Revisiting globalisation...

[Heathen Hammer]

If you look at the EU, if anything there's an excess of democratic control. It's virtually paralyzing. The European council consists of heads of state (either elected directly or accountable to their respective parliaments), the Council of the EU consists of government ministers (also accountable to their respective parliaments), the European Parliament has its own democratic mandate.

As the EU, like most of its member states, follows the parliamentary system, the fact that the European Commission (executive) is not chosen directly is neither here nor there. If anything, the Commission has more constraints on it considering it not only needs parliamentary approval, but also approval from the Council of the EU to pass legislation.

The EU commission is not some tyrannical organisation sailing its own course. It brokers compromises between nations, endlessly. That it is seen as bogeyman is mostly the result of domestic politics in EU member states. It's been electorally beneficial to claim credit for any benefit the EU brings and assign blame for any concession it requires. The exact nature of disgruntlement varies accordingly, from country to country.

One can put an Orwellian spin on anything, calling unelected foreign bureaucrats making policy for a nation being excess of democratic control being one of them. Germans shouldn't have a say on what Italy does, and France shouldn't have a say on what Brits do. It isn't a compromise broker, it is essentially dictating policy to other nation, with nation having no control or consent over it. So it makes sense to view Brexit as victory of democracy over globalism, which is undemocratic by nature. The ironic part here is that EU is claiming credit for benefits that come from within individual states, which was used in pro-EU propaganda, especially in context of globalist anti-Brexit tantrums in UK.
The reality is that pan-European federal state is just as impossible as Pan-Asian state or Pan-African state. Different nations have simply different interests and "compromise" is typically screwing over working class for the benefits of a small minority of rich oligarchs, which is pretty much the reason why British working class emigrated from Labor to conservatives.

[Love Mountain]

You're looking at it with too narrower timeframe. The EU didn't end 15 years ago. And it is currently struggling with a number of governments with nationalist outlooks, specifically because what those governments define as in the best interests of their people directly conflict with the compromises required by EU membership, and as I suggested, nationalism is particularly zero-sum.

Not quite sure what you mean in regards to "narrow timeframe". The Maastricht Treaty was pushed as a way to further integrate the European community together. Which will prevent war and allow Europe to compete as an economic "Great Power". Similarly, the expansion of the Eurozone, was touted by economists, as a method to limit financial shenanigans by individual nation-states and allow all countries to compete on level ground. Anyway, I guess my point is that while Nationalist arguments against the EU were always there (one merely needs to revisit the debates over the Maastricht Treaty in the 90s to see that), most countries ended up joining because they saw the benefits of membership, and until the last 5-10 years really, the EU project was generally hailed as a near total success.

[antaeus]

most countries ended up joining because they saw the benefits of membership, and until the last 5-10 years really, the EU project was generally hailed as a near total success.

And that's really what I was getting at. It's a pan national experiment that is younger than some of it's citizens. Yes it kept a lid on nationalism for a time, but those insular selfish forces are always present in every society, and just waiting for the right conditions. In the EU we're starting to see the right conditions. I'd like the experiment to succeed, but some of it's core compromises are difficult to reconcile when faced with forces that fundamentally can't compromise.

[Muizer]

One can put an Orwellian spin on anything, calling unelected foreign bureaucrats making policy for a nation being excess of democratic control being one of them.

Look who's spinning ... By referencing 'unelected officials' you're sweeping under the rug that decisions are made democratically. You're conjuring up a picture of an unaccountable group of suits dictating policy from above. The reality is the EU is a club that nations join voluntarily, that the club determines its own rules democratically and that members have the choice to either follow them or get out.

Germans shouldn't have a say on what Italy does, and France shouldn't have a say on what Brits do.It isn't a compromise broker, it is essentially dictating policy to other nation, with nation having no control or consent over it.

It's not inherently different from New Yorkers voting on things that affect Nebraskans.

So it makes sense to view Brexit as victory of democracy over globalism, which is undemocratic by nature. The ironic part here is that EU is claiming credit for benefits that come from within individual states, which was used in pro-EU propaganda, especially in context of globalist anti-Brexit tantrums in UK.

I've no idea what you're referencing here, so I'll just ignore it.

The reality is that pan-European federal state is just as impossible as Pan-Asian state or Pan-African state. Different nations have simply different interests

Differences of interests occur at all administrative levels, and if you go back far enough in time you'll find people bashing each other's heads in over 'irreconcilable differences' at every one of them. Nations are only 'special' as long as people choose to believe they are. I think that's what all your arguments come down to: you take 'nationhood' as something special, magical even, and adopt it as axiomatic that things 'ought to be that way'. Everything else flows from this. If you didn't you'd realize that by focusing on nations you're imposing arbitrary, and wildly unequal, constraints on how people should organize themselves.

and "compromise" is typically screwing over working class for the benefits of a small minority of rich oligarchs, which is pretty much the reason why British working class emigrated from Labor to conservatives.

I don't always like the direction EU policy takes but you have to be honest about one thing here: It is pretty much in line with the political course of pretty much all EU nations over the past 30 years or so. It's not as if the EU has gone one while national governments tried to go another. By and large, European nations have been ruled by conservative - neo-liberal politics! That's how people have been voting all over the EU. Yeah, I don't like it either, but ... that's democracy for you.

[dogukan]

A video for HH:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIQY44LCIjc

Even though I believe he is a conspiracy-troll who is not here to debate but rather to preach his religion-like populist beliefs, this is still a well elaborated video for all.

As a person who works in finance, who studied global monetary systems academically, while I do obviously realize the massive problems with the system, this story of "banker elites ruling the world" does not serve any useful debate.
It seems to me that people who think the world of finance is too secretive and complex choose the simple peasant-tales of creating conspiracies and legends around entities.
Talking of the banking sector like one unified-ideologically like-minded secret circle...how is one supposed to reply to that?

[Heathen Hammer]

@Muzier

The reality is the EU is a club that nations join voluntarily, that the club determines its own rules democratically and that members have the choice to either follow them or get out.

So why all the tantrums about Brexit then?

It's not inherently different from New Yorkers voting on things that affect Nebraskans.

Which is exactly why states can have different laws.

I've no idea what you're referencing here, so I'll just ignore it.

Remember how anti-Brexit side predicted literal apocalypse if referendum results with Leave? Pepperidge farm remembers.

Differences of interests occur at all administrative levels, and if you go back far enough in time you'll find people bashing each other's heads in over 'irreconcilable differences' at every one of them. Nations are only 'special' as long as people choose to believe they are. I think that's what all your arguments come down to: you take 'nationhood' as something special, magical even, and adopt it as axiomatic that things 'ought to be that way'. Everything else flows from this. If you didn't you'd realize that by focusing on nations you're imposing arbitrary, and wildly unequal, constraints on how people should organize themselves.

Except that national, ethnic and religious identities are a reality, while nobody sane or non-marginal identifies as "citizen of the world" or "citizen of continent-name".

I don't always like the direction EU policy takes but you have to be honest about one thing here: It is pretty much in line with the political course of pretty much all EU nations over the past 30 years or so.

*laughs in Viseguard states*
@dogukan

A video for HH:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIQY44LCIjc

Even though I believe he is a conspiracy-troll who is not here to debate but rather to preach his religion-like populist beliefs, this is still a well elaborated video for all.

As a person who works in finance, who studied global monetary systems academically, while I do obviously realize the massive problems with the system, this story of "banker elites ruling the world" does not serve any useful debate.
It seems to me that people who think the world of finance is too secretive and complex choose the simple peasant-tales of creating conspiracies and legends around entities.
Talking of the banking sector like one unified-ideologically like-minded secret circle...how is one supposed to reply to that?

Shame on me for not believing that cosmopolitan bankers have my best interest in mind. Nice strawman though.
My point still stands - current system benefits only a small group of people, who can influence politics with ease while not facing electoral or legal repercussions for doing so.

[Muizer]

So why all the tantrums about Brexit then?

The tantrums happened in domestic UK politics.

Which is exactly why states can have different laws.

To far lesser extent than the EU member states.

Remember how anti-Brexit side predicted literal apocalypse if referendum results with Leave? Pepperidge farm remembers.

Domestic UK politics again.

Except that national, ethnic and religious identities are a reality, while nobody sane or non-marginal identifies as "citizen of the world" or "citizen of continent-name".

You can be a Texan as well as an American. These things are not mutually exclusive.

*laughs in Viseguard states*

What about the Visegrad states?

[antaeus]

I consider myself a citizen of the world. I have 3 passports which combined allow me to live and work in something like 30 countries. I know nationalists think it is anathema, but you can identify as many things all at once. Does this make me insane, or marginal?

Growing up in a country that identifies with a colonial heritage makes ethnicity complicated, or irrelevant, and certainly reveals it's arbitrary nature. I could count dozens of ethnicities in my ancestry going back only a few generations. And yeah... I agree with the economist on the subject...

[Heathen Hammer]

The tantrums happened in domestic UK politics.

Not really. Like I said, British working class ditched Labor for Conservatives because of Labor becoming anti-Brexit.
Soros, Rothschilds and Obama all spoke out against it. So much for Brexit being globalist.

To far lesser extent than the EU member states.

Which is what EU is against in the long run. Just look at how Merkel and Macron are terrified of proud Viseguard states.

Domestic UK politics again.

Again, actors outside UK said same thing.

You can be a Texan as well as an American. These things are not mutually exclusive.

American as in USA, not as in North American.

What about the Visegrad states?

Not in line with their political course. Like I said above, EU as some pro-gay USSR is simply not feasible. Just end it and set up trade treaties based on each nation's needs.

[Muizer]

Not really. Like I said, British working class ditched Labor for Conservatives because of Labor becoming anti-Brexit.

Politically speaking 99% of the drama around Brexit happened inside the UK, both before and after the referendum. The EU just dealt with whoever the British sent to negotiate. A mistake, perhaps, considering May turned out not to have domestic backing and Boris seems set to renege on a signed deal.

Soros, Rothschilds and Obama all spoke out against it. So much for Brexit being globalist.

Soros' and Obama's words don't define what is and is not globalist.

Which is what EU is against in the long run. Just look at how Merkel and Macron are terrified of proud Viseguard states.

Perhaps rightly so. Nationalism may be for the feeble minded but, that doesn't make it less dangerous.

American as in USA, not as in North American.

I meant the USA, but if North America had its own level of administration, then that would qualify too.

Not in line with their political course.

Poland and Hungary are back-sliding on certain very basic principles of good government and human rights that they signed up for when they joined the EU. They don't deserve the status of repressed 'underdog'.

[Heathen Hammer]

Politically speaking 99% of the drama around Brexit happened inside the UK, both before and after the referendum. The EU just dealt with whoever the British sent to negotiate. A mistake, perhaps, considering May turned out not to have domestic backing and Boris seems set to renege on a signed deal.

Like I said, plenty of drama happened outside.

Soros' and Obama's words don't define what is and is not globalist.

They are major proponents of globalism.

Perhaps rightly so. Nationalism may be for the feeble minded but, that doesn't make it less dangerous.

Nationalism, unlike cosmopolitan globalism, is neither feeble-minded nor dangerous. Unless you are either a welfare immigrant or an elitist cosmopolitan billionaire who aims enriching oneself at the expense of the working class.

I meant the USA, but if North America had its own level of administration, then that would qualify too.

But it does not, since that would never work. I'm glad we finally agree why EU in its current form is a failed experiment.

Poland and Hungary are back-sliding on certain very basic principles of good government and human rights that they signed up for when they joined the EU. They don't deserve the status of repressed 'underdog'.

I find it funny, how its Poland and Hungary, and not, say, Merkel's Germany. Guess who jails people for posting wrongthink on social media? Merkel's Germany. Who censors content on the Internet? Merkel's Germany.
But EU is fine with violating very basic principles if it is convenient to do so - which is why criticism of Viseguard states is superficial nonsense, since population of those states enjoys far more freedoms then population of Germany does.
it is important to understand that EU is just a bureaucratic superstructure whose sole aim is maintaining the current financial status quo and allow billionaires to keep making profits at the expense of European nations.
Makes sense that it is so opposed, especially by minor, but brave states that experienced similar conditions in Warsaw Pact era. Functionally there is very little difference between Rothschild/Soros types and USSR party brass.