State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Beef Oven!]

I really do not think that this is what Richard was suggesting - and I have to admit to being loath to believe that you thought so either!

Fine. Now we know what you think.

Let Richard reply - he doesn't need you to chime-in, IMV.

[teamsaint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ttip-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-when-it-comes-to-the-eus-suspect-relationships-with-corporations-9806369.html

Where is Solomon when you need him?
( actually playing rather beautifully on my stereo ATM).

[Richard Barrett]

Ok, I take you to mean that there should be no barriers whatsoever to immigration or emigration on the whole planet.

That is indeed what I'm suggesting. Ask yourself this: why are those barriers and the nation-states behind them there at all?

[Beef Oven!]

That is indeed what I'm suggesting. Ask yourself this: why are those barriers and the nation-states behind them there at all?

Don't need to ask myself that, you've said what you think. Fine.

[MrGongGong]

don't need to ask myself that, you've said what you think. Fine.

:ha ha ha ha:

[ahinton]

Don't need to ask myself that, you've said what you think. Fine.

Good. It was quite different from the way that you put it, as I'd hope you appreciate. The removal of them all would be a very difficult task, but that fact by no means invalidates the notion itself.

[Richard Barrett]

Don't need to ask myself that

Well let me ask you then: what do you think national barriers are for? or, to make the question a bit more precise, whose interests do they principally serve?

[Beef Oven!]

Well let me ask you then: what do you think national barriers are for? or, to make the question a bit more precise, whose interests do they principally serve?

A national barrier is the geographical limit of a body politic. It serves to protect and act in the interests of the citizens - national barriers principally serve the interests of the citizens.

I'm in favour of them. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Why would you want to do away with them, and what would the benefits of having no national boundaries be?

[ahinton]

A national barrier is the geographical limit of a body politic. It serves to protect and act in the interests of the citizens - national barriers principally serve the interests of the citizens.

I'm in favour of them. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Why would you want to do away with them, and what would the benefits of having no national boundaries be?

Well, one's already been mentioned, namely the end of the phenomenon of immigration/emigration within the EU bloc (apart from immigration from and emigration to places outside it) and the associated problems therewith. I'm not necessarily suggesting that I support such a move in principle and I cannot imagine all 28 member states ever agreeing to it in any case, but I think that I've given you my answer to your question (although it wasn't me to whom you put it).

[Beef Oven!]

...........I'm not necessarily suggesting that I support such a move in principle and I cannot imagine all 28 member states ever agreeing to it......

Don't sit on the fence, do you support the principle or not?

I think that I've given you my answer to your question (although it wasn't me to whom you put it).

I will wait for RB's answer, if it's all the same with you.

[P. G. Tipps]

That is indeed what I'm suggesting. Ask yourself this: why are those barriers and the nation-states behind them there at all?

If I might be so bold to suddenly interject, I've often asked myself that ...

I have long come to the conclusion that different peoples ('tribes', if you like) have different cultures and aspirations hence the need to have separate states. This is true even in these islands where, say, the Scots have had mostly a quite different political outlook historically from their English neighbours.

So even though we might all agree that co-operation and dialogue between nations is desirable many might baulk at the idea of the abolition of boundaries altogether, as it would almost certainly result in global laissez-faire capitalism/centralised right-wing dictatorship or an even more tyrannical Marxist alternative for all.

Furthermore, with Member Sydney Grew's long advocacy of the latter, combined with compulsory 'homosexualism' for all, that is hardly a prospect likely to have many men and women struggling to resist the promised idyll of a wholly nation-free world?

[Richard Barrett]

A national barrier is the geographical limit of a body politic. It serves to protect and act in the interests of the citizens - national barriers principally serve the interests of the citizens.

In what way?

The division of the Middle East after the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire certainly has not acted, and was not intended to act, in the interests of the people who lived there, but in the interests of the then colonial powers. The same could be said for most of Africa, and, closer to home, the Iron Curtain for several decades, and the reestablishment of internal boundaries in Yugoslavia. Overwhelmingly, national boundaries seem to me to be established by ruling classes generally to serve the (economic) interests of the ruling class on the richer and more powerful side of the border, as in Israel/Palestine or USA/Mexico, or as a division of the spoils of war into "spheres of interest", as in my first example. Struggles for self-determination by oppressed peoples, as in Palestine or Kurdistan, are generally a question of trying to break down barriers put in place by others for their own interests.

As for "tribes", PGT, that's a somewhat anachronistic way of looking at things isn't it? The "native" population of the UK, like that of many countries, is of course made up from the results of many waves of immigration of "tribes" from different parts of Europe.

[MrGongGong]

So even though we might all agree that co-operation and dialogue between nations is desirable many might baulk at the idea of the abolition of boundaries altogether, as it would almost certainly result in global laissez-faire capitalism/centralised right-wing dictatorship or an even more tyrannical Marxist alternative for all.

"almost certainly" ?
Why do you think there are only two possibilities ?

[ahinton]

Don't sit on the fence, do you support the principle or not?

I'm not entirely certain, which is why I'm sitting on the fence, as you say, but I do lean towards it, without a doubt. The problem is that I simply don't see it materialising in practice, especialy since nations seem to be more inclinde to split into smaller ones rather than unite; in Europe's relatively recent history, you have only to consider the examples of Czechoslovakia splitting into two and Yugoslavia into several, Scotland almost severing itself from UK and the possibility of Catalunya dong the same from Spain.

I will wait for RB's answer, if it's all the same with you.

Of course! That's fine - but, since this is a forum for members and posts (as distinct from PMs) - even when in response to others' - are intended for and available to all of those who read them, I see no reason not to answer your question as well as awaiting Richard's answer, if it's all the same to you

[P. G. Tipps]

"almost certainly" ?
Why do you think there are only two possibilities ?

Well, any sort of 'democracy' without individual nation states would be a logistical impossibility. A form of 'local' administration would have to remain in order to make it workable.

So without that we would end up with either a right-wing capitalist world dictatorship or a Marxist one.

I suppose there is one other possible alternative which could even be the likeliest one of all ... ie global anarchy!