State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not talking about banning anything, as you'll notice if you read and understood my posts, I'm talking about a situation where something is no longer necessary. You on the other hand haven't said anything about what the use of national boundaries might be apart from as political tools.

Must rush, I have a plane to catch, travelling to the European Union today!

Ok, so they were necessary, but are no longer necessary.

You seem to have it all worked out, why ask me to give reasons why they are necessary?

My knives thing was an analogy. I realise that you don't want to ban frontiers, you just want to get rid of them.

Safe journey, btw.

[Beef Oven!]

The Cons are serious about going Kipper, it seems.

I do hope the general election lives up to expectation!!!

[ahinton]

Yes but nobody is denying that. What we are actually talking about here is national boundaries whose crossing involves permissions and restrictions.

I'm surprised, amateur51, that you say Australia isn't a cultural melting-pot - it most certainly is! Maybe not so much in Tasmania where Sydney Grew resides.

I didn't realise that he lives there; for some reason I'd gotten it into my head that he's somewhere nearer Brisbane, but I must be wrong about that.

[ahinton]

The Cons are serious about going Kipper, it seems.

You mean they want to ensure that they don't win the next General Election?!...

I do hope the general election lives up to expectation!!!

Just as there will be more entitled to vote than actually do vote in it, there'll probably be more contrasting expectations than there will be voters...

[Richard Barrett]

why ask me to give reasons why they are necessary?

I'm interested to know what people think national boundaries are really there for, if not for the reasons I gave earlier. Maybe I'm missing something important. If they are only there for the reasons I mentioned then it's probably in people's interests to work towards eliminating them. But you obviously don't think so, and for some reason you seem to be a bit coy about saying why.

[ahinton]

I'm interested to know what people think national boundaries are really there for, if not for the reasons I gave earlier. Maybe I'm missing something important. If they are only there for the reasons I mentioned then it's probably in people's interests to work towards eliminating them. But you obviously don't think so, and for some reason you seem to be a bit coy about saying why.

It'll be up to M Leboeuf to give his thoughts on that but, in the meantime, I suspect that there may be a whole raft of reasons why those national boundaries came and continue to exist (subject to some changes here and there over time); I remain to be convinced that the only reason for their creation and maintenance is that which you put forward, for all that it is undeniably one of them.

Out of interest, though (and I stress that I'm asking, not seeking to argue with you), what do you think are the reasons behind the possible breakaway of a part or parts of Ukraine from the remainder of the country or the sought-after secession of Catalunya from the remainder of Spain? - do either or both of these fit solely into your single reason governing this kind of thing where national borders are concerned? And, by the same token (though obviously outside EU), what's your take on the relatively recent break-up of Sudan into Sudan and South Sudan?

One problem facing anyone seeking to address the issue of freedom of movement including that of labour within EU (for all that it's one which I favour it in principle) is the inequality that inevitably pertains when people from the poorest paid of its member states quite understandably want to move to other member states where pay is vastly better (and the differences can be very considerable); that's not, as I see it, a valid excuse to curb such movement, because trying to balance the various economies of EU's member states as far as is practically possible over time is surely a far more equitable aim than tyrying to ramp up and promote yet more divisiveness between the have-more members states and the have-less ones?...

[Beef Oven!]

I'm interested to know what people think national boundaries are really there for, if not for the reasons I gave earlier. Maybe I'm missing something important. If they are only there for the reasons I mentioned then it's probably in people's interests to work towards eliminating them. But you obviously don't think so, and for some reason you seem to be a bit coy about saying why.

I've already said what they are there for. Their function is to set out the geographical limits of the body politic/nation state/country.

I'm not being coy.

Are you ok for time?

[Serial_Apologist]

The fact that it's taken months to sort out a pot hole at the southern end of the Crystal Palace Parade, opposite the bus station, does imply need for clearly established administrative boundaries, even if only for ensuring responsibilities for essential tasks are carried out, and answerable to a voting public and within easy reach.

There is no passport or other frontier between the borough authorities of Southwark, Croydon, Lambeth and Bromley at that point, however, and I think the point about geographical boundaries, for whatever ruling class-motivated or natural geographically-defined purposes they were originally put in place, is that any political system will need dividing into areas of administrative responsibility for purposes of pure practicality, as opposed to divide-and-rule, and it's a question of think globally, act locally, as the Greens used to say.

For the moment, while there are still great powers in being that would wipe out a country that had dissolved central administration and armed services in preference for small admin districts for its resources, nation states are probably the only solution.

[Richard Barrett]

I've already said what they are there for. Their function is to set out the geographical limits of the body politic/nation state/country.

So if that's their function why should it be necessary to ask someone's permission to go from one to another?

I don't know why PGT and S_A seem to have got hold of the idea that I'm talking about doing away with administrative regions, because obviously I'm not. I'm talking about why there should be boundaries between them which control and restrict movement. That would seem to me to be a highly undemocratic way of organising things.

[vinteuil]

The fact that it's taken months to sort out a pot hole at the southern end of the Crystal Palace Parade, opposite the bus station, does imply need for clearly established administrative boundaries, even if only for ensuring responsibilities for essential tasks are carried out, and answerable to a voting public and within easy reach.There is no passport or other frontier between the borough authorities of Southwark, Croydon, Lambeth and Bromley at that point, however....

.

... are you pining for GK Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill ?

.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49673.The_Napoleon_of_Notting_Hill

[Serial_Apologist]

So if that's their function why should it be necessary to ask someone's permission to go from one to another?

I don't know why PGT and S_A seem to have got hold of the idea that I'm talking about doing away with administrative regions, because obviously I'm not. I'm talking about why there should be boundaries between them which control and restrict movement. That would seem to me to be a highly undemocratic way of organising things.

I agree but reaching this will require intermediate steps involving probably even greater controls because people in given locales, let's just put it that way, will need to control movements of capital, surely? - however just and efficient the system, and whether that capital is in the form of currency, goods or individuals.

[Flosshilde]

... are you pining for GK Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill ?

.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...f_Notting_Hill

Or Pasport to Pimlico?

[Flosshilde]

The fact that it's taken months to sort out a pot hole at the southern end of the Crystal Palace Parade, opposite the bus station, does imply need for clearly established administrative boundaries, even if only for ensuring responsibilities for essential tasks are carried out, and answerable to a voting public and within easy reach.

The fact that it's taken months suggests that the administrative boundaries aren't all that effective in ensuring that the task is carried out?

[Serial_Apologist]

The fact that it's taken months suggests that the administrative boundaries aren't all that effective in ensuring that the task is carried out?

<laugh>

Yes but re the thread topic the point is that it wasn't the fault of there being a boundary in the first place!

[Beef Oven!]

So if that's their function why should it be necessary to ask someone's permission to go from one to another?

I don't know why PGT and S_A seem to have got hold of the idea that I'm talking about doing away with administrative regions, because obviously I'm not. I'm talking about why there should be boundaries between them which control and restrict movement. That would seem to me to be a highly undemocratic way of organising things.

You see the point is, you can't actually have nation states without them.