This is actually a tremendously important thing. You underplay it, but it is.Originally Posted by Peter
As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.
What really matters is what they then choose to be unhappy about instead.
I would argue that something that makes people happy does not mean nothing whatsoever. It's bound up with a sense of identity, cohesion and - most importantly - leaves no room for the sort of cùnt who tells you he's a 'global citizen' or an 'internationalist'. Those people really ought to be shot.
I mean, look at this bunch of cùnts at the LibDem Conference (at the risk of tautology). Absolute state of them. Hopefully, Brexit will wipe such people out.
DKAsEAtXkAA1Rkl.jpg-large.jpg
This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.
On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.
Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.
That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.
I have nothing against the nation state, aside from the fact that it pulled Europe to pieces for a century. The fact remains that the idea existed at a time when it was possible to identify a nation's economy and its immediate issues. Those are now less obvious.
The modern nation state is a political unit that doesn't reflect how the world works and how the global economy runs. This is not necessarily a problem unless you want your government to run its economy. As I said, I am not suggesting that supra-national bodies are any better- what they may offer in terms of broader boundaries they lose in a lack of accountability and conflicting priority from constituent members.
However, we are really talking about how people feel. Our view of our own independence is a little old fashioned and harks back to an age when a government did control our economy (and the economies of half the developing world). I am not sure the same advantages exist now. We shall see.
The point being, independence is not what it was. I dont necessarily view the nation state as a cause worth fighting for but am happy to live in it if it makes people better off. If it doesn't, it was not a price worth paying.
Only one nation state pulled Europe apart over the last century, p. Europe was at relative piece for 50 years right up until the Unification of Germany. A Europe with an over-mighty Germany in it cannot be safe.
Nationalism was at the heart of every problem in Europe for the century that preceded WW2. THe crumbling of great empires and the states that replaced them on the continent created a fundamental shift in the balance of European influence, most notably with the Gerries. Yes, it is unfair to blame the idea of the nation state for this as the balance of european power had to be restructured as the continental empires crumbled. Nevertheless, cooperation in europe in the aftermath was important and would have felt so.
Quite frankly, the attempts of the remain campaign to nod in the direction of european security and safety in defence of the EU was laughable. At this stage, the idea of Germans marching into France is as laughable as the idea that the EU would be able to prevent it happening.
So what is the real purpose of the EU? As Ash says, cheap labour and comfy regs for businesses to prowl the continent with greater ease. For us it also means being the natural home for those from the poorest parts of the Union.
From our point of view, bit of a **** deal.
A Europe with an artificially un-mighty Germany in it was even less safe. The story from unification to surrender in 1945 was one of Germany finding its rightful place as a major european power and economy.
Italian nationalism was pretty destabilising, as were the artificial nation states imposed at Versailles that created such easy prey for Hitler.
the problem is that we never wanted this to be our problem. We only ever got dragged in to sort it out and, from day to day, wanted nothing to do with them. We still dont.
Arguably the right thing to do was never join. Or at the very least, to leave before Maastricht.
The Russians fought in the Great Patriotic War, rather than WWII.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote