why don't nationalists realise that real independence requires a union?

[Diocle]

I think it is an effect of replying to extremal positions (in this case Diocle's) that the reply is perceived closer to the opposite extreme than it actually is.

This is why I love so much what you call extreme positions, and I call clear positions; I think in fact that the dialectical opposition of the different positions is the only way for generating some kind of truth.

I don't want to remind here, or worse: explaining, Hegel to any German guy, but believe me Iskar, German imperialism (= European Union) is so well hidden under a huge amount of 70 years of lies, national shame for what Germans did during WW2, hypocritical half-truths, organized disinformation, collective brainwashing and similar amenities, that only using the picklock of some old fashioned dialectic, you may hope to see again its real face in all its obscene splendor.

[fkizz]

right. so what when the USA decides they don't want to protect europe anymore? What when we don't have an external enemy? We'll just go back to killing eachother as before then eh? yeah, brilliant plan you got there. good long term planning.

You have 1) Nuclear deterrence for the caveman mindset
2) History books from 400s AD to 1945 AD for Historical comparison.

[Iskar]

This is way I love so much what you call extreme positions, and I call clear positions; I think in fact that the dialectical opposition of the different positions is the only way for generating some kind of truth.

I don't want to remind here, or worse: explaining, Hegel to any German guy, but believe me Iskar, German imperialism (= European Union) is so well hidden under a huge amount of 70 years of lies, national shame for what Germans did during WW2, hypocritical half-truths, organized disinformation, collective brainwashing and similar amenities, that only using the picklock of some old fashioned dialectic, you may hope to see again its real face in all its obscene splendor.

Hegelian "philosophy" has major flaws and inconsistencies, the most prominent one being its baseless assumption of a télos, a supposed monotonous evolution of the syntheses towards the better, but that would be a subject for the EMM.

Apart from that, masquerading inhumane positions as "necessary" for a dialectic way forward is pretty dishonest and also false. I know of a good number of non-extremal discussions on this site alone that led to a common increase in understanding and your second paragraph proves your first one lies: If you were truly after a dialectic synthesis it would not be identical with your own thesis (Germany = evil), although that is what you claim.

[fkizz]

i said eu prevented wars because it tied the economies of member states together. So how would the EU stop wars outside the EU?? doesn't make any sense.

Fine, inside the EU. Things like ETA terror cells, linked to Basque Country. It's economically linked to the rest of Spain, yet if needed has no problems in ocasional extra judicia killings.

The whole western world, EU and USA included, are economically interlinked with for example Saudi Arabia. Does not mean we don't get ocasional massacre at home from Salafist Terror Cells.

This is why don't buy your point.

right. so what when the USA decides they don't want to protect europe anymore? What when we don't have an external enemy? We'll just go back to killing eachother as before then eh? yeah, brilliant plan you got there. good long term planning.

For caveman instincts theres 1) Nuclear deterreance
And 2) History from 400s AD to 1945 AD for lessons for the more theorical minded.

It's that simple.

[NosPortatArma]

You have 1) Nuclear deterrence for the caveman mindset

What do you mean? There would still have to be a nuclear umbrella, and thus a military alliance, for nukes to deter any conflict.

2) History books from 400s AD to 1945 AD for Historical comparison.

be more specific.

Fine, inside the EU. Things like ETA terror cells, linked to Basque Country. It's economically linked to the rest of Spain, yet if needed has no problems in ocasional extra judicia killings.

The whole western world, EU and USA included, are economically interlinked with for example Saudi Arabia. Does not mean we don't get ocasional massacre at home from Salafist Terror Cells.

uh... I don't see how this is relevant at all.

[fkizz]

What do you mean? There would still have to be a nuclear umbrella, and thus a military alliance, for nukes to deter any conflict.

Do you mean anti-missile defense near russian border by nuclear umbrella?

uh... I don't see how this is relevant at all.

I gave you examples of groups and unions who are economically interindependant yet cause occasional massacre at each other. Your point was that economic interdependancy avoids this.

[Iskar]

The point is that economic interdependency counter-incentivises armed conflict, not utterly removes it - that would be delusional. You might also notice that armed conflicts with separatist organisations within Europe have significantly diminished, ETA is close to vanishing and complete disarmament and the good friday agreement ending the terrorist activities of IRA, negotiated under considerable involvement of the EU, was quite a milestone of ending armed conflict. Salafist terrorists are no official representatives of the Saudis and as far as I know we're not at war with the latter.

Nuclear deterrence is not an easy thing to achieve and works rather by sufficiently decentralised second-strike capacities than missile-defense systems, necessitating smaller countries with limited military budget to cooperate to achieve it.
Somewhat counterintuitively in nuclear strategy missile-defense systems are an aggressive device, since they allow first-strikes without having to fear retaliation (thus increasing tensions, as they make an attack by you more likely), while second-strike capacities serve a defensive purpose, as resources are explicitly spent for non-first strike, retaliation purposes, reducing your opponent's strategic payoff for a first-strike while not increasing yours.

[NosPortatArma]

Do you mean anti-missile defense near russian border by nuclear umbrella?

'Nuclear umbrella' means that one country with nukes extend their protection over other non-nuclear countries, like an umbrella protects against rain, by promising to be willing to use their nukes if the protectee country is threatened.

I gave you examples of groups and unions who are economically interindependant

No, you didn't, and no Eu consists of COUNTRIES. neither ETA or islamic terror groups are countries, and they are certainly not members of the EU.

Your point was that economic interdependancy avoids this

no it wasn't. My point was that the EU prevented conflict BETWEEN countries.

so stop brining up irrelevant things like terrorism. You might as well complain the EU doesn't prevent homicide, it's just as (ir)relevant.

[NosPortatArma]

Nuclear deterrence is not an easy thing to achieve and works rather by sufficiently decentralised second-strike capacities than missile-defense systems, necessitating smaller countries with limited military budget to cooperate to achieve it.
Somewhat counterintuitively in nuclear strategy missile-defense systems are an aggressive device, since they allow first-strikes without having to fear retaliation (thus increasing tensions, as they make an attack by you more likely), while second-strike capacities serve a defensive purpose, as resources are explicitly spent for non-first strike, retaliation purposes, reducing your opponent's strategic payoff for a first-strike while not increasing yours.

indeed, and I can add that nuclear deterrance by itself is not sufficient to guarantee safety, since it only allows for one kind of response: nuclear war. This is of course problematic since not every provocation is appropriately countered by nukes, which would mean the end of the world if it was used against another nuclear power. No, conventional power is needed to counter provocations which do not warrant a nuclear war. Since using nukes against a nuclear power entails the end of the world, if you only have nukes, an enemy which posses both nuclear and conventional ability could then commit literally every possible offense against you short of destroying you, because it would always be preferable for you to endure them than to end the world.

so, in addition to the large systems needed to provide credible second-strike ability, we'd also need to have a conventional force strong enough to deter against minor offenses. Both of these is certainly not something that smaller countries can afford by themselves.

[fkizz]

@nostportdarma,

If for you conflict is only important when it reaches official declaration of war, then I guess Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, Machester and whatever else were acts of Peace who were not "important enough to be at level of country". Following that logic Napoleon was only at odds with Russia at Borodino, but not before... Bad sense of geostrategy right there!

Plus everyone knows main sponsor of Salafism terrorist ideology is Saudi Arabia. It's an open secret. Western World is interdependant with Saudi Arabia Oil supply, doesn't mean said groups don't shoot each other given the chance using non official paid members. To pretend otherwise is folly.

Third time I repeat this easy to understand point.

Also reason for EU countries to not shoot each other may be something called NATO which you pretend doesn't exist. In NATO, there is a logic of might makes order, and EU countries belong to NATO and for obvious reasons have everything to lose in attacking each other. There is a hierarchical armed forces logic behind such deterrance, not simply flowers and altruism because of the magic EU treaty that brings peace.

Your point comes at the expense of leeching off NATO's hard work.

The point is that economic interdependency counter-incentivises armed conflict, not utterly removes it - that would be delusional.

Well point of OP was that economic interdependency magically makes it disappear. Thanks for at least agreeing here.

Salafist terrorists are no official representatives of the Saudis and as far as I know we're not at war with the latter.

So now the pro-EU ideas defend Saudi Arabia and what they sponsor? Well of course it's not official, it's already open enough that Saudi Arabia has serious links in funding Salafist Mosques. They are already surprisingly open about it, but of course they won't formally confirm such in marriage-type cerimony.

And yes this group that sends us explosion people are economically interdependant with us. So no, economic interdependance isn't what will save us from ocasional massacre with dozens of people dead. Unless that's fine by you and "europe has to learn to live with terrorism"

[Cope]

I think it is an effect of replying to extremal positions (in this case Diocle's) that the reply is perceived closer to the opposite extreme than it actually is. I don't advocate a European superstate, in fact I am an avid supporter of the principle of subsidiarity, solving every issue on the administrative level best suited to it, be it municipal, regional, national or supranational. They do not exclude each other and the referundum was not an exclusive choice "Westminster XOR Brussels". The EU treaties are very much different from the outdated and partially ill-conceived American constitution and I have never experienced a problem with having both the Federal diet, in its age-old tradition from the Imperial diets of the middle ages and the congregations of 1848 and 1919, and the European institutions, signifying a new cooperative approach to European politics after centuries of wars.

The creation of a European superstate has been written into the essential texts of the European Union. A "United States of Europe", first envisaged by post-war politicians (including Churchill), was partially enshrined in the Treaty of Rome whose signatories affirmed their determination "to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe". This determination - which has provided the basis for subsequent treaties - has been adopted by contemporary Europhiles who, having grown in number and influence, are now resolved in the desire to federalize the European Union. A fully integrated fiscal and political union - which necessitates the centralization of power and constitutes the foundations of a "superstate" - is considered the solution to the European Union's dysfunctions.

The United Kingdom has not yet departed from the European Union and already we hear of plots to expand the Eurozone, to merge Europe's military forces and to enforce migrant quotas upon reluctant Eastern European states. Suffice to say, nations lacking the ability to command their own military forces, to control their own borders or to regulate their own currencies are nations deprived of their sovereign rights. It is therefore self-evident that the "principle of subsidiarity" is fundamentally meaningless: it imagines the historic realms of Europe being reduced to federal provinces of a greater European Union and supposes that these realms ought to be content with scraps of devolved power. Contrary to your inference, were the European Union ever to successfully realize the federalist dreams of its most ardent proponents, it would be every bit the superstate that the United States is.

The other important difference here is globalism vs. globalisation. I would not count myself among the supporters of actively globalising all politics (which might be globalism, if we give this somewhat polemically created notion the benefit of the doubt), rather I acknowledge the facts of very much increased mobility of people information and goods, first and foremost by technological advance rather than political action (which would be acknowledging globalisation as a neutral, merely descriptive term of what we experience in our day).

History contradicts your view that the increased mobility of people is more a product of technological advance than it is of political action. If we use the United Kingdom as a case study, the data demonstrates a clear correlation between drastically rising net migration figures and the election of the Blair government in 1997 as well as an unambiguous upward trend (net migration increased five-fold from its historical levels) following the eastward expansion of the European Union in 2004. At no point during this period did a technological revolution in transport or mobility occur.

Likewise, and going back even further, another clear upward trend in migration to the United Kingdom occurred following the cessation of the Second World War. Once again, the increase was directly related to government policies to fill labour shortages, not a greater access to transportation or mobility. And the same is patently the case in contemporary Germany, the government of which uses humanitarian appeals and vague references to the inevitability of "globalization" to mask the reality that it's migratory policies are consciously derived from the dangerously weak reproduction rates among native Germans. Thus, the mass movement of peoples is not some sort of inevitable phenomenon of globalization caused by improvements in technology. It is the direct result of Western economic policies - which explains why foreign-born population rates in Europe, North America and Australia dwarf the foreign-born population rates of India, China and Japan.

Ultimately, your position is akin to arguing that it was improvements in naval technology and navigational techniques rather than political resolutions which were responsible for European colonization of the New World and the movement of millions of African slaves via transatlantic routes. It was not. Technological advancements merely provided the tools for European Imperialism. It was political and economic actors who commandeered these tools to reshape the demographics of entire continents. And this is why I refer to European migratory trends as "self-fulfilling" prophecies. If governments pursue policies which conform to a prophecy that mass migration is an inevitable effect of globalization, then mass migration will indeed become inevitable.

The consequences I draw from the latter are of course not of the nature that I choose to ignore these facts, but that I realise that even if we want to take political action to counter some of these globalising processes we need to do so in cooperation with others, by the very nature of the problem.

My answer to this assertion is one I've made before, and is twofold: first, the European Union is a feature of globalization and cannot therefore be reasonably considered as a remedy for its negative aspects; second the notion that the existence of the European Union is a prerequisite for productive cooperation between European nations - or that it even enhances cooperation at all - is an absolute fallacy.

As for the sidepoint about water and air, your naive ideas about it perfectly illustrate the shortsightedness of your approach. The water in the Ligurian sea is part of at least one major circulation in the western mediterranean, and there are circulations encompassing the entire mediterranean. The rain feeding the rivers and lakes comes from clouds that could not care less about national borders, air moves freely anyway, so unless you hold your breath whenever there is westwind you can barely avoid breathing French air, for instance. The only exclusively Italian "air" you can get is probably by inhaling the fumes of Etna or Stromboli, although the sicilians and calabrians might contend that it is actually sicilian or calabrian air, not genovese, romana or any other. Is that sufficient to illustrate the absurd implications of your position?

This is correct. Ironically enough, the European Union has adopted the same protectionist attitude toward "European" resources as Diocle has toward those within the Italian region. His position is fundamentally identical to that of the European Union vis-a-vis natural resources only in microcosm. The borders of the European Union being broader than the borders of Italy does not affect the nature of protectionist and regulatory principles. Does the European Union not regulate air, and if so what gives it the right to claim that air to be European? Does the European Union not regulate waters it considers to be its own, and if so under what theory is said water assumed to be European? Does it not also apply protectionist policies to the farming of sea creatures within those waters irrespective of whether they are migratory?

Why is Diocle's implication that some air and some water belong to Italy more absurd than the European Union's assertions that some air and some water belong to Europe?

[Cope]

actually, that's exactly what it does. If there are interests and challenges common to europe, it makes sense that europe cooperates to further and adress them, respectively. It makes no sense at all that if we have similar interests, that we should not band together. And yes, cooperation does often requires supernational forms. An example is the common market, beneficial to all, which requires common standards and regulations to work effectively, which requires a body to decide those things, and preferably the members states should have some input, and whoops thats how we got the european parliament.

1. Productive cooperation over shared interests and concerns does not require a the construction of a superstate. It is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.
2. A condemnation of the European Union is not a condemnation of all international organizations.
3. The Common Market is a trading bloc not a political union; the two are distinct from one another. The European Economic Community existed prior to, and independently of, the European Union. Your insinuation that the two are one and the same is a fallacy, as is your contention that the EEC is "beneficial to all".

no. see my answer akrotatos above, second paragraph of this post.

Yes, see my post to which you replied.

[NosPortatArma]

Productive cooperation over shared interests and concerns does not require a the construction of a superstate.

it does require a superstate if you want to be as effective as possible.

The Common Market is a trading bloc not a political union; the two are distinct from one another. The European Economic Community existed prior to, and independently of, the European Union.

no its not distinct from the EU. EEC eisted prior to EU but has now been conpletely absorbed into it. The common market seeks to establish the our freedoms of labour, capital, goods and services, and that is not something which can be done without superstate.

[fkizz]

and that is not something which can be done without superstate.

Athens (more cosmopolitan) also wanted to establish a Greek superstate (Thalassocracy) and see what happened when they tried to "integrate" Sparta.

Sparta was possibly the most Nationalistic state, to be a spartan it required being born as one, by blood ties. Life was very harsh there, and Spartans could get a better life with more commerce should they just join Delian league in a subordinate way.

Instead they said NO, formed Peloponnesian league, resisted the siege, counterattacked, Sparta won and Athens ships were burned and Delian League dreams of Greek superstate were over. And they lost against the less cosmopolitan and less "sophisticated" of people, but people who simply loved their land and the idea of defending where they were born, and were good for nothing else but that.

[NosPortatArma]

Athens (more cosmopolitan) also wanted to establish a Greek superstate (Thalassocracy) and see what happened when they tried to "integrate" Sparta.

Sparta was possibly the most Nationalistic state, to be a spartan it required being born as one, by blood ties. Life was very harsh there, and Spartans could get a better life with more commerce should they just join Delian league in a subordinate way.

Instead they said NO, formed Peloponnesian league, resisted the siege, counterattacked, Sparta won and Athens ships were burned and Delian League dreams of Greek superstate were over. And they lost against the less cosmopolitan and less "sophisticated" of people, but people who simply loved their land and the idea of defending where they were born, and were good for nothing else but that.

and then the greeks got conquered by the makedonians and then romans, because they were divided and weak, go figure...

[Cope]

it does require a superstate if you want to be as effective as possible.

No it doesn't.

no its not distinct from the EU. EEC eisted prior to EU but has now been conpletely absorbed into it. The common market seeks to establish the our freedoms of labour, capital, goods and services, and that is not something which can be done without superstate.

1. The Common Market is distinct from the European Union. It is possible for nations to be members of the Single Market or the Customs Union without being members of the European Union, ergo proving that the European Union has not "completely absorbed" either.

2. The movement of labour, capital and goods already exists without the need for a superstate. You wanting a superstate to exist (which is what this is actually about) does not render it necessary or desirable.

[Diocle]

Hegelian "philosophy" has major flaws and inconsistencies, the most prominent one being its baseless assumption of a télos, a supposed monotonous evolution of the syntheses towards the better, but that would be a subject for the EMM.

Apart from that, masquerading inhumane positions as "necessary" for a dialectic way forward is pretty dishonest and also false. I know of a good number of non-extremal discussions on this site alone that led to a common increase in understanding and your second paragraph proves your first one lies: If you were truly after a dialectic synthesis it would not be identical with your own thesis (Germany = evil), although that is what you claim.

I don't want to take too much space in this discussion, I've already explained what I think, but in this case, I can't avoid the necessity of advancing a Fundamental clarification about Germany and Germans. Sorry.

I never said the Germans are "evil". Even though they have been considered "evil", or better "The Evil", by large part of the winners of WW2, I never shared this opinion. Actually Germans were and are the first victims of their own imperialism; so, more than evil, they are, like everybody else in Europe, unfortunate victims of the imperial ideology of their elites (but, remember please: not even the elites are strictly "evil", they do in fact what is necessary to survive in the age of Late Capitalism in which we have the adventure of living), they're victims of the winners of WW2, first victims of two consecutive defeats in which their "wise" elites had involved them.

What I've written above, doesn't change the fact that this hypocritical supposed Union between supposed equals, is actually nothing else than the particular (and pretty disgusting, I'd say) shape assumed by German Imperialism after WW2. Brexit tells us a simple truth: English people has already got the message, and .. be sure Iskar: sooner or later, the other Eurpopeans "shall follow as the baggage train", as he used to say Antonio Gramsci.

[NosPortatArma]

No it doesn't.

yes it does

The Common Market is distinct from the European Union. It is possible for nations to be members of the Single Market or the Customs Union without being members of the European Union, ergo proving that the European Union has not "completely absorbed" either.

yes indeed, non-eu countries can be part of the common market, provided they follow certain rules. Who makes those rules? the EU. So clearly, the claim that the common market is independent of the EU is just nonsense.

the movement of labour, capital and goods already exists without the need for a superstate.

surely you haven't missed that those things are based upon cooperation of a supernational form, ie the EU? The EU is already supernational, didn't you know?

[Cope]

yes it does

One need not marry his neighbour to borrow his lawn mower.

yes indeed, non-eu countries can be part of the common market, provided they follow certain rules. Who makes those rules? the EU. So clearly, the claim that the common market is independent of the EU is just nonsense.

This is a straw man. I never claimed that the single market and customs union were independent of the European Union. I argued first that the two entities are distinct (hence why we have words describing both) and second that the the Common Market has existed independently of the European Union. It is the international norm for trading blocs to exist without political unions, as was the case in Europe prior to the Maastricht Treaty. The argument that a political union is a necessity for mutually beneficial trading arrangements is a tedious fallacy routinely wheeled out by Europhiles as an excuse for further political integration.

surely you haven't missed that those things are based upon cooperation of a supernational form, ie the EU? The EU is already supernational, didn't you know?

Another non argument.

1. International or "supernational" organizations need not take the form of a "superstate". The implication that supernational organizations are necessarily synonymous with superstates is fallacious.
2. My condemnation of the European Union does not equate to my condemnation of all international organizations. The implication that if one supports or advocates in favour of one international community he must advocate in favour of them all is untenable.

[Akrotatos]

Athens (more cosmopolitan) also wanted to establish a Greek superstate (Thalassocracy) and see what happened when they tried to "integrate" Sparta.

Sparta was possibly the most Nationalistic state, to be a spartan it required being born as one, by blood ties. Life was very harsh there, and Spartans could get a better life with more commerce should they just join Delian league in a subordinate way.

Instead they said NO, formed Peloponnesian league, resisted the siege, counterattacked, Sparta won and Athens ships were burned and Delian League dreams of Greek superstate were over. And they lost against the less cosmopolitan and less "sophisticated" of people, but people who simply loved their land and the idea of defending where they were born, and were good for nothing else but that.

It would be more fitting to compare the EU with the Athenian League. A union of independent states bound together for mutual safety and profit under the leadership of the biggest state and with their common funds being in one of the smaller members. Then, the strong country starts using the league for its own profit and it eventually turns to the Athenian Hegemony with most of its members wanting to get out and kept in check by force.

Reading the Peloponnesian war, Sparta spent most of the war helping members of the EU..eh I mean the Athenian Hegemony to rebel.