Any step we take to unify the globe is a good one, even if the methods are hamfisted and the results underwhelming. If we have 3 countries (we've always been at war with Eurasia), we're closer to global union than if we have 250, and extracting ourselves from a union was a regression to undesirable ways.
I also understand that xenophobia wasn't the only source of Leave votes, but you can't say that it wasn't a factor with a straight face. And Britain -is- getting more xenophobic and insular, as is... well, pretty much everywhere. Even the Scandinavians are getting in on the hate train. i'm genuinely worried/hopeful, but the American results don't show the backlash that I was hoping for, and even after the Leave promises came out as a pack of lies, noone on the Leave side seems terribly bothered. We're heading to a dark and lonely place, and I fear that not enough of us care to do anything about it.
I don't know if I've made this argument to you specifically before, so pardon me if I have in the past and I'm just repeating myself here, but I am of the adamant position that the objective does not justify the means. First and foremost is in what form the union is made and to serve whom, getting political unions wrong sets you far, much farther back than if you had done nothing to seek it out politically. Reason for this is, is that as time goes on, technological advance, infrastructure development and interpersonal relations make us de facto closer to one world than all these politically ambitious bureaucrats, who seek to build a political institution first and find actual unity second. If there is not unity first, there will be no reason for those to obey the new polity except the force of law, which leads to the situation where we're at now. I do not want to live under the rule of a distant global government ruling over a world of continual insurgency, whose leaders are the most unimaginative viceroys selling power to the highest bidder we could ever wish to die for. It would result in one of two outcomes; either it fails, setting humanity back as a whole, or it succeeds, locking humanity in a global stagnancy from which the current order is made legal status quo: an incompetent plutocracy with excellent support staff ruling over the rest for their own self-benefit. The prospect of them winning is worse than losing tbh
The second is that if we look at history, political units have always been best made by necessity first, history second and ambition last. Those like Alexander, Temujin, Timur, Napoleon and Hitler all set forth to make one world government by ambition, and all of them saw their one-world government disintegrate one way or another. Those formed by history are self-explanatory, shared culture, ethnicity, religion, history and such makes a people reluctant to break a union without good reason. Those formed by necessity result in those formed by history. What I mean by this is a simple consequence of foreign policy and power: Polities which cannot afford to defend their independence get subsumed by those which can afford to project their power. The feudal Lords could not protect their independence against the bureaucracies of nascent nation-states, the nascent nation-states could not protect their independence against the great powers, the great powers tore each other to ribbons and fell under the influence of the superpowers and now we see the same again. What is significant is that as time goes on, the cost for defence increases exponentially - if you compare a spitfire from the 1940s (adjusted for inflation) to a Typhoon, one would cost you £700k and the other would cost you £125,000,000. The aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal set the UK back £3,000,000 (£159,000,000 today) in the 1940s, while the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth today costs £3,100,000,000.
As time goes on the cost of power continues to increase, until such time as a nation cannot afford to have an independent foreign policy, and must subject itself to a superior economic power. This is the ultimate guarantor of the unification of mankind, not hamfisted and underwhelming attempts to assassinate European Democracies for the benefit of a technocrat's retirement funds. It is why the EU must resort to direct control of a country's economy, why it desires so much to immediately subsume their militaries, why it desires to represent them on the world stage - because countries like the UK, Italy, Poland e.t.c. do not need the European Union, so in the absence of a necessity, one must be made. Yet because the impetus is an artifice of law and requires the continual assertion of authority against the numerous masses, it is inherently fragile & provokes continual resentment, both of which invite rebellions, as we see with Brexit, Italy's budget, Visegrad's anything, & european eurosceptics.
My last point is a matter of opinion, but if the time should come that the United Kingdom ceases to be sovereign, we should first and foremost seek union with those of our constitution who utilise the same governance and system of law as us. How we seek to turn our backs on the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth at large is thoroughly beyond me, I have zero ties with the European Continent but many many across the Commonwealth, so my personal interest lies beyond - it would the perfect alignment of necessity & history. Consider for example how many have expressed interest in closer UK-Australian ties; it is because the historical connection is there, but the necessity is not. Should necessity ever exist, there would be a perfect alignment of necessity and history which does not exist with this bland corporate entity across the channel. One thing for certain is true: Everyone who said the European Union was just a trade organisation is now as disappointed as I am
Norwegian Ork Pirates?
So
Wez made a fire
Iznt it good
Norkwegian wood
Do politicians not have spines
ftfy
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1002094 times)