Brexit: just what does it mean to European Posters?

[Higgins86]

No...


That is nationalism.

And it has nothing to do with the far right per say. The Soviets were Nationalist as well.. It is when you state that your nation or peoples is some how superior to everyone else and use that feeling to drive political discourse and gain political power.

While your definition of nationalism is technically correct, it is also the irrelevant one. Why? Because by this definition every person is a nationalist.... I am proud of my country and hence I am a nationalist by your definition. That is quite normal. The problem is when I say "I am proud of my country and Danes are superior to everyone else"... then we are in real dangerous nationalism.

Regardless, the French revolution has nothing to do with nationalism, even by your own definition lol. The French Royals were as French as those that revolted against them... so they were of the same national group, demographic group and cultural group and did not want independence.

Such rubbish Pete. What about the SNP do you not consider them a nationalist party?

 

[PeteEU]

I doesn't matter who is really to blame. That question is irrelevant now.

Many people just scapegoat when they're angry, nothing will change that. It has to be factored in.

Pointing the fingers at the right-wing populists and neo-nationalists won't change a thing. Except perhaps become free advertizement for them.

Point being, many people are angry and blame the entire "system". Effective ways have to be found to take away the reasons for their anger, NOW, or scapegoats will burn.

I dont disagree... problem is to solve the problem, you would need to go into even deeper EU integration or dissolve the EU and any cooperation and basically go back to the dark ages. In the later, the radicals would win... I just dont see any easy solutions.

Take the refugee problem. It can be easily solved with an EU wide asylum policy and cooperation in getting extradition agreements with refugees (economic or not) countries. But I dont see the member states going down that road. Denmark for example has serious problems sending home criminal Egyptians, Algerians and so on due to the bad deals with have with those countries. But I dont see Denmark at all wanting to agree to an EU wide asylum policy that would put the who 500 million person EU economy behind a demand that these countries take back their criminal citizens. On the flip side, leaving the EU would also not solve this problem for Denmark... nor stop refugees coming to Denmark.. Only leaving the EU, UN, NATO and the Human Rights convention and turning the Faroe islands or Greenland into a massive Australian like death camps would even remotely solve the problem according to those scapegoater types.

 

[PeteEU]

Such rubbish Pete. What about the SNP do you not consider them a nationalist party?

Yes I do. They are nationalists because they believe in a Scottish identity. But they are not the problematic type of nationalists that want to deport all non Scottish and such things. As I said, when I say nationalist I mean it in the extreme negative sense... we are all nationalist at heart. Just some of us take that to the extreme and we get Hitler.

But again, still does not make the French revolution a nationalist revolution. The American somewhat.. not the French.

 

[Higgins86]

Yes I do. They are nationalists because they believe in a Scottish identity. But they are not the problematic type of nationalists that want to deport all non Scottish and such things. As I said, when I say nationalist I mean it in the extreme negative sense... we are all nationalist at heart. Just some of us take that to the extreme and we get Hitler.

But again, still does not make the French revolution a nationalist revolution. The American somewhat.. not the French.

No you said that nationalism is when " people feel superior to others" except apparently Scottish nationalism which seems to be ok. Basically nationalism is fine as long as they get behind the EU and anyone else is an ignorant pig. You just summed up why people were put off by the remain camp.

 

[Gardener]

I see the E.U. in terms of the concentration of power being invested in un-elected people who serve the needs of multi-national institutions. It represents a brand of homogenization that serves these elites.


When people take steps to reclaim the right to control their own destiny, I see it as a good thing. I find it odd how all those who prattle on about "celebrating diversity" are the very first to support the very destruction of diversity though institutions like the E.U.

I appreciate the diversity of all the wonderful European cultures, and so I applaud steps taken to oppose these institutions inimical to such.

 

[Ben K.]

After the initial shock I can say not much. It won't end up in a fundamental change. There will be half a decade of negotiations, maybe a few failed nationalist referendums in the interim, that will end with the UK with a similar relationship to Europe - "Associate Member" or something that means member in all but name. There are too many EU members who want the UK to have a palatable deal that approximates the status quo and too many Brexiters who are backtracking on their guarantees to think otherwise.

 

[PeteEU]

No you said that nationalism is when " people feel superior to others" except apparently Scottish nationalism which seems to be ok. Basically nationalism is fine as long as they get behind the EU and anyone else is an ignorant pig. You just summed up why people were put off by the remain camp.

Do Scots feel superior to others? No. They just dont want to be ruled by the English. That is YOUR definition of nationalism btw..

Your problem is that you are comparing the Scottish situation to that of the UK in the EU. That is absolutely crazy. The UK was a sovereign nation in a trade union with other sovereign nations. Scotland is defacto a province of the United Kingdom, and has zero control over its forigen policy, trade or borders. The UK had control over everything in the EU, but decided to cede some of it for the greater good. Scotland is conquered province, the UK in the EU was a willing participant.

So ask Jo Cox´s killer what he believes... he is one of your types... a nationalist.

And lets face it... the United Kingdom is a made up entity based on conquering distinct population groups in wars and those ethnic groups still matter today for many it seems .. even you, else you would not be saying English instead of British. That is the dangerous type of nationalism, that tears apart nations like Iraq, Bosnia, and so on.. and are putting serious strains on Belgium and parts of Spain.

 

[PeteEU]

I see the E.U. in terms of the concentration of power being invested in un-elected people who serve the needs of multi-national institutions. It represents a brand of homogenization that serves these elites.

And as usual you have no idea what you are talking about..

Let me educate you yet again. The Council of Ministers are all elected to national laws. Can you in some countries have ministers that are not elected? Yes, but they are rare. The European parliament is fully elected. These two together form policy and laws for the EU. There is no one un-elected (with the rare example above).

 

[Ben K.]

Do Scots feel superior to others? No. They just dont want to be ruled by the English. That is YOUR definition of nationalism btw..

Your problem is that you are comparing the Scottish situation to that of the UK in the EU. That is absolutely crazy. The UK was a sovereign nation in a trade union with other sovereign nations. Scotland is defacto a province of the United Kingdom, and has zero control over its forigen policy, trade or borders. The UK had control over everything in the EU, but decided to cede some of it for the greater good. Scotland is conquered province, the UK in the EU was a willing participant.

So ask Jo Cox´s killer what he believes... he is one of your types... a nationalist.

And lets face it... the United Kingdom is a made up entity based on conquering distinct population groups in wars and those ethnic groups still matter today for many it seems .. even you, else you would not be saying English instead of British. That is the dangerous type of nationalism, that tears apart nations like Iraq, Bosnia, and so on.. and are putting serious strains on Belgium and parts of Spain.

Cut it out. No need for this ****.

 

[PeteEU]

Cut it out. No need for this ****.

What... that was a British Nationalist that did that and we are not allowed to talk about it in a conservation about problems of rampant nationalism? Sorry if it offends someone, but that is the lay of the land as they say.

But maybe we should get back on topic... some what.

 

[German guy]

I dont disagree... problem is to solve the problem, you would need to go into even deeper EU integration or dissolve the EU and any cooperation and basically go back to the dark ages. In the later, the radicals would win... I just dont see any easy solutions.

Take the refugee problem. It can be easily solved with an EU wide asylum policy and cooperation in getting extradition agreements with refugees (economic or not) countries. But I dont see the member states going down that road. Denmark for example has serious problems sending home criminal Egyptians, Algerians and so on due to the bad deals with have with those countries. But I dont see Denmark at all wanting to agree to an EU wide asylum policy that would put the who 500 million person EU economy behind a demand that these countries take back their criminal citizens. On the flip side, leaving the EU would also not solve this problem for Denmark... nor stop refugees coming to Denmark.. Only leaving the EU, UN, NATO and the Human Rights convention and turning the Faroe islands or Greenland into a massive Australian like death camps would even remotely solve the problem according to those scapegoater types.

Yeah, I see this problem.

From the top of my head, my idea is the following: If the EU just tries to defend the status quo, it can only lose. It will decompose. It has to go on the offense.

That means more integration, but in a manner that addresses the issues many have with the EU. First step: Admitting that the status quo is flawed and has to be changed.

Two main fields come to mind: The democracy deficit of the EU, and the social imbalance (connected to euro crisis). Solve these problems once and for all in a kind of "New Deal".

The EU and its supporters should stop pretending you can have both, democratic legitimation and absence of federalist elements. It's just not true. A main problem: The only way voters in the EU can currently influence the EU level, is via national elections -- they elect fellow national citizens in nationally framed campaigns. Even the EU parliament is elected by national elections in the member states. That's a huge flaw. Have EU offices (such as Commisioner or Council President) *directly* elected by the EU peoples, either by "every vote counts the same across all member states", or incorporate some kind of electoral college system to balance the influence of the members. Have different candidates representing different ideologies/parties competing against each other. Maybe even Council members (currently the respective ministers of the member states) could be replaced by US-style "Senators" of some kind, which are directly elected in the member states.

Second: To the economic integration, add social integration. No idea which approach would be the best here. But the entire fiscal problem has to be addressed in one bold, encompassing step forwards. IIRC, that Macron guy in France proposed something along these lines.

Personally not a fan of referenda, but if you have referenda after all, let them have EU-wide and not in individual member states. When more than 50% of the voters across all EU countries say "yes", let it be "yes".

Just a few rough ideas.

I also see this won't be possible when all 27 members have to agree. So let's go to "integration of different velocities". Let a hard core go forward, and all who are weary stay behind. They can join later if it's a success.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Yes I do. They are nationalists because they believe in a Scottish identity. But they are not the problematic type of nationalists that want to deport all non Scottish and such things. As I said, when I say nationalist I mean it in the extreme negative sense... we are all nationalist at heart. Just some of us take that to the extreme and we get Hitler.

But again, still does not make the French revolution a nationalist revolution. The American somewhat.. not the French.

Pete you can't pick and choose and the apply the term "nationalist" when you wish to. The Scottish Nationalists are nationalists just as any English who want to celebrate and develop an English national identity. You can't apply the extreme nationalist label to Higgins.

Then define your version of nationalist.. because from what I use is the dictionary definition...

Could you link to your dictionary definition?

I dont disagree... problem is to solve the problem, you would need to go into even deeper EU integration or dissolve the EU and any cooperation and basically go back to the dark ages. In the later, the radicals would win...

That's the horror story that led to this situation. I said years ago on this forum, the solution to problems in the EU should not always be "even deeper integration."

Why not listen to the result of the UK referendum and the concerns about the EU?

Essentially, the official Brexit position is a sham, what the Brexit leadership would head us towards is a situation where we have free movement of EU labour across our borders, we'll be bound by the same rules we were 10 days ago and the money we're supposedly saving is not going to the priorities the populace who voted Brexit think it was going to.

That means we're going to be part of the EU as an associate member, we are not going to be part of deeper integration etc and ironically - we may have to work hard just to get the deal that some laughed at Cameron for getting vis a vis benefits for EU migrants. The message is that the UK seems to want to do business and trade but stay out of the political machinations and we seem willing to pay the hefty economic price to make that statement even when Cameron's renegotiation had already achieved that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Larry Kudlow is an ass.. a right wing nut job. He was one of those who ignored fully the sub-prime problem only to blame it on democrats and Fannie and Freddie after the crash. He is a hack. Anything he writes and says is utter nationalistic right wing bull****.

That's odd. He speaks very highly of you.
Democrats, Fannie and Freddie shared fatherhood of the crash with Republicans. I have yet to see any of the participants step forward and claim the blame.

 

[Balancer73]

Postcard from France, 1942:

 

[Jack Hays]

Postcard from France, 1942:

"One of these things is not like the others."

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ If the EU just tries to defend the status quo, it can only lose. It will decompose. It has to go on the offense.

That means more integration ~

That's exactly what many Europeans don't want GG, why does this always have to be the first response to EU problems?

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, I see this problem.

From the top of my head, my idea is the following: If the EU just tries to defend the status quo, it can only lose. It will decompose. It has to go on the offense.

That means more integration, but in a manner that addresses the issues many have with the EU. First step: Admitting that the status quo is flawed and has to be changed.

Two main fields come to mind: The democracy deficit of the EU, and the social imbalance (connected to euro crisis). Solve these problems once and for all in a kind of "New Deal".

The EU and its supporters should stop pretending you can have both, democratic legitimation and absence of federalist elements. It's just not true. A main problem: The only way voters in the EU can currently influence the EU level, is via national elections -- they elect fellow national citizens in nationally framed campaigns. Even the EU parliament is elected by national elections in the member states. That's a huge flaw. Have EU offices (such as Commisioner or Council President) *directly* elected by the EU peoples, either by "every vote counts the same across all member states", or incorporate some kind of electoral college system to balance the influence of the members. Have different candidates representing different ideologies/parties competing against each other. Maybe even Council members (currently the respective ministers of the member states) could be replaced by US-style "Senators" of some kind, which are directly elected in the member states.

Second: To the economic integration, add social integration. No idea which approach would be the best here. But the entire fiscal problem has to be addressed in one bold, encompassing step forwards. IIRC, that Macron guy in France proposed something along these lines.

Personally not a fan of referenda, but if you have referenda after all, let them have EU-wide and not in individual member states. When more than 50% of the voters across all EU countries say "yes", let it be "yes".

Just a few rough ideas.

I also see this won't be possible when all 27 members have to agree. So let's go to "integration of different velocities". Let a hard core go forward, and all who are weary stay behind. They can join later if it's a success.

IMHO, the solution is in the opposite direction: deGaulle's "Europe of the Fatherlands."

 

[German guy]

That's exactly what many Europeans don't want GG, why does this always have to be the first response to EU problems?

I answered that question: Because only this way, you can have genuine democratic legitimation.

I'm pretty sure that many people are absolutely fine with more integration, as long as they have full democratic control over the decisions and processes on EU level.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I answered that question: Because only this way, you can have genuine democratic legitimation.

I'm pretty sure that many people are absolutely fine with more integration, as long as they have full democratic control over the decisions and processes on EU level.

But when those same people don't want greater integration? Why does democratic legitimation have to be at the barrel of further and deeper integration? I really am sure (UK result for example) that those people don't want greater integration.

 

[German guy]

IMHO, the solution is in the opposite direction: deGaulle's "Europe of the Fatherlands."

Maybe you're right ... I'm just afraid the only way you'll get that is via a decomposition of the EU, and once that process has started, it'll bring Western unity in general to a fall. Once the box is open, maybe there is no way back to "ever further disintegration".

 

[German guy]

But when those same people don't want greater integration? Why does democratic legitimation have to be at the barrel of further and deeper integration? I really am sure (UK result for example) that those people don't want greater integration.

Well, if that's what people want, then let's get over with it and start WW3 already. The idea of unity was apparently too noble for Europeans who have hate and chauvinism in their blood.

No seriously, if you think I wanted to say further integration is an end in itself, you misread me. Maybe it's even useful transferring some authority from the EU level back to the national states -- but whatever remains of the EU just must be democratically legitimized. If it can't be, nobody will accept the EU, and we can as well start immigrating to Canada before the continent goes up in flames.

 

[Jack Hays]

Maybe you're right ... I'm just afraid the only way you'll get that is via a decomposition of the EU, and once that process has started, it'll bring Western unity in general to a fall. Once the box is open, maybe there is no way back to "ever further disintegration".

I think all participants would be happy with an arrangement that makes them all richer without complicating their internal politics. In such an arrangement the UK would still be "in."

 

[German guy]

I think all participants would be happy with an arrangement that makes them all richer without complicating their internal politics. In such an arrangement the UK would still be "in."

Maybe... but I guess it has to become much worse before such a thing could happen.

 

[Jack Hays]

Maybe... but I guess it has to become much worse before such a thing could happen.

Sadly yes. The wrong turn was decades ago.

 

[SheWolf]

For me it means the following.

1) Uncertainty across the board which is not good. Economically it can have wide ranging consequences the longer the uncertainty goes on and with the delaying tactics of the British, then this can hurt us all.
2) The further rise of right wing fascism and neo nazism in Europe.
3) Increased nationalism and racism and xenophobia.

I certainly fear for the future of Europe and the world in general. This movement towards nationalism and xenophobia is not good..... as it will lead to war.

Do you have any predictions on or fears about the type of war, where, and why the war will be fought?