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

People like you act as if we have reached an end of history but the era of the nation state will end.

.

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.

This is the type of thing that most worried me about remainers.
Global governance is seen as progressive not sinister,and it's friend corporate monopoly. The 'post democratic era' as Jack Straw enthuses about. They are all bedfellows.

Institutions such as the family and the nation state are binding and moral in nature. Political forces that want to destroy them(New Labour anyone?) should not be trusted.

As the previous poster points out- throughout history, people have valued tribe, it is evolutionary and human nature-

the people who see themselves as entirely above this seem pseudo-sophisticated at best, and crazed at worst, for wanting an unconditionally borderless world that enforces militantly the notion of 'equality'.

Rather than seeing themselves as having any common human traits with all(this would be simply ghastly) and asking what is the best and most civilized way to manifest such tribalism,(Civic nationalism, in my view- a civilized, non ethnic nationalism). they claim it can simply cease to exist. They refuse to see it may have civilizational purposes, that it may have driven great cultures and advances.
The irony about this equal, united world they claim to want, is that the one form of equality there is definitely not allowed to be, is economic or class equality.

1: tell me who in the west is currently advocating going back to feudalism? Or bringing back Slavery or abolishing equal rightS? Even on the internet it's hard to find support for these views. I don't believe in linear progress for definite, but pretending progress doesn't exist is absurd.

2: human rights are gradually trumping so called peoples rights- look at the growing movement of women's rights activists in the ME or Gay rights campaigners in Africa. Ideas are spreading like wildfire and will gradually take hold.

3: we could well be seeing the end of the EU, but we could also see it reenergised. In any case, A) it was only by 2% and B) it hasn't happened yet anyway.

4: In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe.

In any case, I've only mentioned my support for a united Europe. I don't envision a world state so much as i envisage there being no real need for any government if say In 1000f years when we have colonies on Mars and have eradicated poverty.

5: That's why their needs to be full fiscal Union.

6: everything's possible in time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations

To be fair theyve been busy dealing with the fallout from US and Soviet backed dictatorships.

I'm an optimist for sure, but I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes.

1) Moral progress is an incredibly vague term. What some call 'progress' others will call degeneracy. What you refer to as 'progress' is simply the fruition of a certain set of moral ideas which you subscribe to. That's all it is.

Furthermore, no one needs to advocate the return of slavery on an open forum for it to return--and slavery is still very much alive in the 21st even though it is illegal everywhere. You chose the wrong example. The only constant in history is that all institutions and civilisations eventually collapse. In the long run your so called 'progress' is a comforting mirage that will unravel just like everything else that came before.

2) Just because there are feminists in the Middle East it doesn't mean that feminism is succeeding in the Middle East. It has often been noted that women's rights were better when the Shah was in charge of Iran, then the Islamic Revolution came and wiped much of that away. Things like women's rights and status have ebbed and flowed throughout history. That's how perilous your so called 'progress' is. There are Gay rights campaigners in Africa but so what? This whole second point of yours just a random non-sequitur you threw into the debate.

3) We could see all sorts of things 're-energised', but that isn't an argument when you don't have anything to back it up. As for you point about Brexit, yes it was a 2% margin, but don't pretend that 48% actually liked the EU, the European Union has never been popular, so many of the voters who voted remain dislike its institutions and policies like free-movement. Fervent supporters of EU integration are a small minority in this country.

4) "In five hundred years they may well do. Sure they may not do, but five hundred years ago people would have doubted the same about Europe."--In five hundred years time humans we will live on Mars, have gills so can breathe in water, flying cars will be as abundant as Iphones: who knows anything can happen in the future right? That's just not an argument.

5) On the point of fiscal union: European integretion creates a problem, but don't worry, more European integration is the solution. Yes currency unions can only work under the supervision of a single state. But like so many people on this issue you're so blase with the seriousness of these implications. With European institutions as the are now with their enormous lack of democratic accountability, what makes you think it will be so easy to run roughshod over the national institutions of European nations? Full fiscal union entails the abolition of national government, an end to the unique welfare states of Europe, the complete subjugation of all areas of national policy to a European treasury. Doing this would be tantamount to national suicide for the peoples of Europe--unlike yourself they care quite a bit about their country.

6) See point 4.

'Globalisation', 'technological progress', 'shifts in attitude'--these are just pious and abstract wishes. Human beings destroy communities as quickly and as easily as they make them. There is no reason to believe that 'shifts in attitudes' will necessarily lead to the outcomes you want. This is not a process you control.Groups like ISIS can spread their message as effectively as any western feminist, so much for your enlightened technological progress...

1: I do not subscribe to morality as it is generally understood as it leads to relativism (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist etc) . I believe in a scientific ethics as put forward by Sam Harris in The moral Landscape in that science can show us the best way to human flourishing. I agree that all civilisations will fall in time. I disagree that striving to make a better world is pointless though. Whilst Slavery still does exist it is certainly. It is not as prevalent and as accepted in the past.

2: I have already said that I do not believe that progress is linear. But, I believe we are slowly reaching a high point. Poorer areas in the third world are going to lag, but even there, things are changing. Change is the only other constant in human history.

3: the UK has been on the forefront at blocking EU initiatives, particularly on tax evasion. With the UK gone, the EU will have a barrier removed. where's your evidence to back up that the remain voters don't like the EU?

4: saying nothing's going to happen because of human nature isn't an argument either.

5: a Central European bank with a directly elected EU president would be democratically viable in my opinion, certainly more so than the current arrangement. As all economies are interlinked and determined by others power is more important than full Independence. Pre euro Europe economics was mainly France and other countries begging Germany to devalue the deutche mark.

6: Isis is currently being annihilated by the international community. By any stretch, I don't think societal progress is inevitable and will require us to fight for it.

1) How can science prove whether the death penalty is right or wrong as opposed to any other moral theory? How can science demontrate that it is right or wrong to lie? how can science help a statesman decide whether it is morally right or wrong to declare war on his neighbours? This 'scientific ethics' is nothing original, progressives have a long standing habit of calling their particular views 'scientific' e.g. Karl Marx 'Scientific Socialism'.

2) Change is constant, but it is not progress, it's just change. It's convenient you only cared to think about how poor countries lag, first world countries are very bit as vulnerable to decay as poor ones. In the early 20th century Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, look at it now. In the 1980s economists believed that Zimbabwe would be the first African nation to achieve first world status, look at Zimbabwe now.

3) I never said that European leaders will not attempt at further integration, everyone knows that. The point is whether they have the mandate, the legitimacy and popular consent of their people to attempt all these things or whether they will succeed. Given the large majorities which support the reduction of immigration it is highly unlikely that that an organisation that stipulates open borders would be popular.

4) Did I say nothing will happen in the future, or even imply that? Even for a straw man argument, that's pretty poor.

5) A European central bank already exists. Are you trying to say that central banks should have elected presidents or are you flat out saying the EU should become one country with a single head of state and government? If your argument is the latter, this is where you run into the prejudices of the European people. Plus you don't get to decide what institutional arrangements the EU will have, you don't even have an idea of what form they will ultimately take. your suggestion has the validity of a fantasy football team.

6) Clearly you did not even attempt to understand the point. It's not about how well ISIS is doing militarily. I said groups like ISIS are every bit as effective at getting their message across as any western feminist. The point being, technological progress does not entail the success of any particular view or political project.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

(This is the abridged version)

2: Zimbabwe and Argentina do not share the long history of Liberal Democracy that the west does. Also human agency factors in here, is poor decisions made by Mugabe etc.

3: open borders between European countries is not so much the issue. As Nigel Farage said, free movement wouldn't be a problem if it was with the original western members.

4: you have implied that we have a fixed human nature. I do not believe that to be the case. Sure humans are wicked at times. There may even be at some level a genetic disposition towards this. There are things we can do though as per 1 to minimise this.

5: yes it was the latter option. What are you on about? I pick the party that I think will most reflect my vision as to what the EU should look like, just as I would for the UK.

6: this is true, but i think this shows the globalised nature of the conflict of ideas we are facing at the present.

1) As expected, this is simply a vague and revamped version of utilitarianism, it doesn't actually answer moral questions and dilemas in a way that is different to any other moral theory. There is no 'scientific ethics'. there is just science, ethics and the ethics of doing science.


2) Having a long history of liberal democracy will not save a country from decline, just like having a long history of monarchy will not save you from republicanism. This is just wishful thinking on your part, again.


3) Well open borders is the issue, where have you been these last few years? huge majorities of public opinion (60-75% in some cases) want immigration to be drastically reduced. Open borders with western european countries weren't a problem in the past because they made little difference, now they make a big difference so people dislike them.

4) Human nature has not changed over time, so in that sense it is fixed. there is no such thing Neolithic human nature as opposed to medieval or modern human nature. There is no American human nature as opposed to Nigerian human nature. Human beings have their own set of psychological traits and predispositions and qualities--just like Tigers, Chimpanzees, Lions Gorillas etc.

5) I was being careful not misconstrue your point given the host of potential options European integration could pursue. You don't necessarily need an elected President for the EU to become a single federal state. You can choose whatever political party you wish, the point I have been making and continue to hold is that your political aspirations for European Political Union are destructively naive.

6) Its very good you recognised that. A global landscape of competing ideas does not tell you which political ideas will win.

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?

1: Sure it has its roots in utilitarianism and like most ethics relates to the best way of how to live. It's USP is that it has an objective and universal nature whilst retaining a degree of pluralism. At the present we have either religious absolutism , realism (which I believe is a pretence ) or relativism which is ethical cancer as alternatives.

2: sure, but it helps. The liberal democratic peace theory remains to be falsified after more than 100 years even when it works against that states interest to do so.

3: well there you have it. By your own logic Open borders isn't the issue its the quantity. I think there are ways in which the EU can reduce the quantity.

4: sorry, I should have clarified my position better . I believe we have a basic fixed human nature (essentially boiling down to survival) that we can mitigate through processes of civilisation. That is to say with. No other resources to call upon humans will build houses out if sticks and mud. Yet here we are building skyscrapers and airplanes etc. just because we have the potential to revert back to savages doesn't mean we shouldn't aim high any more than we shouldn't build things better than mud huts.

5: Possibly, possibly not. Voting in any way (or not voting at all) is also frought with risks). Perhaps you could articulate your alternative Nd I might have something to work with

. 6: I may not know which will win, but I do know which ones I would want to win and don't wish to be a passive bystander in the war of ideas. I would hope that you wouldn't want to either .

2: Zimbabwe and Argentina do not share the long history of Liberal Democracy that the west does. Also human agency factors in here, is poor decisions made by Mugabe etc.

3: open borders between European countries is not so much the issue. As Nigel Farage said, free movement wouldn't be a problem if it was with the original western members.

1) If it is simply another version of utilitarianism it will suffer the problems of utiliatarianism, it is not adding anything new to the debate other than science might discover more effective ways of discovering utility. But that would put science in its traditional role of finding out what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be moral--which destroys the idea of 'scientific morality'. And what happens when your so called 'scientific morality' comes to conclusions which are totally inimical to your moral and political beliefs? What happens when 'scientific morality' suddenly says your human rights are actually inimical to 'human flourishing'?

2) Well no it doesn't. In the long run being a liberal democracy doesn't prevent a society from declining materially or institutionally. Liberal democratic peace theory is about relations between states, you've simply thrown it in here here when its not relevant.

3) Open borders are the problem, ideally British people want their government to able to decide who comes here and in what numbers, they don't want the EU to decide that on their behalf.

4) Human beings won't revert to savagery, human beings are savages. Your original point is that human nature is malleable, civilization has done nothing to change human nature. You can aspire to whatever heights you like, but the point is your aspirations for humanity are wrong.

5) Well I would have thought my alternative view of Europe was obvious. The alternative to European integration is no European integration.

6) Ah but that was not your original point. You said: "I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes." Presumably, those 'shifts in attitude' are towards your points of view, but now you've admitted that you don't know whether that will be the case. .

Your presumptive arrogance on speaking on behalf of the entire nation ( as I notice brexiters tend to do) .

in the wake of everything that has happened in the last month, I can't believe most of those who supported Brexit, you were literally conned, and Theresa May will deliver us the least-Brexit style Brexit possible.

Wrong. Italy will leave the Euro next, then there is the French election..they have had enough of open borders. The EU is, rightly, doomed. Back to sovereign nations, running their currencies, we can co-operate in Nato and the UN. And maybe there will be some remainers, a much more two tier Europe, the remainers that consider themselves too small for independence will be dominated by Germany.

wanna bet £10?

1) If it is simply another version of utilitarianism it will suffer the problems of utiliatarianism, it is not adding anything new to the debate other than science might discover more effective ways of discovering utility. But that would put science in its traditional role of finding out what 'is' rather than what 'ought' to be moral--which destroys the idea of 'scientific morality'. And what happens when your so called 'scientific morality' comes to conclusions which are totally inimical to your moral and political beliefs? What happens when 'scientific morality' suddenly says your human rights are actually inimical to 'human flourishing'?

2) Well no it doesn't. In the long run being a liberal democracy doesn't prevent a society from declining materially or institutionally. Liberal democratic peace theory is about relations between states, you've simply thrown it in here here when its not relevant.

3) Open borders are the problem, ideally British people want their government to able to decide who comes here and in what numbers, they don't want the EU to decide that on their behalf.

4) Human beings won't revert to savagery, human beings are savages. Your original point is that human nature is malleable, civilization has done nothing to change human nature. You can aspire to whatever heights you like, but the point is your aspirations for humanity are wrong.

5) Well I would have thought my alternative view of Europe was obvious. The alternative to European integration is no European integration.

6) Ah but that was not your original point. You said: "I do think that in the future technological progress and what we call globalisation will result in profound societal shifts in attitudes." Presumably, those 'shifts in attitude' are towards your points of view, but now you've admitted that you don't know whether that will be the case. .