Separatists.

[TheAnimus]

So in the news at the moment, the EU has been getting rather lovey duvy with Cornwall, reminding them how abandoned they are by the rest of the UK, how important their role is.

It was making me think more about nationalism, how dirty the concept appears to me, then this popped up on my news feed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-in-hell.html

I'm sure at least one member of hexus will point out that this is the work of some pro-russians doing some false flag thing or similar. But the fact of the matter is that people are having such violent views over something which realistically wont make much difference to their lives.

Why do people feel so strongly about something that is so arbitrary. Why would they have allegiance with someone from Bodmin, Launceston but not Exeter?

[j1979]

here's my opinion. I'm sure you will disagree with almost all of it

The mild dilution of nationalism was the primary driving force behind the creation of the EU. To that aim it has been pretty damn successful. It has prevented major war and conflict in Europe, yet it allows for the most part, countries to keep there national identity in tact.

Nothing wrong with nationalism, Just wrong when someone thinks their nation is more worthy than another nation. If there's a section within a country that is clearly another country.. for example Tibet, there self determination should be worked towards.

The British splitting of Ireland into 2 separate states, in my option was a bad idea. But in the country we are not allowed to mention, the opposite happened. After independence in 1991 from the "Mother Land" it was agreed the whole country was keep as a whole.

Both approaches have caused problems, but in the case of the unmentionable country, those problems have only arisen because the larger "mother land" country stoked nationalism to paranoid levels, and not allowed the country it to take it's own true independent path.

The "mother land" did this in, Georgia, Moldova, ******* and sent in the troops, and it's also doing it in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Azerbaijan and various other states. It stokes nationalism to try and keep that country under it's sphere of influence. Failing that it uses force.

Nationalism is fine, until the collective of the country thinks it's more superior or righteous than another national identity.

The alternative I guess is a homogenized world, where the government tries to fully integrate. That socialist utopia, is an interesting concept and the microcosm to study might be Yugoslavia, it works, kind of while there's a strong authoritative leader. Yugoslavia died with Tito.

Personally, I think it's fruitless to try and stop nationalism and even counter productive. The EU has it's problems, but it's still one of the best places to live in the world and it allows nationalism yet not has not experienced a single major war within it's borders. Nationalism encouraged to a point, yet a common identity and goals is shared by many.

I like to think of the EU as a modern day voluntary Roman Empire.

I see the EU is the way forward for Europe, integration with national identity. But it really needs to address the immigration issues, or face the nationalism growing to a level that destroys it. if it fails, then war to some degree will be almost inevitable imho.

Lastly, to quote Jesus "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" That statement is one we all often forget. Me included.

[Saracen]

....

The mild dilution of nationalism was the primary driving force behind the creation of the EU. To that aim it has been pretty damn successful. It has prevented major war and conflict in Europe,

....

Has it, though?

Cause and effect.

A few weeks ago, I was playing with some dice, and rolled sixes on every one of five separate dice, simultaneously. And, trouble broke out you-know-where. Did I cause it by rolling five sixes? Or was it just a coincidence?

There's no evidence of a causal link between my dice and that trouble, and about the same amount of evidence that the EU has prevented war. It's equally plausible that what prevented war was that, after two go's at it, we all finally decided it wasn't a bright idea. Or, we were too worn out by mk.1 and mk.2 for a mk.3. Or, what with the cold war and all, we were too busy pooping our collective kecks over the Soviet Union to get around to fighting each other.

Maybe the EU had a part to play, maybe it didn't. But remember, the EU has only existed in relatively recent times. We, the UK, joined a Common Market, an EEC, not an EU, and that middle E is important. We joined, supposedly, an economic club, not a political or anti-war one.

....

I like to think of the EU as a modern day voluntary Roman Empire.

....

Not until TPTB get around to asking the people if we want to be in it or not, it isn't. Right now, it's a stitch up by ruling elite political class. If Cameron holds his referendum, and the country votes 'yes' to continued membership, then and only then will it truly be voluntary.

[Galant]

...voluntary Roman Empire

Oxymoron?

Always amazing to me how the Roman Empire is often lifted up as a shining example of what we should be heading towards as a society (cue Monty Python references). Still that's a topic for another day.

As for nationalism, I think it's a case of:

1 - Identity and belonging - we all want to feel part of something and when you have that you want to defend it.
2 - The fact that most of us suffer from comparisonitis. When we act on that we end up with not necessarily untrue statements like, "Now is better than then", "Here is better than there", "This is better than that would be". And who wants to lose what is perceived as - and could actually be - better?
3 - Investment. Sure enough there are those who have done nothing for their country or community and yet bang the drum louder than any. Still, there are those who have heavily invested themselves - blood, sweat, tears and taxes - into their country and society. This then builds up point 1.

[j1979]

Has it, though?

Cause and effect.

A few weeks ago, I was playing with some dice, and rolled sixes on every one of five separate dice, simultaneously. And, trouble broke out you-know-where. Did I cause it by rolling five sixes? Or was it just a coincidence?

There's no evidence of a causal link between my dice and that trouble, and about the same amount of evidence that the EU has prevented war. It's equally plausible that what prevented war was that, after two go's at it, we all finally decided it wasn't a bright idea. Or, we were too worn out by mk.1 and mk.2 for a mk.3. Or, what with the cold war and all, we were too busy pooping our collective kecks over the Soviet Union to get around to fighting each other.

Maybe the EU had a part to play, maybe it didn't. But remember, the EU has only existed in relatively recent times. We, the UK, joined a Common Market, an EEC, not an EU, and that middle E is important. We joined, supposedly, an economic club, not a political or anti-war one.

Not until TPTB get around to asking the people if we want to be in it or not, it isn't. Right now, it's a stitch up by ruling elite political class. If Cameron holds his referendum, and the country votes 'yes' to continued membership, then and only then will it truly be voluntary.

Personally i'm confident the EU has had a massive calming effect on Europe. for all it's problems, it has provided a safety net for debt ridden countries. You here all the time, Portuguese and Greeks complaining the EU ruined their economy, but really over-borrowing ruined their economy, with or without the EU. Austerity Riots across Europe are small fry.

Sure economic reasons were the main selling point, but behind the scenes a lot of savings were made in defense and legal areas. Personally I'm confident we live in a safer world due to the EU. Merkel is right in my opinion we can't let Europe fail

As for being voluntary , you're right, but if you could argue if you elected a pro EU government (tory or labour then you could be seen as voting for the EU)

I hope the referendum doesn't happen, if it does expect a massive media campaign to make sure we vote to say in. Average Joe wants to leave Europe (apparently) but do they really understand the risks.

If we leave and France leaves, it's finished and the results would rip Europe apart. Old wounds would be reopened and the large country to the east would seize it's moment.

[opel80uk]

Personally i'm confident the EU has had a massive calming effect on Europe. for all it's problems, it has provided a safety net for debt ridden countries. You here all the time, Portuguese and Greeks complaining the EU ruined their economy, but really over-borrowing ruined their economy, with or without the EU. Austerity Riots across Europe are small fry.

Strictly speaking, you are right that over borrowing ruined economies, but rather than provide a safety net, what the EU did in response was arguably exacerbate the situation. Take Ireland for example; after the crash Ireland were instructed to not allow bank bond holders to be burned, which would have directly affected the largest EU economies, but would have protected the Irish public from having to take on the debt of the bailout. So while I have no doubt that the Irish crash would have happened, if they had been allowed to burn the bank holders, which should be the normal practise if a bank goes bust, the after effects would have been less severe. The Irish economy certainly would not have the amount of debt around its neck that it does now, that’s for sure. The EU if effectively run in the interests of the German & French economies. Once you accept that, it paints the EU in a somewhat different light as this kind of utopia that some try to make it out to be.

As for the initial question, Nationalism, in all its forms, is one of the biggest blights to mankind there’s ever been. That people make decisions based on arbitrary and fluid factors such as borders, or flags, or accents is, to me at least, the biggest flaw in our makeup. That it is used by the political classes as a tool to bend the will of the masses so effectively, also makes it one of the most dangerous.

[j1979]

Oxymoron?

Always amazing to me how the Roman Empire is often lifted up as a shining example of what we should be heading towards as a society (cue Monty Python references). Still that's a topic for another day.

As for nationalism, I think it's a case of:

1 - Identity and belonging - we all want to feel part of something and when you have that you want to defend it.
2 - The fact that most of us suffer from comparisonitis. When we act on that we end up with not necessarily untrue statements like, "Now is better than then", "Here is better than there", "This is better than that would be". And who wants to lose what is perceived as - and could actually be - better?
3 - Investment. Sure enough there are those who have done nothing for their country or community and yet bang the drum louder than any. Still, there are those who have heavily invested themselves - blood, sweat, tears and taxes - into their country and society. This then builds up point 1.

Yes it an Oxymoron.

Your points on nationalism are good way to look at it, included in that there are a growing number of EU nationalists.

[Saracen]

Personally i'm confident the EU has had a massive calming effect on Europe. for all it's problems, it has provided a safety net for debt ridden countries. You here all the time, Portuguese and Greeks complaining the EU ruined their economy, but really over-borrowing ruined their economy, with or without the EU. Austerity Riots across Europe are small fry.

Sure economic reasons were the main selling point, but behind the scenes a lot of savings were made in defense and legal areas. Personally I'm confident we live in a safer world due to the EU. Merkel is right in my opinion we can't let Europe fail

As for being voluntary , you're right, but if you could argue if you elected a pro EU government (tory or labour then you could be seen as voting for the EU)

I hope the referendum doesn't happen, if it does expect a massive media campaign to make sure we vote to say in. Average Joe wants to leave Europe (apparently) but do they really understand the risks.

If we leave and France leaves, it's finished and the results would rip Europe apart. Old wounds would be reopened and the large country to the east would seize it's moment.

You could equally well argue that the debt-ridden countries that were calmed by the EU safety net were onlg debt-ridden in the first place because of the EU. First, it was the EU that allowed, even encouraged, countries to borrow, and to do at at Eurozone rates only available because the Euro was under-written by the strength of the northern European, and especially German, economies. Without that, they wouldn-t be debt-ridden, or at least, nowhere near as badly, Secondly, had the growth and stabilty pact rules (and note, RULES , not preferences or guidelines) not had the hell ignored out of them in the first place, with the active connivance of Brussels, it's doubtful the worst basket-cases could have got in to the Eurozone in the first place.

They only needed 'calming' because the EU was responsible for the mess in the first place. It's a bit like dousing someone in petrol, handing them a box of matches and then standing by with (and charging them for) a fire extinguisher just in case they're stupid enough to experiment with striking a match.

As for voting in general elections, that's codswallop.

First, a general election is about a vast range of issues, and as the mass media keeps reminding us, the EU is not top of the list for many. That will usually be economy, jobs, taxation, health, efucation, crime, etc.

Second, the general electoral system in this country is loaded. It's a conjuring trick, due to first past the post. If, for example, in a constituency of 50001 people, 25001 vote for party A on a whole range of topics, and 25000 vote for party U because of an anti-EU stance, how much Westminster representation does party U get? Right, none at all. Extrapolate that nationally and you get almost half voting for out, and half voting for issues not centred on the EU. Odds are, a good percentage of those voting for Party A also are anti-EU, but it wasn't high up enough on their agenda to override EVERYTHING else that they decide their vote on.

Obviously, those figures are loaded to illustrate a point, but the point is, a general election tells you little or nothing about ANY single policy.

There is ONLY one way to tell what the people want on the EU, and that is to ask them. We have never, EVER, been asked. While the upcoming EU elections may hint at the national feeling on the EU, even that isn't an absolute guide. Suppose, as the polls predict, UKIP does extremely well, even wins? Is that all about the EU? I'd say not necessarily. It will be a broad hint, but non-Westminster elections are also a harbour for mid-term protest votes. And that, of course, is also why parties like "None of the above" are barred, by statute, from standing. Yup, election law prevents that type of party name.

So, come a general election, since we joined the EU, exactly which party with ANY chance, under FPTP, stood any chance of forming a government? The only party's with a chance of being the government were Labour and Tory, and despite a rump in both (larger in the Tories, but it exists in Labour) that are anti-EU, the parties as a whole are pro-EU. Even the LibDems, whose mantra for decades (not unreasonably) has been electoral reform and PR (because it hugely favours them) can't get into power as anything beyond a junior coalition partner, yet .... take a look over the last few decades at their proportion of the vote, and the proportion of seats it turned into.

The FPTP system is a conjuring trick designed to ensure power passes back and forth between Tory and Labour, and as the only ones (when in power with a majority) that can change that, they're exactly the ones with every incentive not to do so.


Oh, and consider this.

It is not only those that want out of the EU that want a referendum. A lot of those that want to be properly, firmly, incontrovertibly in want one too. Why? Because until and unless we get one, the "no democratic mandate" charge simply has no answer.

Right now, much of the EU sees the UK as a rather awkward third cousin, sitting on the edges of a wedding party, not sure whether to join in or walk out, and bitching about it interminably. We need to either poop, or get off the potty. And the ONLY way to achieve that is to announce a referendum, by a government with the authority to implement it, which none are currently, on their own. Then, have the debate, each camp makes it's arguments, and then the people decide. Then, and ONLY then, is there a mandate, either way.

Sure, leaving has risks, blown out of proportion by the "in" camp. And, staying in has a downside, also blown out of proportion by the "out" camp. The only answer to that in a supposedly democratic country is to do what's being done with Scotland .... hold the referendum, have the debate, make the respective cases, and vote.

[j1979]

Strictly speaking, you are right that over borrowing ruined economies, but rather than provide a safety net, what the EU did in response was arguably exacerbate the situation. Take Ireland for example; after the crash Ireland were instructed to not allow bank bond holders to be burned, which would have directly affected the largest EU economies, but would have protected the Irish public from having to take on the debt of the bailout. So while I have no doubt that the Irish crash would have happened, if they had been allowed to burn the bank holders, which should be the normal practise if a bank goes bust, the after effects would have been less severe. The Irish economy certainly would not have the amount of debt around its neck that it does now, that’s for sure. The EU if effectively run in the interests of the German & French economies. Once you accept that, it paints the EU in a somewhat different light as this kind of utopia that some try to make it out to be.

As for the initial question, Nationalism, in all its forms, is one of the biggest blights to mankind there’s ever been. That people make decisions based on arbitrary and fluid factors such as borders, or flags, or accents is, to me at least, the biggest flaw in our makeup. That it is used by the political classes as a tool to bend the will of the masses so effectively, also makes it one of the most dangerous.

Sounds like a macrocosm of the UK when you put it like that. "Protect London at all costs" it could be argued that a strong London in the UK or strong Germany / France is vital for the health of the greater wider economy.

As for your points on nationalism. Imagine if you did cut it out totally, you have effectilve stopped a national or regional identity. What's the alternative, an Orwellian "1984" type world? Imagine the world cup, without nationalism, the Brazil and Spain matches would be a sell out, all other stadiums would be empty. I don't want to live in a world where I go to Newcastle, and they all speak the same as me. When i strike a conversation, and I here an accent I want to say "cool accent! where you from?". I want to eat Indian food, drink Belgian beer see Russian architecture etc. I want this diversity of the planet and nationalism is part of that. Besides, I recon it's impossible to stop it, it's hard wired.

[j1979]

You could equally well argue that the debt-ridden countries that were calmed by the EU safety net were onlg debt-ridden in the first place because of the EU. First, it was the EU that allowed, even encouraged, countries to borrow, and to do at at Eurozone rates only available because the Euro was under-written by the strength of the northern European, and especially German, economies. Without that, they wouldn-t be debt-ridden, or at least, nowhere near as badly, Secondly, had the growth and stabilty pact rules (and note, RULES , not preferences or guidelines) not had the hell ignored out of them in the first place, with the active connivance of Brussels, it's doubtful the worst basket-cases could have got in to the Eurozone in the first place.

They only needed 'calming' because the EU was responsible for the mess in the first place. It's a bit like dousing someone in petrol, handing them a box of matches and then standing by with (and charging them for) a fire extinguisher just in case they're stupid enough to experiment with striking a match.

As for voting in general elections, that's codswallop.

First, a general election is about a vast range of issues, and as the mass media keeps reminding us, the EU is not top of the list for many. That will usually be economy, jobs, taxation, health, efucation, crime, etc.

Second, the general electoral system in this country is loaded. It's a conjuring trick, due to first past the post. If, for example, in a constituency of 50001 people, 25001 vote for party A on a whole range of topics, and 25000 vote for party U because of an anti-EU stance, how much Westminster representation does party U get? Right, none at all. Extrapolate that nationally and you get almost half voting for out, and half voting for issues not centred on the EU. Odds are, a good percentage of those voting for Party A also are anti-EU, but it wasn't high up enough on their agenda to override EVERYTHING else that they decide their vote on.

Obviously, those figures are loaded to illustrate a point, but the point is, a general election tells you little or nothing about ANY single policy.

There is ONLY one way to tell what the people want on the EU, and that is to ask them. We have never, EVER, been asked. While the upcoming EU elections may hint at the national feeling on the EU, even that isn't an absolute guide. Suppose, as the polls predict, UKIP does extremely well, even wins? Is that all about the EU? I'd say not necessarily. It will be a broad hint, but non-Westminster elections are also a harbour for mid-term protest votes. And that, of course, is also why parties like "None of the above" are barred, by statute, from standing. Yup, election law prevents that type of party name.

So, come a general election, since we joined the EU, exactly which party with ANY chance, under FPTP, stood any chance of forming a government? The only party's with a chance of being the government were Labour and Tory, and despite a rump in both (larger in the Tories, but it exists in Labour) that are anti-EU, the parties as a whole are pro-EU. Even the LibDems, whose mantra for decades (not unreasonably) has been electoral reform and PR (because it hugely favours them) can't get into power as anything beyond a junior coalition partner, yet .... take a look over the last few decades at their proportion of the vote, and the proportion of seats it turned into.

The FPTP system is a conjuring trick designed to ensure power passes back and forth between Tory and Labour, and as the only ones (when in power with a majority) that can change that, they're exactly the ones with every incentive not to do so.


Oh, and consider this.

It is not only those that want out of the EU that want a referendum. A lot of those that want to be properly, firmly, incontrovertibly in want one too. Why? Because until and unless we get one, the "no democratic mandate" charge simply has no answer.

Right now, much of the EU sees the UK as a rather awkward third cousin, sitting on the edges of a wedding party, not sure whether to join in or walk out, and bitching about it interminably. We need to either poop, or get off the potty. And the ONLY way to achieve that is to announce a referendum, by a government with the authority to implement it, which none are currently, on their own. Then, have the debate, each camp makes it's arguments, and then the people decide. Then, and ONLY then, is there a mandate, either way.

Sure, leaving has risks, blown out of proportion by the "in" camp. And, staying in has a downside, also blown out of proportion by the "out" camp. The only answer to that in a supposedly democratic country is to do what's being done with Scotland .... hold the referendum, have the debate, make the respective cases, and vote.

Yes you could argue about the debt-ridden countries and it's encouraged and exacerbated by the EU... yes of course, but that fighting that corner suggests you have some nationalistic views. Nationalism applies to economics too. As Galant pointed out blood, sweat, tears and taxes all contribute to a persons national investment.

As for the "that's codswallop" part. My statement is true.
"you could argue if you elected a pro EU government (tory or labour then you could be seen as voting for the EU)"

Your right about the mandate to be in the EU with a referendum. I guess if we do have one the result will be determined by the news papers and media moguls anyway.

I would love to see a current option poll on the in out question.

[TheAnimus]

Strictly speaking, you are right that over borrowing ruined economies, but rather than provide a safety net, what the EU did in response was arguably exacerbate the situation.

Wow, we almost agree on something!

I don't think defaulting would have helped much. The countries in question did not have much in the way of natural commodities or similar, one could argue the Russian Bond default resulted in a massive stagnation in anything but gasoil or low capital requirement growth industries.

But what the EU did do, that was so dangerous, was let Greece borrow as if it was Germany.

[opel80uk]

Sounds like a macrocosm of the UK when you put it like that. "Protect London at all costs" it could be argued that a strong London in the UK or strong Germany / France is vital for the health of the greater wider economy.

You could possibly argue that, but as the EU does not have a centrally controlled fiscal policy, as opposed to what England has, it makes it slightly harder to convince people. And protecting Germany at all costs is fine, but it has to be acknowledged it is at the detriment, not the benefit, of other nations. I know I have mentioned it before, but the bank debt in Ireland is really the perfect example to use, because it was effectively a private debt that was, because it would ultimately effect the German taxpayers (they were the largest bondholders in the bank), forced to become sovereign debt of the Irish state. This was done solely to protect bondholders in other states. And if that’s the rationale behind decisions, how can it be possible to argue that the EU benefits smaller nations, when they are effectively used as a tool to prop up other economies that they have no say in?

As for your points on nationalism. Imagine if you did cut it out totally, you have effectilve stopped a national or regional identity. What's the alternative, an Orwellian "1984" type world? Imagine the world cup, without nationalism, the Brazil and Spain matches would be a sell out, all other stadiums would be empty. I don't want to live in a world where I go to Newcastle, and they all speak the same as me. When i strike a conversation, and I here an accent I want to say "cool accent! where you from?". I want to eat Indian food, drink Belgian beer see Russian architecture etc. I want this diversity of the planet and nationalism is part of that. Besides, I recon it's impossible to stop it, it's hard wired.

Whilst I like the actual sport, I cannot stand all the excessive jingoism that accompanies events like the World Cup. In fact, it makes me cringe. I think it’s fitting you mention Orwell, as it was he who described it as ‘war minus the shooting’.
And you seem to be confusing nationalism with cultural identity. You would still have differing cultural identity, such as cuisine, accents, architecture etc, formed over time due to differing factors such as location, climate, etc, without nationalism, just as we have lots of different cultural identities within single nations that continue to survive – as per your example of Geordies still speaking different to a Cockney. Nationalism, based on nothing more than borders drawn and redrawn numerous time throughout history, is in my mind the greatest infantile indulgence we as humans allow ourselves, no different than a child having a favourite toy. These arbitrary devices we use to separate ourselves from others - nationality, race, citizenship, etc, are down to nothing more than chance. And if something is down to chance, then why should it be given such importance?

Wow, we almost agree on something!

I don't think defaulting would have helped much. The countries in question did not have much in the way of natural commodities or similar, one could argue the Russian Bond default resulted in a massive stagnation in anything but gasoil or low capital requirement growth industries.

But what the EU did do, that was so dangerous, was let Greece borrow as if it was Germany.

I am extremely disconcerted!

Where Ireland was different to Russia though (if I understand the Russian issue correctly), is that the Irish bank (AIB) at the time was entirely separate entity from the state until the EU effectively forced the Irish state to take ownership by virtue of a bank guarantee for bondholders and subsequent nationalisation. In effect, had Ireland just left the bank go to the wall, with a simple depositors guarantee in place, then Ireland wouldn’t have been defaulting on anything, because it wouldn’t have been their responsibility. Obviously, there would have been a knock on effect for the banking sector, both in Ireland and across the EU, and it would have been painful, but to put into context, AIB has cost the Irish taxpayer 35Billion Eu to date (borrowed, from the EU of course), with a return of just 500M.

[Saracen]

...

As for the "that's codswallop" part. My statement is true.
"you could argue if you elected a pro EU government (tory or labour then you could be seen as voting for the EU)"

...

But then, it's a semantically null statement. You could, of course, argue that Tony Blair is an alien from the planet Ogg, or that the moon really is made of blue cheese, and a Stilton, to be precise. You "could argue" anything at all.

The fact, and it is a fact, that :-

1) General elections are about multiple issues, not any single issue

2) Rarely will voters be lucky enough to find a situation where they 100% agree with 100% if any oarty's policies, and that's even assuming that voters know what 100% of a party's policies actually are, and fully understand them. Who (apart from political enthusiasts and, well, me) reads manifestos?

3) Most people, available research suggests, either vote the way they always have, or the way their parents did, or the way their social peers do, or at best, vote broafly in accordance with a party's broad values, not according to any one policy. There are rare exceptions, when a single issue drives mass voting patterns, like Martin Bell, or MPs expenses.

4) Like buying a house, it's unusual to find a party with whom a voter agress on everything, and there's a fair degree of overlap between mist major parties on many leading issues. Differences are often in how to achieve an objective not what the objective is, and the ideological gap having narrowed in recent decades, that's far truer now than it was, say, in the 60s or 70s.

Prior to the last election or two, who was anyone not supporting UK membership of the EU supposed to vote for that, given our electoral system, had ANY credible electoral chance?

Remember, a general election isn't a single issue matter, and for most, the EU isn't their top issue, and probably not even top 5.

Now, just maybe, enough of a head of steam has built behind UKIP for even people wanting out of the EU to consider a vote for them MIGHT not be entirely wasted, but in any general election to date, it would have been.

When people can't vote on single issues, all a general election can settle is broad agreement with an overall orogdam and/or overall values, and you or I could be broadly behind most of what Labour, Tories etc stand for, but adamantly opposed to their stance on the EU when it is, for example, your 5th, or 12th, priority.

There is no coherent argument for general elections providing a mandate for EU membership, precisely because there was no credible anti-EU party with any electoral credibility at all. There are only two, or at a push 2.5 parties, with general election credibility.

What MIGHT happen, depending on the EU election results, is that UKIP gain enough, and perhaps LibDems lose enough, credibility that they MIGHT stand a prayer at the next general election. But, they're still new, young, politically-virgin and naive, with no national infrastructure, and a minimal and inexperienced local infrastructure, compared to the other 2.5.

So it MIGHT be that case that those for whom EU membership is a major issue may regard a UKIP general election as being worth a punt. But any party trying to break into Westminster has to achieve a certain critical mass of voter confidence, or they won't break through, and you don't do that quickly. The LDs have barely managed it in decades, and despite one lonely seat, the Greens still haven't.

The EU, and even local, results will be interesting IF UKIP really dominates, not least because of what that implies for 2015 electoral maths .... and for how much notice the political establishment pay them. After all, they've ignored them and it hasn't worked. They've moved onto UKIP issues and it not only hasn't worked but has moved UKIP issues onto centre ground. The Tories especially have tried pandering a bit, like on immigfation and especially the referendum, and all it's done is look like cynical maneuvering and helped UKIP. And most recently, they and the press has gone on a negative campaigning spree, and yet again, UKIP go up in the polls. They are, frankly, stuck with the question of what to do with a problem like Nigel.

The big question for me is whether this rise is the start of a trend that lasts, or a flash in the pan. Only time will tell.

[j1979]

But then, it's a semantically null statement. You could, of course, argue that Tony Blair is an alien from the planet Ogg, or that the moon really is made of blue cheese, and a Stilton, to be precise. You "could argue" anything at all.

The fact, and it is a fact, that :-

Yes but it's a fact the moon is not made of cheese. It's also a fact there will be some voters will have voted labour purely because they are the guaranteed pro-EU party. It's unquantifiable, but it's also undeniable. Many voters, vote on a single issue.

[Saracen]

Yes you could argue about the debt-ridden countries and it's encouraged and exacerbated by the EU... yes of course, but that fighting that corner suggests you have some nationalistic views. Nationalism applies to economics too. As Galant pointed out blood, sweat, tears and taxes all contribute to a persons national investment.

Fighting what corner? It a fact that several mediterranean countries failed to meet basic EZ accession criteria by the EUs own rules, yet for what appears to have been expansionist United States of Europe reasons, they were ushered in anyway.

My objections are largely economic. I am, after all, an economist. Search back and you'll find I said, years ago, that I don't agree with Gordon Brown on much, but I do agree that the Eurozone was a disaster waiting to happen UNLESS underlying economic conditions were right. For that, you need a considerable degree of economic convergence, and not just short-term, but in tetms of the period and amplitude to basic economic cycles, and THAT only happens if underlying economies are broadly comparable. Otherwise, even if things are in sync temporarily, as soon as you get any systemic shocks, different leveks of economic strength and infrastructure will react in different ways, and trends that were in sync will rapidly fall out of sync.

The indebtedness was encouraged as part of the expansion policy necessary to drive the lokitical project forward, and unlike what the Common Market, and even EEC was supposed to be, the EU is unashamedly a political project. Which, by the way, is a large part of why Putin got so bent out of shape of EU expansionism.

I'd also point out that the core argument made for UK involvement in the EU is nationalistic, because the argument always goes "we're better off in that out", and that leaving risks jobs here, etc. You yourself made that case earlier. I'd be interested if you can come up with an example of a country that isn't nationalistic in that sense. Who's joined the EU saying they know they'll be worse off, but hell, it's for the greater good of the rest? Aren't the French nationalistic and proud if it? The Dutch? And so on. ALL member states are in because they figure it's in their best interests.

The argument is not whether believing in your nation's national interest is right or wrong, but on what effect being in, or out, has on national interest. And that is complicated. Being in has a cost, and benefits. Being out has costs, and benefits. Quantifying either is horrendously complex, not least because opportunity cost is hard to quantify.

[j1979]

Fighting what corner?

I was talking about examples such as opel80uk's opinion on the EU, and how it's ran with a bias towards Germany but at the possible expense of Ireland, Portugal or Greece. Yet he doesn't not like nationalism. Just pointing out that to identify the difference and this point, and taking one national perspective is in it's self nationalistic.

He identifies as being Irish and takes the view the EU is bad for his country. That's Nationalism. I live in the north of England and can see that London gets a bigger slice of the pie. That's the same view, but I also see it as a necessary evil.

Nationalism is not a dirty word. I'm nationalistic and proud.

I won't argue with you on the Euro or the economic side. I have also said in the past the euro is doomed. But it's looking stronger today after weathering the last few years.

Whilst I like the actual sport, I cannot stand all the excessive jingoism that accompanies events like the World Cup. In fact, it makes me cringe. I think it’s fitting you mention Orwell, as it was he who described it as ‘war minus the shooting’.
And you seem to be confusing nationalism with cultural identity. You would still have differing cultural identity, such as cuisine, accents, architecture etc, formed over time due to differing factors such as location, climate, etc, without nationalism, just as we have lots of different cultural identities within single nations that continue to survive – as per your example of Geordies still speaking different to a Cockney. Nationalism, based on nothing more than borders drawn and redrawn numerous time throughout history, is in my mind the greatest infantile indulgence we as humans allow ourselves, no different than a child having a favourite toy. These arbitrary devices we use to separate ourselves from others - nationality, race, citizenship, etc, are down to nothing more than chance. And if something is down to chance, then why should it be given such importance?

A county can't maintain cultural identity without Nationalism imho