The Student Room Group

Remainers,are you sure the EU has no hint of Europe's dark past?Plus Brexit thoughts

https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/education/eu-teaching-materials_enhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9856220/European-Union-slashed-from-the-National-Curriculum.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9856220/European-Union-slashed-from-the-National-Curriculum.html

It seems Labour had made kids studying it(and presumably it's virtue compulsory).What interests me is that the very same people who find British nationalism, even civilized civic, non ethnic nationalism, or patriotism, so cringeworthy and awful are keen on this kind of thing, with all it's hints of propagandizing the young and enforced joy in the flag. Are all remainers really convinced that none of the past of European monolithic expansion and the political culture that underlies it is not present here?

I joined a European forum,not so long ago, out of interest in Europe, mostly France, and though this may seem trivial, I was immediately struck by the fact that the flag was forced onto my profile without choice. Many EU funded enterprises seem to take on this character- sometimes it can be subtle, seemingly insignificant things that can be very telling in discerning the character of anything. I felt a visceral loathing as a libertarian Englishman at having this arbitrary flag and identity so bindingly imposed on me- I thought 'this says something'.

It will always be presented as culture, open mindedness, against parochialism, but this is so massively over-simplified. Parochialism is linked to many things-inequality, poor education, lack of a voice and self-esteem, one's values and culture being threatened. And it exists everywhere- the way to tackle it is not unaccountable authoritarian, inward focused political union enforced on people. Nothing our political classes have done to communities like this the last 20-40years have much helped either.

The irony is that whilst all the queen and country stuff, and union jack jingoism may be corny as hell, it's not enforced by propaganda- it is off putting to most to the point of stigma. You are free to be as jingoistic or non jingoistic as you want-this is in our political tradition.....this is not my impression of the EU and that sodding flag(which of course could never represent mindless allegiance to a cause or brainwashing).

The other thing I'd like to address is the false dichotomy-

Remain=progressive, forward thinking,
Leave=reactionary, deeply conservative

But why should this go unchallenged?


I know many remainers are more jingoistic than I would ever be, about sport for example, and who are staunch monarchists.(I am republican) They are less interested in or respectful of cultures such as India than I am. Why is neoliberalism, the move towards less democracy and corporate and bankster monopoly progressive? Why is a large, unaccountably governed authoritarian monolith progressive?

Do many remainers on the left even consider why all the megabanks and corporations love it so much and wanted to overturn the verdict?

What could be far more progressive, radical, and a move away from parochialism, (which is coexisting quite happily alongside EU membership, as are solitudes and enclaves of all manner-racial, religious,cultural,political)are any number of things-

Interestingly enough, many of them are things remainers are themselves conservative about- could it be that they rather prefer feeling superior to such ills as 'parochialism'(though it is taken as a given there is no narrowness in their own worldview) than making a society where less of us thought that way, or we questioned society and tried to change it based on common humanity? (I believe in doing this via the binding concept of the nation state and civic, non ethnic nationalism)

I think the referendum debate shows this in full effect; Many remain stances are based on moral narcissism, intellectual and moral superiority, rather than an empathetic view of long term social cohesion, and what type of country we wish to be together.
Their thought seems to run like this- let's get away from provincials with Europe(there are none there apparently)even though we are vastly more proportionately governed by them than we are living there, and lets give up on progressive measures in our own democracy(Largely caused by themselves as they insist on obeying the media line on who is credible to elect and act like who they vote for is compulsory on that basis-a bizarre logical contortion), the only way we get them is by a supranational institution that may give us more benevolent liberalism even though it's less democratic.


Many call themselves progressives or leftists but many seem to revel in the gross inequality we have and care not a jot about the employment, life chances or education of swathes of the country-fundamental to the society you create.
Every ill is taken as innate, not cultural, and the solution is not more self-determination, but a kind of resignation that something authoritarian that gives us no power will get us away from whats so dire.

We can see how this is, contrary to many remainers self-perception, fundamentally conservative, a fear based mentality that doesn't dare take a radical path nor truly believe change possible.

Anyway, some ideas-
Overhaul of economic inequality.
Improved social mobility.
A Republic and an obliteration of conventional class perceptions.
Total recalibration of both Europe and our trade
Radical education reform, always opposed by knee jerk change haters, level down curmudgeons, many of whom would be remain types, who love conformity and mediocrity.
Just look at New Labour- what type of party wants to 'ban all grammar schools' but won't do the same with the private schools? That's them in a nutshell. Selection by class or money, but not intellect or curiosity. It's more progressive to nationalize private schools than to ban grammars

And where, once in the referendum, was the UK's unique success, at least pre-Blair, with commonwealth ethnic integration, with post war immigration, evidence that it works at sane levels,but doesn't at insane levels-the progressive case for managed migration? Where the mention of our unique levels of mixed children and marriage, relative to Europe, to counteract suggestions that we were so bigoted and inward compared to them?

I'd ask you this-

If today, Europe was full of sovereign states, with their own currencies calibrated to their own economies, and hence not suffering from such regional disparities in employment, and much better rates of employment, trading together, working together where needed, co-operating in the UN and Nato, where the biggest banks and corporates were facing more genuine competition from smaller+medium business, would you elect to join an EU with a currency union with plans for a common tax policy and EU army, and a single foreign policy, and law makers and unelected men who rode roughshod over your own parliament and courts. One that will be loved by banksters and the corporates by promising to legislate for their domination while it cosies up with them? In the cold light of day it is harder to justify.

Are people sure that that was the antidote to conservatism, and the agent of social change, and not a sovereign nation state where the future is ours, and no-one can tell us how to vote, however much they pressure us? This is a rather odd worldview. Civic nationalism is not parochialism, it is a non-ethnic, binding identity that is the ideal antidote to a body like the EU and a facilitator of social change via nation state democracy. The obliteration of the nation state is sociopathic, driven by an inhuman economic system, and leaves us rudderless.

I think to make a false dichotomy- parochial nationalism or progressivism, is so pernicious and misguided in this case, with the UK's unique opportunity to manifest nationalism in it's healthiest form-libertarian, civic, non ethnic nationalism. We are all tribal creatures- it is how you manifest this in the most human way that is key, not trying to proclaim you are above it in some uppity, and (to my mind)pseudo-sophisticated way.

The argument 'parochial conservatism or the EU' or 'stuck in imperial days or the EU' really is utter balls. But again, I suspect many remain voters are actually much more conservative then they see themselves, in relation to leave voters they are unaware of.
We as a sovereign nation have more power to create integration, oppose racism, social division, lack of social mobility, inequality, disempowerment. More, not less.
The people who really care about this, real issues, rather than living in snooty echo chambers, taking positions to distinguish themselves rather than because of the objective long term consequences, or the society they actually want, will shine post Brexit, as will the imaginative and innovative who adapt to our recalibration.

I have things in common on different issues with remainers, and equally nothing in common with many Brexiteers on other issues.

Let us unite and build a better land.

It is up to us.
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Please have smaller paragraphs and space them all out

Original post by SaucissonSecCy
---
Imagine this

Japan
Canada
USA
India
China

Would they choose to sign up, as they are now, to:

Free movement with trade partners.
Trade partners making most of their laws.
Governed by the unelected not in their country.
Currency union with trade partner(s) where there economy will be calibrated to much more trade within this union, and less ability to make other relationships.
A plan for a single military and foreign policy and flag with this(these) trade partner(s).
Referendums where the constitution is not accepted ignored or held again until 'right' result
Threatened with economic punishment if they leave and try and be sovereign and make their own relationships.

Would they join?
Would the whole of their political class and media call people stupid and racist for not doing so?
Would they conduct their national debate based on what all the largest banks and corporates, plus what all other nations leaders wanted, not their own populace, whom would be addressed with sneering condescension for opposing?

Look at the aforementioned objectively, and in a historical context.
This is the behaviour of a country that has abandoned solidarity and the national interests.
It is the behaviour of a governing class of a semi-colonized nation being prepared for takeover, who believe the 'natives' are hopeless.
It is the behaviour of those who equate independence with racism, either stupidly or deliberately falsely- as it has been labouriously pointed out(mainly to fall on deaf ears) we are the most mixed and diverse country in Europe.
Homogenization with Europe would have decreased the proportion of ethnic variation and mixing,(and especially integration-as did too higher immigration levels, [militantly promoted by the politics of the last 20yrs; neoliberalism, in my view] which reversed our previous success in this area) not to mention spiritual and intellectual traditions.
This in favour of a narrower Caucasian-Christian culture, plus of course the disastrous problem with Islamic militancy.
(edited 7 years ago)
TL;DR post please.
Reply 4
Indeed the hypocrisy and misunderstanding of remainers was widespread. Many leavers were criticised for having limited understanding, and sure, that was evidently true in some cases, but many remainers had limited understanding as well. So many people in my age group didn't really seem to get what the EU is and what it does other than allow free movement and free trade between member states. They weren't at all aware of the neoliberal agenda, which should certainly have concerned them, being in the main very left wing, supposedly.
Meh. There were stupid people on both sides. The Leavers typically bad more stupid right wingers and remain had more stupid left wingers.

The EU is protectionist in many areas. Hence why Neo-liberals like Thatcher turned against the EU. But don't worry, I'm sure Boris Johnson, that valiant critic of neoliberalism and campaigner of social justice will create a more egalitarian system for Britain.

Both sides had dodgy people funding it.
Aaron banks and Matt Eliot are the poster children for Neo-liberalism who like a good deal of the EU just as anti EU leftists eg Jenny Jones liked the social and environmental protections part.

As for the post referendum feelings, I think a lot if people have gone full blown retarded on both sides and I've pretty much lost all faith in democracy (not because we voted to leave the EU but because of the responses)

sure we've had a lot of sour grapes and whinging from remainers desperate to stay in (I think the only way we can do is by it given a mandate in a GE)

But the hard brexiters have been genuinely alarming.


1: they're calling remainders undemocratic for not accepting the vote . Firstly, imagine the hysteria if remain had won. Secondly, even if 98% of the population thinks something is right doesn't make it so, let alone a piffling 2%


2: the brexit narrative for the economic problems is that it's the fault of the population for being pessimistic about brexit. Could you imagine if Gordon Brown started spouting this nonsense during his premiership?

OP- you've voted for full scale Neoliberalisation now, especially with point 2- which is kind of like peak capitalism short of deliberately worshipping it as a holy deity.

Your class warfare vague phases with no concrete plan will amount to the same as the 350 million pounds that's will never materialise.

You've voted for some idealistic UK which would be fine* but you voted for it presumably to spite the banks and big business which is s bit like using petrol to put out a fire.

* I voted for an idealised United States of Europe.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
Meh. There were stupid people on both sides. The Leavers typically bad more stupid right wingers and remain had more stupid left wingers.

The EU is protectionist in many areas. Hence why Neo-liberals like Thatcher turned against the EU. But don't worry, I'm sure Boris Johnson, that valiant critic of neoliberalism and campaigner of social justice will create a more egalitarian system for Britain.

Both sides had dodgy people funding it.
Aaron banks and Matt Eliot are the poster children for Neo-liberalism who like a good deal of the EU just as anti EU leftists eg Jenny Jones liked the social and environmental protections part.

As for the post referendum feelings, I think a lot if people have gone full blown retarded on both sides and I've pretty much lost all faith in democracy (not because we voted to leave the EU but because of the responses)

sure we've had a lot of sour grapes and whinging from remainers desperate to stay in (I think the only way we can do is by it given a mandate in a GE)

But the hard brexiters have been genuinely alarming.


1: they're calling remainders undemocratic for not accepting the vote . Firstly, imagine the hysteria if remain had won. Secondly, even if 98% of the population thinks something is right doesn't make it so, let alone a piffling 2%


2: the brexit narrative for the economic problems is that it's the fault of the population for being pessimistic about brexit. Could you imagine if Gordon Brown started spouting this nonsense during his premiership?

OP- you've voted for full scale Neoliberalisation now, especially with point 2- which is kind of like peak capitalism short of deliberately worshipping it as a holy deity.

Your class warfare vague phases with no concrete plan will amount to the same as the 350 million pounds that's will never materialise.

You've voted for some idealistic UK which would be fine* but you voted for it presumably to spite the banks and big business which is s bit like using petrol to put out a fire.

* I voted for an idealised United States of Europe.


1)This is an odd argument...I didn't vote for the next few years or even next 20. Way beyond. To say that long term self-determination is irrelevant and idealistic as many remainers did also seems very odd. Almost like they are stuck in something quite fear based and authoritarian.

2)Sorry, leave and anti-establishment people have been so used to losing for so long, I think they pretty much would have just carried on supporting Farage and UKIP, there'd be Tory backbenchers critiqueing, and we'd carry on the same.

3)I think there are some people who'd love to see the economy tank to prove their point. But if we're being honest, it is just far, far too early. The arrogance of some remainers saying that the've been proved right already, and treating people as though they are stupid, just 6 weeks after, shows what many leave voters were up against and why they feel as they do and wanted to look beyond received wisdom. All I'm saying here is that talking down the economy and country can have an effect. Keynes apparently supports this.
Also it really irritates me that due to the media being pro-Tory, or at least pro-establishment, Osbourne's economic miracle was their unquestioning line. However many respected commentators think this is bs, and a smokescreen. We are suffering from years of problems, we have deep rooted financial problems that if they arise, will not have been just caused by Brexit. However I find the idea that Brexit is long term, unequivocally a bad thing for our economy absurd. the same was said about the single currency, just as absurdly.

4)And idealized USE is fine as a voting reason. I just believe it has less chance of accountability, democracy, economic success and I don't want a single foregin policy and military either. I also don't bu the wisdom about how we will necessarily be more outward-looking, within it, as though Europe could never be myopic or nationalist. I certainly don't think it will offer more liberty and less conformity.
On the charge of 'wanting the economy to go bust- therefore they hate their country' that a lot of brexiters are throwing at remain voters-

1: suppose as a patriotic Scottish unionist, Scotland voted to leave the UK. How would you be feeling if an independent Scotland lost as prdicted the Pound and went into recession?

2: suppose the UK took in fifty million refugees (a) and you were against that and warned against it (b). Suppose a dozen of those refugees went on a mass killing spree. Would you be either guilty of wanting it to happen or encouraging it to happen by wishing to prevent it from occurring in the first place (and thus making the UK a less welcoming place, say) ?

But on your main points.

1: thinking that regional bodies such as the EU are better placed to combat global challenges than a dozen self interested States isn't necessarily fear based or authoritarian.

2: Oh I think some sort of pan European nationalism is possible and desirable, at least for the next few centuries.
Original post by Davij038
Meh. There were stupid people on both sides. The Leavers typically bad more stupid right wingers and remain had more stupid left wingers.

The EU is protectionist in many areas. Hence why Neo-liberals like Thatcher turned against the EU. But don't worry, I'm sure Boris Johnson, that valiant critic of neoliberalism and campaigner of social justice will create a more egalitarian system for Britain.

Both sides had dodgy people funding it.
Aaron banks and Matt Eliot are the poster children for Neo-liberalism who like a good deal of the EU just as anti EU leftists eg Jenny Jones liked the social and environmental protections part.

As for the post referendum feelings, I think a lot if people have gone full blown retarded on both sides and I've pretty much lost all faith in democracy (not because we voted to leave the EU but because of the responses)

sure we've had a lot of sour grapes and whinging from remainers desperate to stay in (I think the only way we can do is by it given a mandate in a GE)

But the hard brexiters have been genuinely alarming.


1: they're calling remainders undemocratic for not accepting the vote . Firstly, imagine the hysteria if remain had won. Secondly, even if 98% of the population thinks something is right doesn't make it so, let alone a piffling 2%


2: the brexit narrative for the economic problems is that it's the fault of the population for being pessimistic about brexit. Could you imagine if Gordon Brown started spouting this nonsense during his premiership?

OP- you've voted for full scale Neoliberalisation now, especially with point 2- which is kind of like peak capitalism short of deliberately worshipping it as a holy deity.

Your class warfare vague phases with no concrete plan will amount to the same as the 350 million pounds that's will never materialise.

You've voted for some idealistic UK which would be fine* but you voted for it presumably to spite the banks and big business which is s bit like using petrol to put out a fire.

* I voted for an idealised United States of Europe.




Thatcher didn't turn against the EEC because it was protectionist, she turned against because she finally realised its over-centralising, bureaucratic, unaccountable ambitions which sought to undermine nation-states. She learned those lessons during the bitter renegotiation of Britain's budget contributions. If Thatcher's views on Europe were wholly or mainly due to her 'neoliberalism' she would have turned against the EEC many years before she did. Turning against the EEC was about nationalism not neo-liberalism.
Original post by Davij038
On the charge of 'wanting the economy to go bust- therefore they hate their country' that a lot of brexiters are throwing at remain voters-

1: suppose as a patriotic Scottish unionist, Scotland voted to leave the UK. How would you be feeling if an independent Scotland lost as prdicted the Pound and went into recession?

2: suppose the UK took in fifty million refugees (a) and you were against that and warned against it (b). Suppose a dozen of those refugees went on a mass killing spree. Would you be either guilty of wanting it to happen or encouraging it to happen by wishing to prevent it from occurring in the first place (and thus making the UK a less welcoming place, say) ?

But on your main points.

1: thinking that regional bodies such as the EU are better placed to combat global challenges than a dozen self interested States isn't necessarily fear based or authoritarian.

2: Oh I think some sort of pan European nationalism is possible and desirable, at least for the next few centuries.


As with so many of your claims you have no means of knowing or demonstrating that. You do not know how a successful form of pan-European nationalism could develop. Given the manifest failures of European intergration in fostering such sentiment I would be a lot more humble about this if I were you. Also, what makes you think this hypothetical Pan-European nationalism will be a better force for good than European nationalisms of today? You have no means of knowing this either. And given that your temporal purview is hundreds of years long, that makes your belief all the more incredulous.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
Thatcher didn't turn against the EEC because it was protectionist, she turned against because she finally realised its over-centralising, bureaucratic, unaccountable ambitions which sought to undermine nation-states. She learned those lessons during the bitter renegotiation of Britain's budget contributions. If Thatcher's views on Europe were wholly or mainly due to her 'neoliberalism' she would have turned against the EEC many years before she did. Turning against the EEC was about nationalism not neo-liberalism.


Or as she heard set gave up more UK sovereignty than Blair via the Single European Act , possibly both..
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
As with so many of your claims you have no means of knowing or demonstrating that. You do not know how a successful form of pan-European nationalism could develop. Given the manifest failures of European intergration in fostering such sentiment I would be a lot more humble about this if I were you. Also, what makes you think this hypothetical Pan-European nationalism will be a better force for good than European nationalisms of today? You have no means of knowing this either. And given that your temporal purview is hundreds of years long, that makes your belief all the more incredulous.


We have an EU now. Sure it has challenges but why not if it can survive them?

Neither of us can predict anything in the end but have to base our beliefs on some sort of idea and make it meet reality. As a humanist that wants a world where humans not human constructs come first.l, I think we should be gradually moving towards that world and that such a Europe would be a big step towards that goal.
Original post by Davij038
We have an EU now. Sure it has challenges but why not if it can survive them?

Neither of us can predict anything in the end but have to base our beliefs on some sort of idea and make it meet reality. As a humanist that wants a world where humans not human constructs come first.l, I think we should be gradually moving towards that world and that such a Europe would be a big step towards that goal.


The point is that you had no basis to believe that some hypothetical European super pan-nationalism would be likely let alone desirable. The fundamental problem with your view is not simply a poor grasp history, but an even worse conception of human nature. To say that you want a world where humans come first instead 'human constructs' is a naive abstraction. People have always cared about their tribes and beliefs over other people and sometimes themselves--that is why throughout history people have died for their families, tribes, nations, religions, and politcal creeds--the idea that we can reach a point where we can surpass such concerns defies all of lived human experience. It is millenerian nonsense.
Original post by Davij038
We have an EU now. Sure it has challenges but why not if it can survive them?

Neither of us can predict anything in the end but have to base our beliefs on some sort of idea and make it meet reality. As a humanist that wants a world where humans not human constructs come first.l, I think we should be gradually moving towards that world and that such a Europe would be a big step towards that goal.


The point is that you have no basis to believe that some hypothetical super pan-european nationalism is likely let alone desirable. The fundamental problem with your view is not just a poor grasp of history but an even worse conception of human nature. To claim that you want a world where humans come first instead of 'human constructs' is a naive abstraction. People have always cared for their tribes and beliefs over others sometimes even themselves. This is why people throughout history have fought and died for their families, tribes, nations, religions and political creeds. The idea that we can reach a point where we can surpass such concerns over 'human constructs' defies all lived human experience. It is simply millenerian nonsense.
Original post by Davij038
Or as she heard set gave up more UK sovereignty than Blair via the Single European Act , possibly both..


She did. And she regretted it.
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
The point is that you have no basis to believe that some hypothetical super pan-european nationalism is likely let alone desirable. The fundamental problem with your view is not just a poor grasp of history but an even worse conception of human nature. To claim that you want a world where humans come first instead of 'human constructs' is a naive abstraction. People have always cared for their tribes and beliefs over others sometimes even themselves. This is why people throughout history have fought and died for their families, tribes, nations, religions and political creeds. The idea that we can reach a point where we can surpass such concerns over 'human constructs' defies all lived human experience. It is simply millenerian nonsense.


The thing about history is it keeps changing.we are witnessing mass technological innovation and a gradual global decline in violence and inequality. People like you act as if we have reached an end of history but the era of the nation state will end.

If there was no basis for a United. Europe we wouldn't have an EU to begin with.

Human nature is malleable.
Original post by Davij038
The thing about history is it keeps changing.we are witnessing mass technological innovation and a gradual global decline in violence and inequality. People like you act as if we have reached an end of history but the era of the nation state will end.

If there was no basis for a United. Europe we wouldn't have an EU to begin with.

Human nature is malleable.


1)History keeps changing but that doesn't mean human nature is.

2)Technology will not change human nature unless we specifically allow it to. We are seeing a reduction in violence--but what does that have anything to do with your idea that a Pan-european nationalism is likely or desirable? As for inequality, it is falling between nations but rising within nations. And again, what does inequality have to do with this? When did I say or even imply that we have reached a final stage of human history? You've made this allegation against me before but you naturally failed to substantiate it, because it is in fact false.

3)The idea that human nature is so malleable as it can be shaped almost at will is one of the most ludicrous and destructive ideas ever to be expressed--it has always been propagated by by utopians progressives like communists, anarchists and deep ecologists who believe they can shape people to suit their political fantasies. The fact is human nature is no different now than it was 100, 000 years ago--this is why the same human traits always manifest themselves (lying, cheating, murder, war, tribalism, spirituality, authority, submission etc).

4) The EU simply existing does not prove that there is a basis for a Pan-european nation. In and of itself, that isn't an argument. Such fantasies are harboured by a select group of people whose views are and will be undermined by the preference of Europe's constituent nations.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
1)History keeps changing but that doesn't mean human nature is.

2)Technology will not change human nature unless we specifically allow it to. We are seeing a reduction in violence--but what does that have anything to do with your idea that a Pan-european nationalism is likely or desirable? As for inequality, it is falling between nations but rising within nations. And again, what does inequality have to do with this? When did I say or even imply that we have reached a final stage of human history? You've made this allegation against me before but you naturally failed to substantiate it, because it is in fact false.

3)The idea that human nature is so malleable as it can be shaped almost at will is one of the most ludicrous and destructive ideas ever to be expressed--it has always been propagated by by utopians progressives like communists, anarchists and deep ecologists who believe they can shape people to suit their political fantasies. The fact is human nature is no different now than it was 100, 000 years ago--this is why the same human traits always manifest themselves (lying, cheating, murder, war, tribalism, spirituality, authority, submission etc).

4) The EU simply existing does not prove that there is a basis for a Pan-european nation. In and of itself, that isn't an argument. Such fantasies are harboured by a select group of people whose views are and will be undermined by the preference of Europe's constituent nations.


1: whilst nature does have its part to play, I think nurture (our environment)is the stronger force. Technological innovation and greater harmonisation of culture and resources will massively impact that. For one sime communication allows us to talk to people on the other side of the planet and increasingly problems such as terrorism and climate change are being dealt with at a international level.

2: I agree with your point on human nature but what has changed is the need for that as our environment changes. Humans default setting is basic survival- if you put men into the dark ages they will adapt to that era.

3: European nations have no agency but are decided by the collective wills of individuals. Right now the EU is the dominant body at s European level and is still pursuing an integrative mission. Sure it may fail, but as it stands now I can't see why that alone doesn't constitute at least a fair degree of will for a federal Europe.

4: I can't really argue with someone who thinks saying human nature constitutes a valid argument. A lot of people have no evidence to suggest they will lead happy and meaningful lives, should they just kill themselves? The world is driven by ideas. I think we are going to recognise that some are better than others and this harmonisation makes there less need to have hundreds of vying States but increasingly interlinked regional blocs. This is already happening today.

5: I'm not a utopian, but I do believe that progress is possible. Whilst it may not be linear, we have clearly advanced say compared to the past (universal franchise, free press, secularism etc)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
1: whilst nature does have its part to play, I think nurture (our environment)is the stronger force. Technological innovation and greater harmonisation of culture and resources will massively impact that. For one sime communication allows us to talk to people on the other side of the planet and increasingly problems such as terrorism and climate change are being dealt with at a international level.

2: I agree with your point on human nature but what has changed is the need for that as our environment changes. Humans default setting is basic survival- if you put men into the dark ages they will adapt to that era.

3: European nations have no agency but are decided by the collective wills of individuals. Right now the EU is the dominant body at s European level and is still pursuing an integrative mission. Sure it may fail, but as it stands now I can't see why that alone doesn't constitute at least a fair degree of will for a federal Europe.

4: I can't really argue with someone who thinks saying human nature constitutes a valid argument. A lot of people have no evidence to suggest they will lead happy and meaningful lives, should they just kill themselves? The world is driven by ideas. I think we are going to recognise that some are better than others and this harmonisation makes there less need to have hundreds of vying States but increasingly interlinked regional blocs. This is already happening today.

5: I'm not a utopian, but I do believe that progress is possible. Whilst it may not be linear, we have clearly advanced say compared to the past (universal franchise, free press, secularism etc)


1) To say that our nurture is a stronger force than our nature is merely an unsubstantiated bare assertion. What makes you think technology will harmonise the culture of the world? Only peoples acceptance of certain ideas and practices makes that possible, technology can culturally divide people as unite--all you need to do is look at blogging and twitter subcultures to see that. Some ideas are indeed better than others, that doesn't mean people will recognise that they are. You have a misplaced faith in progress.

2) Dealing with security/survival threats like terrorism or environment change is not a harbinger of some cosmopolitan world government. Few people would like things like family law, school curricular or social policy dealt with at an international level. That would be a recipe for the destruction of peoples cherished identies as well as an inculculable loss of power for the average citizen.

3) The will for a Federal Europe equivalent to India or the United States is dream harboured by select group of people. As we are already seeing, such grand designs are coming up against a more powerful force--their own people.

4) You merely dream of some cultural harmonisation that will justify the dismantling of national polities--If that is possible it will be won through highly authoritarian if not violent means--not an overly optimistic process of reasoned debate. NAFTA will never become the EU because no American wants a open border with Mexico let alone shared governance where the Supreme Court is no longer supreme. The AU will never become the EU because South Africans will never accept an open border with Zimbabwe or Mozambique.

5) History is littered with failed trading blocs/monetary unions which failed to take into account pre-existing cultural and institutional norms: Latin Monetary Union, the ERM, Scandinavian monetary union etc. These were the disasters of fools who thought they were being clever.

6) And if shared ideas or culture were enough to justify supranational unity, the nations of South America would have formed a single state years ago.

The problem with your conception of things is that you think grand processes like technology or cultural and institutional 'harmonisation' will lead to what you want and that petty details are simply inconvenient facts to be ironed out. Poltics, let alone life has never worked that way.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
As a humanist that wants a world where humans not human constructs come first.l, I think we should be gradually moving towards that world and that such a Europe would be a big step towards that goal.


That sounds like Utopianism to me. Utopianism is very dangerous.

Quick Reply

Latest