us relative to clinical benefit delivered. As for doctors leaving, that may be for all sorts of reasons - cuts, and constant ‘efficiency drives’ no doubt being the main ones.

Rjan:

Carryfast:
On that note we’ve obviously more or less agreed on the problem but we’re equally obviously looking at solving it from totally opposite ends.IE yourself seemingly the Socialist point of view and myself Nationalist.Which hopefully people will be bright enough to realise is what’s at stake and the lines that ( should ) divide the pro from the anti EU argument. :bulb:

I can’t see why you would be a nationalist on this issue. The EU is the remedy to the problems of everybody in Europe pursuing their own ‘nationalist solution’.

And if you’re only a nationalist because you want effective political control over the free market (for example, if you want to stifle free movement), then there’s no good reason why you wouldn’t want to integrate at least with the more developed nations like Germany and France.

And like I’ve said before, the reason we’re subsidising the development of Eastern Europe, is for strategic political and economic reasons. It’s not just because we want to be nice to Poles. It’s because we want to make sure Poland remains allied to the West and not to a resurgent Russia (or other growing Eastern powers).

Ceasing that subsidy outright will simply mean that in 10 or 20 years time, Putin will have tanks parked at the German border, and European liberal ideals will have hundreds of millions of fewer adherents!

The real issue isn’t that the development of Eastern Europe is a folly. It is that, with inadequate regulation of labour markets, those bearing the cost of developing EE, are workers in Britain who are seeing their wages and job opportunities undermined.

That is not a political necessity - the rich in our society could obviously bear more of the cost, but political choices have been made (by centre-right governments, from Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, through to Cameron and Clegg) to impose the burden on low-paid workers.

In fact, one could imagine that the way in which European political strategy (i.e. subsidising EE development) has been sold to bosses in the developed economies, is by promising them an influx of cheap labour. If EE development had been funded by taxation, the bosses would have been up in arms about it.

As for the US health care system.Which part of massive amounts of UK doctors,are clearly voting with their feet,to leave the NHS,for the US system,because the US system is more ‘efficiently’ funded,didn’t you understand.On that note yes whatever problems the US system might have they are obviously a result of people paying in too little.Not what they are provided with for the money, unlike here. :bulb:

People aren’t paying too little in the US - they spend more than us relative to clinical benefit delivered. As for doctors leaving, that may be for all sorts of reasons - cuts, and constant ‘efficiency drives’ no doubt being the main ones.

Firstly what makes you think that you need ‘integration’/Federalisation in the case of any common national interest between separate sovereign states.

Which in this case ironically is the interests of the workers of the developed western economies.Set against an alliance of the exploitative version of capitalism that we’re currently lumbered with and the failed Socialist idea that the problems can all be fixed under a centralised government order based on the bs ideology of workers of the world unite with the dissolution of the idea of the nation state being part of that alliance. :open_mouth: :unamused:

As for the so called ‘development’ of Eastern Europe more like the cheap labour agenda of maintaining its Soviet type wage structure.In addition as you say to the bs strategic aim of turning Russia’s old Soviet and Warsaw Pact buffer states into NATO allies.Which is actually eventually more likely to result in a war between Western Europe and Russia not less.Ukraine obviously likely to be the flash point that breaks the camel’s back in that regard.NATO and the EU clearly changing the old status quo by moving its influence and military forces eastwards.When it’s obvious that when Russia pulled out those states should have been made neutral demilitarised zones.On that note make no mistake the EU referendum goes much further than just UK leaving the EU.It’s actually the defining moment in whether we not only end up with an out of control federal monster in the form of the EU,that to add insult to the injury of wiping out the nation state status of the countries of Europe,but one which is also set on a collision course with Russia sooner or later.

As for the US health care system.Your ideas are obviously contradicted by the inconvenient fact that it’s not only an attractive place to be from the point of view of it’s providers in the form of doctors etc but it’s also doing it with much lower premiums being paid in for it by it’s users.In which case given a UK NHS type financial input per capita I’d doubt if we’d have any doctors left working in the NHS. :open_mouth: :unamused:

Carryfast:
Firstly what makes you think that you need ‘integration’/Federalisation in the case of any common national interest between separate sovereign states.

Because the “common interest” is not a series of single-issues that can be negotiated one-by-one. It only takes one fundamental disagreement to justify war, and then everything is smashed (even the things on which everybody agreed).

It’s no different than telling individuals that they cannot pick and choose the laws they obey - they either have to accept it, or they have to go to war with the state outright. Individuals should be able to influence law-making, and the total body of law shouldn’t bear oppressively on individuals, but assuming that individuals do have influence and aren’t being oppressed, then the law as it is has to bind everyone collectively.

Which in this case ironically is the interests of the workers of the developed western economies.Set against an alliance of the exploitative version of capitalism that we’re currently lumbered with and the failed Socialist idea that the problems can all be fixed under a centralised government order based on the bs ideology of workers of the world unite with the dissolution of the idea of the nation state being part of that alliance. :open_mouth: :unamused:

You are simply advocating the “failed” nationalist idea that the problems can all be fixed under many separate national governments.

The evidence actually suggests that more political problems have been solved by centralisation than by further division - division normally occurs when there simply is no achievable central solution, and then people simply have to live with the inevitable costs of the division. But I’m not quite sure that the EU is a busted flush yet, or that we have to bear the inevitability of another WW3 to discipline Europe’s populations back into civilised thinking again.

As for the so called ‘development’ of Eastern Europe more like the cheap labour agenda of maintaining its Soviet type wage structure.In addition as you say to the bs strategic aim of turning Russia’s old Soviet and Warsaw Pact buffer states into NATO allies.Which is actually eventually more likely to result in a war between Western Europe and Russia not less.

As I’ve said, I strongly suspect that there is a “cheap labour agenda” in there on behalf of the capitalist rich in Europe - because the development could be, but isn’t, supported in other ways that didn’t promote low wages in Europe’s advanced economies.

And the alternative to militarising is early collapse in the face of confrontation - like the French did in response to German invasion. There is no obvious remedy to Russia’s militarisation, because rattling the sabre internationally is a domestic solution to the problems in Russian society (in which the collapse into market capitalism has simply increased the inequalities and corruption that ordinary people have to suffer).

It’s like the bully who comes into school and leathers the other kids because that’s what he’s receiving at home. The bully’s mindset isn’t caused by the behaviour of the victims (although the bully may gravitate towards a path of least resistance), and there isn’t a stable solution to that problem which doesn’t involve interfering with and reorganising the bully’s home arrangements.

When the EU appears to be overruling national governments, it is basically performing that “home intervention” that is designed to keep our internal arrangements civil and steady. So that when a right-wing national government starts mistreating sections of the population, the EU steps in and says “you can either comply or leave”, and because every national government knows that choosing to leave will be seen as a catastrophe of the national government’s own initiative, they comply.

A prime example is votes for prisoners. The principle that all citizens can vote is an important one. The effect of depriving prisoners of the vote will have minimal (if any) serious penal effect, whereas if states (perhaps other states rather than our own) are permitted to disenfranchise sections of the population (perhaps based on laws that we wouldn’t currently recognise as legitimate in Britain), that is a more serious political problem. A good example is Northern Ireland, where the majority of the poor couldn’t vote until 1967 (IIRC), and businessmen had many more votes anyway (the business premises qualification). That fundamental inequality eventually tore that society apart.

Rjan:
You are simply advocating the “failed” nationalist idea that the problems can all be fixed under many separate national governments.

The evidence actually suggests that more political problems have been solved by centralisation than by further division - division normally occurs when there simply is no achievable central solution, and then people simply have to live with the inevitable costs of the division. But I’m not quite sure that the EU is a busted flush yet, or that we have to bear the inevitability of another WW3 to discipline Europe’s populations back into civilised thinking again.

A good example is Northern Ireland, where the majority of the poor couldn’t vote until 1967 (IIRC), and businessmen had many more votes anyway (the business premises qualification). That fundamental inequality eventually tore that society apart.

Typical Socialist thinking.When the facts show that most if not all of the major conflicts in history have all been about the justified fight ‘against’ the dictatorial imposition of centralisation/federalisation v the right of self determination in the form of the nation state.In most cases the idea of self determination,independence and the nation state rightly winning out often at the cost of massive casualties.There’s no reason to believe that the collapse of the EU will be much if any different in that regard if we don’t smash the project now.Bearing in mind that even our potential secession is being met by hostility and talk of ‘reprisals’ albeit economic not military.Which is a situation that would obviously change in the longer term assuming future generations of Brits want out.

As for Russia ironically the secession of the ex Soviet States was met with a more peaceful reaction by the previous federal regime than that of Scotland and Ireland from the UK or that of the Confederate States of America or the former Yugoslavia.

While having a family link to someone who died for the Irish Nationalist cause the ‘actual’ reason for the Northern Irish ‘troubles’ was that the many on the Nationalist side conveniently forgot about the right of self determination of the localised Loyalist/Unionist majority in the North.Thereby ironically trying to apply a collective solution in Ireland which contradicted the Nationalist solution which had given the South it’s independence.Hence the Irish civil war and the ‘troubles’ in the North since.The obvious solution in that case being the breakup of the UK in the form of English independence thereby removing the motivation of Northern Irish Unionism.Which ironically then obviously by your logic puts you on the same side as the BNP being in that case just another bunch of Federalist Socialists not Nationalists.In just the same way that Stalin instinctively supported Hitler both being Socialists committed to collectivisation and centralisation in the form of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.At least until they both suddenly realised that Europe wasn’t big enough for both only one or the other.On that note keep it up you’re showing your true colours in being a committed Socialist and therefore making the case for EU secession better than I or Farage ever could. :unamused:

Carryfast:
Typical Socialist thinking.When the facts show that most if not all of the major conflicts in history have all been about the justified fight ‘against’ the dictatorial imposition of centralisation/federalisation v the right of self determination in the form of the nation state.

I don’t recognise this summary of the facts.

I think what you’re really scratching at is that almost any human conflict involves some sort of “imposition” on one side, and a “justified fight against” it on the other. That much is true - a truism, even.

I was about to say more on this, but after several paragraphs of trying to make an exposition of your position (which I’ve thrown away), I think I’ve realised just how loose are your meanings and how indisciplined is your thinking - and therefore that nuanced argument can’t possibly have a bearing on you.

Everything you have said (including what you claim as supporting facts) is strictly false, but what I have been doing is loosening my meanings off and following your thinking without imposing discipline on it, and that’s when some very vague truths in your thinking emerge which I can recognise.

But your fundamental problem is the generality and wooliness of your thinking (such as being able to group Angela Merkel, Hitler, Stalin, and probably Genghis Khan, Hannibal, and any other political leader of modern or ancient history into the same category) despite your claiming very specific positions like pro-nationalism. Even leaders who held views that were very clearly nationalist, like both Stalin and Hitler (who differ greatly in many other respects), are presumably not your kind of nationalist.

As far as your concerned, your position is coherent, but that’s because these positions are like jelly in your mind in the first place - wooly concepts which merely make vague impressions, and can be adjusted at will whenever pressure is applied to them.

In most cases the idea of self determination,independence and the nation state rightly winning out often at the cost of massive casualties.

I would say in the long term, it is obvious that broadly collectivist positions are winning out. That’s not to say dictatorial regimes haven’t been given bloody noses along the way - as they should - but proper democratic, civilised, political areas continue to enlarge.

There’s no reason to believe that the collapse of the EU will be much if any different in that regard if we don’t smash the project now.

But then you smash all of the potential, too, and just return to (or must remain with) an older set of problems (like hundreds of millions of war dead). And why stop smashing at the national level? Why not smash Britain, and return to wholly regional government? Even devolutionists, like the SNP, are ironically pro-EU.

Bearing in mind that even our potential secession is being met by hostility and talk of ‘reprisals’ albeit economic not military.Which is a situation that would obviously change in the longer term assuming future generations of Brits want out.

As far as I can see, no one has threatened any “economic reprisals” except simply refusing to deal with Britain, or insisting they will offer us inferior terms for dealing (which presumably is their natural right, as self-determining nations)?

As for Russia ironically the secession of the ex Soviet States was met with a more peaceful reaction by the previous federal regime than that of Scotland and Ireland from the UK or that of the Confederate States of America or the former Yugoslavia.

While having a family link to someone who died for the Irish Nationalist cause the ‘actual’ reason for the Northern Irish ‘troubles’ was that the many on the Nationalist side conveniently forgot about the right of self determination of the localised Loyalist/Unionist majority in the North.Thereby ironically trying to apply a collective solution in Ireland which contradicted the Nationalist solution which had given the South it’s independence.Hence the Irish civil war and the ‘troubles’ in the North since.The obvious solution in that case being the breakup of the UK in the form of English independence thereby removing the motivation of Northern Irish Unionism.

The problem in Northern Ireland was not a “lack of respect for self-determination”, it was the completely malign and unjust treatment of a large section of the population there by the state (controlled by the unionists locally, and allied to the British state).

Most of the republican side would say they were fighting for their right of self-determination.

Which ironically then obviously by your logic puts you on the same side as the BNP being in that case just another bunch of Federalist Socialists not Nationalists.In just the same way that Stalin instinctively supported Hitler both being Socialists committed to collectivisation and centralisation in the form of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.At least until they both suddenly realised that Europe wasn’t big enough for both only one or the other.On that note keep it up you’re showing your true colours in being a committed Socialist and therefore making the case for EU secession better than I or Farage ever could. :unamused:

You just use the word “socialist” as a general purpose pejorative. And if we are both respectively making our cases for the audience, I am quite content with the case you have made so far, because it just goes to show the case for Brexit is lunacy.

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Typical Socialist thinking.When the facts show that most if not all of the major conflicts in history have all been about the justified fight ‘against’ the dictatorial imposition of centralisation/federalisation v the right of self determination in the form of the nation state.

I don’t recognise this summary of the facts.

I think what you’re really scratching at is that almost any human conflict involves some sort of “imposition” on one side, and a “justified fight against” it on the other. That much is true - a truism, even.

I was about to say more on this, but after several paragraphs of trying to make an exposition of your position (which I’ve thrown away), I think I’ve realised just how loose are your meanings and how indisciplined is your thinking - and therefore that nuanced argument can’t possibly have a bearing on you.

Everything you have said (including what you claim as supporting facts) is strictly false, but what I have been doing is loosening my meanings off and following your thinking without imposing discipline on it, and that’s when some very vague truths in your thinking emerge which I can recognise.

But your fundamental problem is the generality and wooliness of your thinking (such as being able to group Angela Merkel, Hitler, Stalin, and probably Genghis Khan, Hannibal, and any other political leader of modern or ancient history into the same category) despite your claiming very specific positions like pro-nationalism. Even leaders who held views that were very clearly nationalist, like both Stalin and Hitler (who differ greatly in many other respects), are presumably not your kind of nationalist.

As far as your concerned, your position is coherent, but that’s because these positions are like jelly in your mind in the first place - wooly concepts which merely make vague impressions, and can be adjusted at will whenever pressure is applied to them.

In most cases the idea of self determination,independence and the nation state rightly winning out often at the cost of massive casualties.

I would say in the long term, it is obvious that broadly collectivist positions are winning out. That’s not to say dictatorial regimes haven’t been given bloody noses along the way - as they should - but proper democratic, civilised, political areas continue to enlarge.

There’s no reason to believe that the collapse of the EU will be much if any different in that regard if we don’t smash the project now.

But then you smash all of the potential, too, and just return to (or must remain with) an older set of problems (like hundreds of millions of war dead). And why stop smashing at the national level? Why not smash Britain, and return to wholly regional government? Even devolutionists, like the SNP, are ironically pro-EU.

Bearing in mind that even our potential secession is being met by hostility and talk of ‘reprisals’ albeit economic not military.Which is a situation that would obviously change in the longer term assuming future generations of Brits want out.

As far as I can see, no one has threatened any “economic reprisals” except simply refusing to deal with Britain, or insisting they will offer us inferior terms for dealing (which presumably is their natural right, as self-determining nations)?

As for Russia ironically the secession of the ex Soviet States was met with a more peaceful reaction by the previous federal regime than that of Scotland and Ireland from the UK or that of the Confederate States of America or the former Yugoslavia.

While having a family link to someone who died for the Irish Nationalist cause the ‘actual’ reason for the Northern Irish ‘troubles’ was that the many on the Nationalist side conveniently forgot about the right of self determination of the localised Loyalist/Unionist majority in the North.Thereby ironically trying to apply a collective solution in Ireland which contradicted the Nationalist solution which had given the South it’s independence.Hence the Irish civil war and the ‘troubles’ in the North since.The obvious solution in that case being the breakup of the UK in the form of English independence thereby removing the motivation of Northern Irish Unionism.

The problem in Northern Ireland was not a “lack of respect for self-determination”, it was the completely malign and unjust treatment of a large section of the population there by the state (controlled by the unionists locally, and allied to the British state).

Most of the republican side would say they were fighting for their right of self-determination.

Which ironically then obviously by your logic puts you on the same side as the BNP being in that case just another bunch of Federalist Socialists not Nationalists.In just the same way that Stalin instinctively supported Hitler both being Socialists committed to collectivisation and centralisation in the form of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.At least until they both suddenly realised that Europe wasn’t big enough for both only one or the other.On that note keep it up you’re showing your true colours in being a committed Socialist and therefore making the case for EU secession better than I or Farage ever could. :unamused:

You just use the word “socialist” as a general purpose pejorative. And if we are both respectively making our cases for the audience, I am quite content with the case you have made so far, because it just goes to show the case for Brexit is lunacy.

Firstly feel free to show any examples of recent or even historic wars that weren’t the result of the imposition of Collectivist/Centralised/Federal government systems against the Nation state and right of self determination.Often and rightly with the triumph of independent Nation over Federation.Whether it be Scottish/Irish Nationalism v UK or Serbian Nationalism v Austro Hungarian rule or Nation state alliance of France and UK v the Third Reich and last but not least the break up of the former Yugoslavia.In all cases Collectivisation/Centralisation/Federation being the ‘problem’ and Nationalism being the ‘solution’ not the obvious Socialist doctrine of re writing history to show the opposite.

As for Northern Ireland no the issue was that those of the Nationalist persuasion had won their independence in the South and if that’s what they wanted that’s where they needed to re locate.Not try to defeat the object of the Nationalist cause by trying to impose a collective solution across the border they’d won.Hence the situation of Nationalists fighting former comrades over the issue of partition.IE the continuation side had conveniently forgot the ‘friends with fences’ idea of Nationalism.Probably partly based on the pressures of knowing that the industrial capability of the Island was mostly concentrated in the North.

As for the EU as I’ve said it needs to be smashed now.Before it has the chance to inevitably turn into a much bigger version of the former Yugoslavia based on exactly the same Socialist ideology as that of Tito with probably exactly the same eventual result.

On that note the case for remain is obviously based on Socialist re writing of history,to show that Nationalism was the cause of conflicts like WW1 and 2 and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.Rather than it being Collectivisation and Centralisation, in the form of the Austro Hungarian Federation,Stalin’s,Hitler’s and Tito’s ideas,that were the cause and Nationalism in the form of the Nation State and the right of self determination of people’s which were the solution.

So there we have it the in campaign based on the ideology of Socialist despots and the idea of confusing cause with solution and fools who think the way to fix everything is by making exactly the same mistakes as before and expecting a different outcome. :open_mouth: :unamused:

Carryfast:
Firstly feel free to show any examples of recent or even historic wars that weren’t the result of the imposition of Collectivist/Centralised/Federal government systems against the Nation state and right of self determination.

The Italian state versus the Mafia can be cast as the Italian state as the “collectivist/centralised/federal government system” against the Mafia’s “right of self determination”. Hitler or Stalin, both quintessential nationalists, fought wars internally, fought wars externally, and fought wars against each other.

The fact that you even ask the question shows that there is something faulty about your thinking on this matter, because I’m sure you’re about to assert that neither Hitler nor Stalin were “nationalists” in your understanding, or that they were “federalists” (even though they were nationalists according to the English language as we know it).

In the very loosest sense that almost any notable war tends to involve parties that are recognisable as a politically progressive/unified side and a politically regressive/separatist side, but the separatists are not always in favour of self-determination as a principle (except as applicable to themselves - they are in favour of their own self-determination, but not self-determination by any of their opponents or potential opponents).

Often and rightly with the triumph of independent Nation over Federation.Whether it be Scottish/Irish Nationalism v UK or Serbian Nationalism v Austro Hungarian rule or Nation state alliance of France and UK v the Third Reich and last but not least the break up of the former Yugoslavia.In all cases Collectivisation/Centralisation/Federation being the ‘problem’ and Nationalism being the ‘solution’ not the obvious Socialist doctrine of re writing history to show the opposite.

Nationalism in these cases has not been the “solution” - it is a regression to more primitive political forms. It’s like when adult torture victims start bawling like babies at the click of a torturer’s finger - it’s not a ‘solution to the torture’, it’s a regression in the face of circumstances that degrade their advanced, adult, modes of behaviour!

As for the EU as I’ve said it needs to be smashed now.Before it has the chance to inevitably turn into a much bigger version of the former Yugoslavia based on exactly the same Socialist ideology as that of Tito with probably exactly the same eventual result.

I’m glad we’re teasing out that you actually have no specific objection to the EU as it is. Rather, it is based on some kind of fear about what it will become. The fact that we already know what becomes of nationalism - and that this provided the spur for the formation of the EU - seems to have no bearing on you.

On that note the case for remain is obviously based on Socialist re writing of history,to show that Nationalism was the cause of conflicts like WW1 and 2 and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.Rather than it being Collectivisation and Centralisation, in the form of the Austro Hungarian Federation,Stalin’s,Hitler’s and Tito’s ideas,that were the cause and Nationalism in the form of the Nation State and the right of self determination of people’s which were the solution.

So there we have it the in campaign based on the ideology of Socialist despots and the idea of confusing cause with solution and fools who think the way to fix everything is by making exactly the same mistakes as before and expecting a different outcome. :open_mouth: :unamused:

So how would you have solved the economic crises of the early 20th century, ruling out cooperation between nations (since this is “federalism”), and other than by war with other nations (since this presumably infringes others’ rights of “self-determination”)?

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly feel free to show any examples of recent or even historic wars that weren’t the result of the imposition of Collectivist/Centralised/Federal government systems against the Nation state and right of self determination.

The Italian state versus the Mafia can be cast as the Italian state as the “collectivist/centralised/federal government system” against the Mafia’s “right of self determination”. Hitler or Stalin, both quintessential nationalists, fought wars internally, fought wars externally, and fought wars against each other.

The fact that you even ask the question shows that there is something faulty about your thinking on this matter, because I’m sure you’re about to assert that neither Hitler nor Stalin were “nationalists” in your understanding, or that they were “federalists” (even though they were nationalists according to the English language as we know it).

In the very loosest sense that almost any notable war tends to involve parties that are recognisable as a politically progressive/unified side and a politically regressive/separatist side, but the separatists are not always in favour of self-determination as a principle (except as applicable to themselves - they are in favour of their own self-determination, but not self-determination by any of their opponents or potential opponents).

Often and rightly with the triumph of independent Nation over Federation.Whether it be Scottish/Irish Nationalism v UK or Serbian Nationalism v Austro Hungarian rule or Nation state alliance of France and UK v the Third Reich and last but not least the break up of the former Yugoslavia.In all cases Collectivisation/Centralisation/Federation being the ‘problem’ and Nationalism being the ‘solution’ not the obvious Socialist doctrine of re writing history to show the opposite.

Nationalism in these cases has not been the “solution” - it is a regression to more primitive political forms. It’s like when adult torture victims start bawling like babies at the click of a torturer’s finger - it’s not a ‘solution to the torture’, it’s a regression in the face of circumstances that degrade their advanced, adult, modes of behaviour!

As for the EU as I’ve said it needs to be smashed now.Before it has the chance to inevitably turn into a much bigger version of the former Yugoslavia based on exactly the same Socialist ideology as that of Tito with probably exactly the same eventual result.

I’m glad we’re teasing out that you actually have no specific objection to the EU as it is. Rather, it is based on some kind of fear about what it will become. The fact that we already know what becomes of nationalism - and that this provided the spur for the formation of the EU - seems to have no bearing on you.

On that note the case for remain is obviously based on Socialist re writing of history,to show that Nationalism was the cause of conflicts like WW1 and 2 and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.Rather than it being Collectivisation and Centralisation, in the form of the Austro Hungarian Federation,Stalin’s,Hitler’s and Tito’s ideas,that were the cause and Nationalism in the form of the Nation State and the right of self determination of people’s which were the solution.

So there we have it the in campaign based on the ideology of Socialist despots and the idea of confusing cause with solution and fools who think the way to fix everything is by making exactly the same mistakes as before and expecting a different outcome. :open_mouth: :unamused:

So how would you have solved the economic crises of the early 20th century, ruling out cooperation between nations (since this is “federalism”), and other than by war with other nations (since this presumably infringes others’ rights of “self-determination”)?

Firstly how do you reach the conclusion of Stalin and Hitler being supposedly Nationalists not Socialists. :open_mouth: Or that the Soviet Union and Third Reich or for that matter the Yugoslav federation weren’t all inherently Socialist Collectivist/Centralist systems which were all about centralising power by removal of national borders and installing Federal puppet local government.

As for solving the issue of ‘co operation’ at most that’s what Confederations made up of Sovereign Nation states are for not Federations.While even just co operation between Nation States can be done on the basis of friends with fences in just the same way with no essential need to agree on absolutely everything.

On that note yes I do have an objection to the EU because it’s a Federal government system just like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and even the USA.

While I’m obviously in agreement with the idea of a Confederal Europe in which State Sovereignty, meaning the right of opt out and substitution etc over the decision making process,remains supreme.Which obviously by definition means no need for an EU parliament or EU commission and with Presidential power obviously being limited to that of just spokesperson for the Confederation.The obvious deal breaker in that idea being that the US government sees it as a threat domestically because it goes against the re writing of the US constitution from that of a Confederation of Sovereign states to that of a Federation in which the Federal government is supreme. :unamused:

Carryfast:
Firstly how do you reach the conclusion of Stalin and Hitler being supposedly Nationalists not Socialists. :open_mouth:

Because in Hitler’s case, he actually set up the concentration camps to put the socialists in! That is initially what the camps were set up for - trade union leaders, socialist politicians, basically all of the left-wing organisers of the German working class. Hitler was not any kind of socialist - he had no support amongst socialists, and had the direct support and allegiance of the bourgeoisie.

The bottom fell out of German workers’ wages during the 1930s, which Hitler only partly ameliorated again in the build-up to war, and that represented a bare minimum bribe (and propaganda move) which was partly paid for by the earlier precipitous drop in German wages, and partly to be repaid by getting German workers to fight and conquer French workers and Polish workers and so on. Hitler was not, even vaguely or in principle, a socialist - he was a nationalist certainly, but most importantly a fascist.

And if you want a definition of fascism, I’ll quote directly from Wikipedia because I couldn’t do better: a form of “radical authoritarian nationalism … opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism”.

Stalin’s case is a little bit more nuanced, since he ran a successful long-lived regime, and which was inherited from a Leninist revolution. What I will say is that Leninism is a nationalist ideology - again, briefly refreshing my memory on Wikipedia, it mentions Lenin’s support for “national rights to self-determination”. Sounds a bit like you.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether Stalin was a “socialist” (the Soviet regime certainly wasn’t embarrassed to claim Marxist influences, unlike Hitler who completely repudiated it), but Stalin was a “nationalist” above all - and the USSR as a nation was developed and industrialised successfully and rapidly under Stalin (in a similar process to China under Mao, another nationalist with a Marxist background).

Or that the Soviet Union and Third Reich or for that matter the Yugoslav federation weren’t all inherently Socialist Collectivist/Centralist systems which were all about centralising power by removal of national borders and installing Federal puppet local government.

But this is where you start to conflate “socialism” with mere “centralism”. By this logic, the British Empire was “socialist”. Britain itself is “socialist” today, having constituent parts of E, W, S, and NI. You use the word in an unfamiliar, meaningless sense.

And like I say, once the definition is so enlarged and vague, almost any dispute in all of known history can be cast as having a “centralist” actor (who is trying to enforce, or create, some sort of law or unified policy) and a “separatist” actor (who demands self-determination and freedom from law, whether that law is an existing one or a new proposal).

The fact that separatists are not always the good guys is highlighted by the example of the Italian state’s struggles with the Mafia (who, in Italy, are a kind of primitive political organisation, not merely street gangsters). Whatever functions the Mafia were established to perform, the central state is now in a position to take over those functions and administer them in a fairer and less corrupt way (as well as delivering functions that only a modern state can deliver, and which the Mafia cannot).

As for solving the issue of ‘co operation’ at most that’s what Confederations made up of Sovereign Nation states are for not Federations.

But the “confederation” either ends up with much the same constraints as a federation, or it ends up as a herd of cats who spend as much time fighting as cooperating (and often tend to cooperate only on the issues that concern the common interest of the rich and powerful, whilst a lack of common political control is used to as a domestic excuse not to address the common interests of workers).

A prime example from history is how European elites managed to cooperate very rapidly to attack and destroy the Paris Commune (temporarily ceasing their own international hostilities in order to free up the necessary soldiers to launch the attack on Paris), but couldn’t cooperate to avoid the World Wars.

A prime example today is tax evasion. It suits the rich to keep threatening to move country, and that can only happen whilst there are countries competing for the residence of the rich. That can be stamped out by common political control - where the regulations that apply to the rich in one developed country, apply in them all (and self-serving nations in a “confederation” can’t opt out and poach the rich away, which would lead - and has led - to a race to the bottom).

While even just co operation between Nation States can be done on the basis of friends with fences in just the same way with no essential need to agree on absolutely everything.

There is a need to agree on almost everything (of importance), because as I’ve said any important disagreement over a common issue otherwise leads to war.

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly how do you reach the conclusion of Stalin and Hitler being supposedly Nationalists not Socialists. :open_mouth:

Because in Hitler’s case, he actually set up the concentration camps to put the socialists in! That is initially what the camps were set up for - trade union leaders, socialist politicians, basically all of the left-wing organisers of the German working class. Hitler was not any kind of socialist - he had no support amongst socialists, and had the direct support and allegiance of the bourgeoisie.

The bottom fell out of German workers’ wages during the 1930s, which Hitler only partly ameliorated again in the build-up to war, and that represented a bare minimum bribe (and propaganda move) which was partly paid for by the earlier precipitous drop in German wages, and partly to be repaid by getting German workers to fight and conquer French workers and Polish workers and so on. Hitler was not, even vaguely or in principle, a socialist - he was a nationalist certainly, but most importantly a fascist.

And if you want a definition of fascism, I’ll quote directly from Wikipedia because I couldn’t do better: a form of “radical authoritarian nationalism … opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism”.

Stalin’s case is a little bit more nuanced, since he ran a successful long-lived regime, and which was inherited from a Leninist revolution. What I will say is that Leninism is a nationalist ideology - again, briefly refreshing my memory on Wikipedia, it mentions Lenin’s support for “national rights to self-determination”. Sounds a bit like you.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether Stalin was a “socialist” (the Soviet regime certainly wasn’t embarrassed to claim Marxist influences, unlike Hitler who completely repudiated it), but Stalin was a “nationalist” above all - and the USSR as a nation was developed and industrialised successfully and rapidly under Stalin (in a similar process to China under Mao, another nationalist with a Marxist background).

Or that the Soviet Union and Third Reich or for that matter the Yugoslav federation weren’t all inherently Socialist Collectivist/Centralist systems which were all about centralising power by removal of national borders and installing Federal puppet local government.

But this is where you start to conflate “socialism” with mere “centralism”. By this logic, the British Empire was “socialist”. Britain itself is “socialist” today, having constituent parts of E, W, S, and NI. You use the word in an unfamiliar, meaningless sense.

And like I say, once the definition is so enlarged and vague, almost any dispute in all of known history can be cast as having a “centralist” actor (who is trying to enforce, or create, some sort of law or unified policy) and a “separatist” actor (who demands self-determination and freedom from law, whether that law is an existing one or a new proposal).

The fact that separatists are not always the good guys is highlighted by the example of the Italian state’s struggles with the Mafia (who, in Italy, are a kind of primitive political organisation, not merely street gangsters). Whatever functions the Mafia were established to perform, the central state is now in a position to take over those functions and administer them in a fairer and less corrupt way (as well as delivering functions that only a modern state can deliver, and which the Mafia cannot).

As for solving the issue of ‘co operation’ at most that’s what Confederations made up of Sovereign Nation states are for not Federations.

But the “confederation” either ends up with much the same constraints as a federation, or it ends up as a herd of cats who spend as much time fighting as cooperating (and often tend to cooperate only on the issues that concern the common interest of the rich and powerful, whilst a lack of common political control is used to as a domestic excuse not to address the common interests of workers).

A prime example from history is how European elites managed to cooperate very rapidly to attack and destroy the Paris Commune (temporarily ceasing their own international hostilities in order to free up the necessary soldiers to launch the attack on Paris), but couldn’t cooperate to avoid the World Wars.

A prime example today is tax evasion. It suits the rich to keep threatening to move country, and that can only happen whilst there are countries competing for the residence of the rich. That can be stamped out by common political control - where the regulations that apply to the rich in one developed country, apply in them all (and self-serving nations in a “confederation” can’t opt out and poach the rich away, which would lead - and has led - to a race to the bottom).

While even just co operation between Nation States can be done on the basis of friends with fences in just the same way with no essential need to agree on absolutely everything.

There is a need to agree on almost everything (of importance), because as I’ve said any important disagreement over a common issue otherwise leads to war.

Firstly feel free to post the definitions of the USSR and the Third Reich.Here’s a clue they were both anything but ‘Nationalist’ in doing what you’re advocating in the form of Socialist Centralised Federated government which transcended previous National borders and removed the Sovereign Nation State status of its constituent parts.As for Hitler putting ‘Socialists’ in ‘concentration camps’ yes so did Stalin IE they were all Socialists but just not on message with the respective leaders’ version.Which,similar to the fate of Hitler’s opponents,is how Trotsky ended up at the wrong end of an axe in Mexico.On that note if you still feel that the Third Reich and USSR were Nationalist institutions feel free to define ‘Reich’ in third Reich and the meaning of ‘Union’ in Soviet Union and how both were titled as being Socialist regimes and how both an Austrian and a Georgian National felt justified in ruling Germany and Russia respectively among other previously Sovereign States.In which case by your logic the fight for Irish Nationalism was all about fighting for the right to rule the UK. :unamused:

As for the idea of forced agreement on everything,based on the lie that everything else supposedly leads to war.As I’ve said history proves exactly the opposite in that people think differently and like to do things differently and trying to force unified thinking on everything is typical Socialist doctrine.Which is why Socialism is such a dangerous ideology which needs to be smashed wherever it tries to arise and in whatever form it tries to arise.Whether it be Hitler’s version,or Stalin’s,or Tito’s.Or now the EU’s version obviously under command of people like ex stasi Merkel and other Socialist sidekicks.

Bearing in mind that Socialism doesn’t do democracy.It’s MO is infiltration and takeover all based on your logic of everyone must think alike all assimilated under the centralised unified government system that abolishes the idea of the Nation State. :unamused:

Carryfast:
Firstly feel free to post the definitions of the USSR and the Third Reich.Here’s a clue they were both anything but ‘Nationalist’ in doing what you’re advocating in the form of Socialist Centralised Federated government

I’m afraid they were “nationalist” according to the English language as we know it. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were opposed to their own sovereignty - both Germany and Russia were to remain sovereign.

The fact that they intended to enlarge their nations by way of conquest is what nationalists always do. You seem to be advocating some sort of “nationalism with mutual respect”, but as I’ve said nations don’t generally go to war over each other’s domestic issues (which they are generally content to respect), but over issues of common inter-national concern (like access to resources, or the maintenance of friendly ideologies amongst neighbours, or the terms on which international trade occurs).

Like I’ve said, only when nations live in splendid isolation can mutual respect really work - because nobody gets close enough to anyone else’s toes to step on them. The reality of Europe is that nobody is isolated, nor can they be to the degree necessary.

As I’ve said, it was actually tried in Japan (in the Middle Ages when isolation was a much more realistic proposal), and in the end the isolation collapsed (and all it did in the meantime was slow down the development of their society). And once Japan was playing the international game and developing economically, it had to try and strike out for more land and resources (just like all the other nations).

which transcended previous National borders and removed the Sovereign Nation State status of its constituent parts.

Yes but isn’t that the story for how nation states themselves were established? Britain had constituent parts, and those constituent parts like England themselves had constituent parts in the form of counties.

As for Hitler putting ‘Socialists’ in ‘concentration camps’ yes so did Stalin IE they were all Socialists but just not on message with the respective leaders’ version.Which,similar to the fate of Hitler’s opponents,is how Trotsky ended up at the wrong end of an axe in Mexico.

So you accept then, they weren’t socialists. You couldn’t seriously have Jeremy Corbyn round up the Labour MPs and gun them all down against the wall, and say they were at heart all on the same side?

Stalin certainly persecuted socialists, but that’s because he had dispensed with worker’s democratic control and was pursuing a nation-building and industrialising agenda. Once that occurred, there was still an agenda of betterment of the proletariat, but not by employing any of the means recognised by socialists (like democracy), and without any of the liberal social rights that socialists are committed to (convictions which aren’t just window-dressing, which is why socialists are sent to death camps by non-socialist regimes).

And by contrast, democratically-elected socialists like Allende were purged by the Americans - so there was probably some sense in Stalin recognising early that Russia couldn’t have sustained socialism whilst so economically and militarily inferior.

On that note if you still feel that the Third Reich and USSR were Nationalist institutions feel free to define ‘Reich’ in third Reich and the meaning of ‘Union’ in Soviet Union and how both were titled as being Socialist regimes and how both an Austrian and a Georgian National felt justified in ruling Germany and Russia respectively among other previously Sovereign States.In which case by your logic the fight for Irish Nationalism was all about fighting for the right to rule the UK. :unamused:

But Germany wasn’t a Third Reich from time immemorial - that was an apparent solution to the problems that your more docile form of nationalism had created in the first place. The Third Reich rose out of economic crises across Europe, which individual nation states could not solve for themselves (not least because they all saw themselves as empires competing to keep up with each other if not ahead of each other, and therefore mutual foes, which is an obviously hobbling state of mind in developing a cooperative solution). Today’s solution to those problems is the EU, which doesn’t encourage members to perceive each other as foes.

As for the idea of forced agreement on everything,based on the lie that everything else supposedly leads to war.As I’ve said history proves exactly the opposite in that people think differently and like to do things differently and trying to force unified thinking on everything is typical Socialist doctrine.Which is why Socialism is such a dangerous ideology which needs to be smashed wherever it tries to arise and in whatever form it tries to arise.Whether it be Hitler’s version,or Stalin’s,or Tito’s.Or now the EU’s version obviously under command of people like ex stasi Merkel and other Socialist sidekicks.

Bearing in mind that Socialism doesn’t do democracy.It’s MO is infiltration and takeover all based on your logic of everyone must think alike all assimilated under the centralised unified government system that abolishes the idea of the Nation State. :unamused:

Socialism does do democracy. The EU is not fundamentally anti-democratic - nobody was ever forced to join (and British politicians have been the main architects of the thing). The anti-democratic themes that have seeped in are the same themes that are hobbling national democracy - the refusal of politicians to implement democratic mandates, and instead the preferential treatment of market mandates in setting political policy. Every time a democratically elected politician says a democratic mandate cannot be implemented because of the effects on the markets, it’s just another way of them saying that “the rich have said ‘no’ to the people, and we must respect that”.

Twoninety88:
I thought it came from figures once released showing how many British born drivers were fast approaching retirement age.

I think there is some credence to it though. I was in a driver’s meeting yesterday, and there were 23 men in the room. I was the youngest at 37. Nobody else appeared under 45, and this isn’t the first time. Two years ago I did 2 dcpc days at a different company. Both times there were around 20 drivers in the room, and I was certainly in the youngest 3.

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly feel free to post the definitions of the USSR and the Third Reich.Here’s a clue they were both anything but ‘Nationalist’ in doing what you’re advocating in the form of Socialist Centralised Federated government

I’m afraid they were “nationalist” according to the English language as we know it. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were opposed to their own sovereignty - both Germany and Russia were to remain sovereign.

The fact that they intended to enlarge their nations by way of conquest is what nationalists always do. You seem to be advocating some sort of “nationalism with mutual respect”, but as I’ve said nations don’t generally go to war over each other’s domestic issues (which they are generally content to respect), but over issues of common inter-national concern (like access to resources, or the maintenance of friendly ideologies amongst neighbours, or the terms on which international trade occurs).

Like I’ve said, only when nations live in splendid isolation can mutual respect really work - because nobody gets close enough to anyone else’s toes to step on them. The reality of Europe is that nobody is isolated, nor can they be to the degree necessary.

As I’ve said, it was actually tried in Japan (in the Middle Ages when isolation was a much more realistic proposal), and in the end the isolation collapsed (and all it did in the meantime was slow down the development of their society). And once Japan was playing the international game and developing economically, it had to try and strike out for more land and resources (just like all the other nations).

which transcended previous National borders and removed the Sovereign Nation State status of its constituent parts.

Yes but isn’t that the story for how nation states themselves were established? Britain had constituent parts, and those constituent parts like England themselves had constituent parts in the form of counties.

As for Hitler putting ‘Socialists’ in ‘concentration camps’ yes so did Stalin IE they were all Socialists but just not on message with the respective leaders’ version.Which,similar to the fate of Hitler’s opponents,is how Trotsky ended up at the wrong end of an axe in Mexico.

So you accept then, they weren’t socialists. You couldn’t seriously have Jeremy Corbyn round up the Labour MPs and gun them all down against the wall, and say they were at heart all on the same side?

Stalin certainly persecuted socialists, but that’s because he had dispensed with worker’s democratic control and was pursuing a nation-building and industrialising agenda. Once that occurred, there was still an agenda of betterment of the proletariat, but not by employing any of the means recognised by socialists (like democracy), and without any of the liberal social rights that socialists are committed to (convictions which aren’t just window-dressing, which is why socialists are sent to death camps by non-socialist regimes).

And by contrast, democratically-elected socialists like Allende were purged by the Americans - so there was probably some sense in Stalin recognising early that Russia couldn’t have sustained socialism whilst so economically and militarily inferior.

On that note if you still feel that the Third Reich and USSR were Nationalist institutions feel free to define ‘Reich’ in third Reich and the meaning of ‘Union’ in Soviet Union and how both were titled as being Socialist regimes and how both an Austrian and a Georgian National felt justified in ruling Germany and Russia respectively among other previously Sovereign States.In which case by your logic the fight for Irish Nationalism was all about fighting for the right to rule the UK. :unamused:

But Germany wasn’t a Third Reich from time immemorial - that was an apparent solution to the problems that your more docile form of nationalism had created in the first place. The Third Reich rose out of economic crises across Europe, which individual nation states could not solve for themselves (not least because they all saw themselves as empires competing to keep up with each other if not ahead of each other, and therefore mutual foes, which is an obviously hobbling state of mind in developing a cooperative solution). Today’s solution to those problems is the EU, which doesn’t encourage members to perceive each other as foes.

As for the idea of forced agreement on everything,based on the lie that everything else supposedly leads to war.As I’ve said history proves exactly the opposite in that people think differently and like to do things differently and trying to force unified thinking on everything is typical Socialist doctrine.Which is why Socialism is such a dangerous ideology which needs to be smashed wherever it tries to arise and in whatever form it tries to arise.Whether it be Hitler’s version,or Stalin’s,or Tito’s.Or now the EU’s version obviously under command of people like ex stasi Merkel and other Socialist sidekicks.

Bearing in mind that Socialism doesn’t do democracy.It’s MO is infiltration and takeover all based on your logic of everyone must think alike all assimilated under the centralised unified government system that abolishes the idea of the Nation State. :unamused:

Socialism does do democracy. The EU is not fundamentally anti-democratic - nobody was ever forced to join (and British politicians have been the main architects of the thing). The anti-democratic themes that have seeped in are the same themes that are hobbling national democracy - the refusal of politicians to implement democratic mandates, and instead the preferential treatment of market mandates in setting political policy. Every time a democratically elected politician says a democratic mandate cannot be implemented because of the effects on the markets, it’s just another way of them saying that “the rich have said ‘no’ to the people, and we must respect that”.

Firstly exactly which part of the English language miraculously turns Hitler’s Regime,which was based on the same lie as you’re putting forward that his version of Socialism was supposedly ‘Nationalist’,or the the USSR,into Nationalist entities,as opposed to Socialist ones. :unamused: In both cases the definition of Reich and Union was that of Socialist Federations which removed all reference to the Nation States which formed them.Whether it be Hitler’s Austrian home state or Stalin’s Georgian home state or Germany or Russia.IE The Soviet Union and Third Reich meant exactly that not Germany or Russia.While taking over Nation States was actually a case of Federations doing what Federations always do in trampling all over the right of self determination and the Nation State and National Borders and local democracy.

As for the bs that National Sovereignty means so called isolation.Why was England Ireland and Scotland any more isolated under their seperate Nation State status than under the UK or the EU.The fact is Sovereignty is all about who governs us and how local the level of democratic accountability is not the relationship with other Nation States.

As for Socialism not doing Democracy.The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were the definition and logical conclusion of Socialist government and contained all the ingredients which you’re putting forward as being supposedly advantageous.IE centralised,collectivised,federal government based on Socialist ideals.There’s no reason to think that the EU is any different in that regard bearing in mind it’s liking for people like Merkel and Hollande etc and abhorrence of any reference to a Confederal,as opposed to Federal,system of government which recognises the democratic Sovereignty of it’s constituent States.

Carryfast:
Firstly exactly which part of the English language miraculously turns Hitler’s Regime,which was based on the same lie as you’re putting forward that his version of Socialism

Hitler did not have any version of socialism. He was a vigorous opponent of socialism. That is simple and accepted historical fact, never mind the fact that Mein Kampf in Hitler’s own words openly denounced Marxism, and sent socialists straight to the concentration camps.

In fact, see Martin Niemoller’s poem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_….

was supposedly ‘Nationalist’,or the the USSR,into Nationalist entities,as opposed to Socialist ones. :unamused: In both cases the definition of Reich and Union was that of Socialist Federations which removed all reference to the Nation States which formed them.

No they didn’t at all. Lenin was keen to preserve the constituent nationalities of the USSR and avoid the union being dominated by Russian influence - provided they were all communist, of course. And Stalin’s official policy was “socialism in one country” - as distinct from international socialism.

So too with Hitler, I don’t see on what basis that he intended to “remove all reference” to nations - the German nation was central to Nazism, and the Nazis had a very keen sense indeed of national identity (not only in terms of favoured nationalities, but disfavoured ones).

Frankly Carryfast, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, you use words to mean whatever you say they mean, not to communicate using English as any of your readers know it. Whatever you mean by “nationalism”, if you have any meaning at all, bears no relationship to that use of the word elsewhere in the English language or when used by anyone else. You may as well be saying that all wars are caused by Bill and Ben, or Punch and Judy, because these names are just as meaningless in this context as your uses of the words socialism and nationalism.

Whether it be Hitler’s Austrian home state or Stalin’s Georgian home state or Germany or Russia.IE The Soviet Union and Third Reich meant exactly that not Germany or Russia.While taking over Nation States was actually a case of Federations doing what Federations always do in trampling all over the right of self determination and the Nation State and National Borders and local democracy.

“National borders” are not some sort of immutable political geography. They have varied greatly over relatively short periods of time, and sovereign political areas have been vastly more numerous in the past. Every “nation” that currently exists today, is in fact a “federation” in your schema.

It is true that political unification must curtail local political power, but as I’ve said before many political issues don’t just concern one local sovereign, they concern the whole union at once (which is a union of what would otherwise be a multitude of local sovereigns who might well use their power to do each other down and cause common ruin - just as the national leaders did who sent tens of millions to their deaths and reduced Europe to rubble in the early 20th century).

As for the bs that National Sovereignty means so called isolation.Why was England Ireland and Scotland any more isolated under their seperate Nation State status than under the UK or the EU.

They aren’t isolated! And that’s why Scotland is now a member of the UK, and the UK is now a member of the EU, because once isolation is lost and political areas start to interact, they have to start unifying - partly in order to retain governability, and prevent political policy being undercut by hostile neighbours or competing localities.

The presence of two sovereign self-determining nations next to each other, robs both of almost all power of self-determination.

The fact is Sovereignty is all about who governs us and how local the level of democratic accountability is not the relationship with other Nation States.

How does that make any sense? You’re not a sovereign if your “relationship with others” means you can’t control the things you want to control (and which you could control if you had no external relationships).

As for Socialism not doing Democracy.The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were the definition and logical conclusion of Socialist government and contained all the ingredients which you’re putting forward as being supposedly advantageous.IE centralised,collectivised,federal government based on Socialist ideals.There’s no reason to think that the EU is any different in that regard bearing in mind it’s liking for people like Merkel and Hollande etc and abhorrence of any reference to a Confederal,as opposed to Federal,system of government which recognises the democratic Sovereignty of it’s constituent States.

And the Roman Empire put forward some kind centralised, collectivised, federal government, and in return people got all the things that the Romans did for them (roads, trade, concrete, currency, sewers, military might, the core of our major cities, etc.)

What’s even more risible is that Merkel and Hollande are not EU politicians. They are national politicians, with a keen eye on their national interests, democratically-elected from within their nations - just like David Cameron, or Winston Churchill.

Rjan your words would carry far more gravitas if you added a few (I’m so intellectual and despite explaining time and time again these plebs don’t understand rolling eyes :unamused: )

Just a point. Crack On Chap. :smiley:

muckles:
Rjan your words would carry far more gravitas if you added a few (I’m so intellectual and despite explaining time and time again these plebs don’t understand rolling eyes :unamused: )

Just a point. Crack On Chap. :smiley:

You don’t need to tell me that I’m repeating myself, but it just doesn’t seem to hammer home for Carryfast. He’s hardly the only subscriber to this imaginary version of history and wrongheaded nonsense - a good proportion of the country currently believe this similar sort of rubbish and are going to take us to the brink. It’s as well it is challenged to the point of silence.

I don’t know what the overall balance of opinion is on here, mind.

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly exactly which part of the English language miraculously turns Hitler’s Regime,which was based on the same lie as you’re putting forward that his version of Socialism

Hitler did not have any version of socialism. He was a vigorous opponent of socialism. That is simple and accepted historical fact, never mind the fact that Mein Kampf in Hitler’s own words openly denounced Marxism, and sent socialists straight to the concentration camps.

In fact, see Martin Niemoller’s poem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_….

was supposedly ‘Nationalist’,or the the USSR,into Nationalist entities,as opposed to Socialist ones. :unamused: In both cases the definition of Reich and Union was that of Socialist Federations which removed all reference to the Nation States which formed them.

No they didn’t at all. Lenin was keen to preserve the constituent nationalities of the USSR and avoid the union being dominated by Russian influence - provided they were all communist, of course. And Stalin’s official policy was “socialism in one country” - as distinct from international socialism.

So too with Hitler, I don’t see on what basis that he intended to “remove all reference” to nations - the German nation was central to Nazism, and the Nazis had a very keen sense indeed of national identity (not only in terms of favoured nationalities, but disfavoured ones).

Frankly Carryfast, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, you use words to mean whatever you say they mean, not to communicate using English as any of your readers know it. Whatever you mean by “nationalism”, if you have any meaning at all, bears no relationship to that use of the word elsewhere in the English language or when used by anyone else. You may as well be saying that all wars are caused by Bill and Ben, or Punch and Judy, because these names are just as meaningless in this context as your uses of the words socialism and nationalism.

Whether it be Hitler’s Austrian home state or Stalin’s Georgian home state or Germany or Russia.IE The Soviet Union and Third Reich meant exactly that not Germany or Russia.While taking over Nation States was actually a case of Federations doing what Federations always do in trampling all over the right of self determination and the Nation State and National Borders and local democracy.

“National borders” are not some sort of immutable political geography. They have varied greatly over relatively short periods of time, and sovereign political areas have been vastly more numerous in the past. Every “nation” that currently exists today, is in fact a “federation” in your schema.

It is true that political unification must curtail local political power, but as I’ve said before many political issues don’t just concern one local sovereign, they concern the whole union at once (which is a union of what would otherwise be a multitude of local sovereigns who might well use their power to do each other down and cause common ruin - just as the national leaders did who sent tens of millions to their deaths and reduced Europe to rubble in the early 20th century).

As for the bs that National Sovereignty means so called isolation.Why was England Ireland and Scotland any more isolated under their seperate Nation State status than under the UK or the EU.

They aren’t isolated! And that’s why Scotland is now a member of the UK, and the UK is now a member of the EU, because once isolation is lost and political areas start to interact, they have to start unifying - partly in order to retain governability, and prevent political policy being undercut by hostile neighbours or competing localities.

The presence of two sovereign self-determining nations next to each other, robs both of almost all power of self-determination.

The fact is Sovereignty is all about who governs us and how local the level of democratic accountability is not the relationship with other Nation States.

How does that make any sense? You’re not a sovereign if your “relationship with others” means you can’t control the things you want to control (and which you could control if you had no external relationships).

As for Socialism not doing Democracy.The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were the definition and logical conclusion of Socialist government and contained all the ingredients which you’re putting forward as being supposedly advantageous.IE centralised,collectivised,federal government based on Socialist ideals.There’s no reason to think that the EU is any different in that regard bearing in mind it’s liking for people like Merkel and Hollande etc and abhorrence of any reference to a Confederal,as opposed to Federal,system of government which recognises the democratic Sovereignty of it’s constituent States.

And the Roman Empire put forward some kind centralised, collectivised, federal government, and in return people got all the things that the Romans did for them (roads, trade, concrete, currency, sewers, military might, the core of our major cities, etc.)

What’s even more risible is that Merkel and Hollande are not EU politicians. They are national politicians, with a keen eye on their national interests, democratically-elected from within their nations - just like David Cameron, or Winston Churchill.

Let’s get this right by your logic Hitler was so against the ideology of Socialism that he called his Party the National ‘Socialist’ German Workers Party. :laughing: With the aim of setting up a third Reich.The definition of ‘Reich’ being a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored Nation State borders and National Sovereignty of those countries he took over to form it.Which until 1941 was ‘allied’ to Stalin’s ‘Union’ of Soviet ‘Socialist’ Republics culminating in the joint invasion of Poland.The definition of ‘Union’ again in that case meaning a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored the Nation State status of those countries,not just Russia,taken over by Bolshevism to form it.

As for Merkel no she’s an ethnic Pole with proven links to the East German Socialist regime.Who’s made her views clear regarding the typical Socialist doctrine of Federal government to the point of removing National borders between Europe and Asia.

As for the bs that the prescence of two neighbouring sovereign states robs both of almost all power of self determination.Michael Collins rightly didn’t follow that idea nor Norway from 1814 or Finland v Soviet Union nor Israel in 1947 for just four examples.While historically and if push ever came to shove I’m sure that,bearing in mind the differences between us,we’d both find ourselves on opposite sides looking down the barrel of a gun at each other in a typical Nationalist v Socialist/Federalist fight.Which says everything about your bs claims that Federalism and Socialism is the way to peaceful coexistence.To which no doubt as usual your answer would be that it’s the friends with fences ideology of Nationalism which is the aggressor. :imp: :unamused:

On that note you still haven’t answered the question as to which side you’d have been on in the Soviet invasion of Poland or JNA v Slovenian/Croatian militias during the breakup of former Yugoslavia,or even Israel v Soviet backed Syria and Egypt in 1967 and 73 for example.Bearing in mind that being on the side of Poland and Slovenia/Croatia or Israel would make you a Nationalist.

Carryfast:
Let’s get this right by your logic Hitler was so against the ideology of Socialism that he called his Party the National ‘Socialist’ German Workers Party. :laughing:

That’s precisely my logic, just like poison gas nozzles were called “showers”.

With the aim of setting up a third Reich.The definition of ‘Reich’ being a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored Nation State borders and National Sovereignty of those countries he took over to form it.

The willingness to fight and conquer other nation states does not (necessarily) make it contrary to nationalism - the British Empire went around the whole world whacking other nations, but only so those other nations could be subordinated and exploited, not to create a new common citizenry of Britain (and certainly not to smash those other nations to smithereens, when kept together they could be tapped for substantial wealth).

Hitler also had other bugbears based on ideology, race, and religion, but nevertheless a clear position about the supremacy of the German nation.

I accept that Hitler looked to expand Germany’s borders, but again that does not make it a socialist project - any more so than William the Conqueror was a socialist - nor does it negate the nationalist element of ■■■■ ideology.

That’s not to say every nationalist is a ■■■■ - that was just a radical form of nationalism, which it had to adopt because the milder, everyday political nationalism of the time was what helped bring European economies to their knees, with the various mutually-respectful empires at deadlock, and with no way out (except to fight and conquer - the only other alternative was for nationalists to do the unthinkable and unify).

Which until 1941 was ‘allied’ to Stalin’s ‘Union’ of Soviet ‘Socialist’ Republics culminating in the joint invasion of Poland.The definition of ‘Union’ again in that case meaning a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored the Nation State status of those countries,not just Russia,taken over by Bolshevism to form it.

I accept this in parts. I just don’t see why nationalism can’t (in a world consisting of more than one nation) involve fighting other nations and maybe even taking territory - as if being a dog means you can’t be top dog or eat other dogs.

As for Merkel no she’s an ethnic Pole with proven links to the East German Socialist regime.Who’s made her views clear regarding the typical Socialist doctrine of Federal government to the point of removing National borders between Europe and Asia.

I don’t know her ethnic background and I’m not saying Merkel is or isn’t influenced by some sort of socialist ideas. The fact remains she is a national politician, representing the present-day nation of Germany, with a national democratic mandate.

As for the bs that the prescence of two neighbouring sovereign states robs both of almost all power of self determination.Michael Collins rightly didn’t follow that idea nor Norway from 1814 or Finland v Soviet Union nor Israel in 1947 for just four examples.

Israel is dogged by its neighbours not to mention its internal opponents, and has been almost permanently at war since its inception in 1948. The whole thing stays upright only because of infusions of American (“federalist”?) cash and military support - it’s not even remotely a free-standing, self-determining nation, and it certainly has no respect for any existing or historic borders.

Michael Collins’ descendant state is a member of the EU, and Norway is functionally part of the EU (with treaties binding it to providing funds, free movement, etc.). I don’t know about Finland off the top of my head.

While historically and if push ever came to shove I’m sure that,bearing in mind the differences between us,we’d both find ourselves on opposite sides looking down the barrel of a gun at each other in a typical Nationalist v Socialist/Federalist fight.Which says everything about your bs claims that Federalism and Socialism is the way to peaceful coexistence.To which no doubt as usual your answer would be that it’s the friends with fences ideology of Nationalism which is the aggressor. :imp: :unamused:

I’m not saying political unity is necessarily a peaceful way to live - we could be governed by a unified dictator. But we could also be governed by ten separate national dictators. And the EU isn’t a vile dictator - it remains a basically progressive organisation that has promoted Europe’s peace and development.

Carryfast:
[… missed your edit from previous reply]

On that note you still haven’t answered the question as to which side you’d have been on in the Soviet invasion of Poland or JNA v Slovenian/Croatian militias during the breakup of former Yugoslavia,or even Israel v Soviet backed Syria and Egypt in 1967 and 73 for example.Bearing in mind that being on the side of Poland and Slovenia/Croatia or Israel would make you a Nationalist.

I don’t know enough of the details of the specific conflicts, although I suspect I might well be on nobody’s side in principle.