From: British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of chris johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 28 May 2016 15:09
>Mike (Haseler), hardly anybody in EU wants the kind of super state you seem to have in your imagination.
Well if I may step in to reply on Mike's behalf here, if 'hardly anybody in (the) EU wants... (a)... super state', then that would certainly explain why so many poorly-paid, working-class people - across Europe, in both 'richer' & 'poorer' countries - are deserting the 'liberal/left-wing governments' which were elected to actually *protect* their best interests... and selling their souls to right-wing, nationalist parties who are the only ones (without the European elite 'political' consensus) who offer a genuine alternative to poverty, unemployment & homelessness.
It also bodes well for not just a Brexit, but a subsequent rush by other nations for the 'ausgang'...
>Democracy today is about taking decisions at the appropriate level, by preference close to the people most closely affected. This is called "subsidiarity" in the current jargon, a term derived from the Catholic
>Church. Some decisions are best taken at the EU level - often quoted examples being market harmonisation and standards, air pollution, etc. Decisions that do not require EU level agreement should be taken >locally - by preference at a level below national parliament, local council say.
My local borough council has recently been told - by Westminster - that it must agree to build 540 new homes *every year* up to 2031. *Stop Press*: That's just been raised to *776* new homes a year! As my local (Labour) councilor says: "Of course we need housing, especially affordable housing for young people. However, this process is just going to...draw in more migration from London."
So the home-counties are taking-up the slack for the fact that London (where many European economic migrants first head for) is simply busting at the seams with a population of ~9 million. There isn't even any available property for native Londoners to occupy in their own city any more; even if they could afford to buy it.
>Was it Don Quixote who spend his days tilting at windmills? Cheers, Chris
Yes, and he was a very noble man. Just like Cervantes, his creator...
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The fundamental problem for elected democracy (which isn't true
> democracy), is that it can easily end up as "two wolves and a sheep voting
> for what to eat". So, it only works when the area is reasonably homogeneous
> so that internal groupings within society are less strong than the sense of
> national identity, so that groups do not collude to exclude others from any
> say in government.
> But even within the UK, we are large enough that regional differences
> create regional identities which then the majority (England) pick on. So,
> even the scale of difference between England-Scotland is large enough that
> there are severe issues putting them together into one country. But for
> democracy to work, we require a society which sees itself as one society -
> at least most of the time.
> And even a casual glance at the Eurovision song contest, shows that most
> countries in the EU are extremely parochial in their view, so that the
> difference across Europe is far greater than that between England and
> So, we should be able to assess to some degree how well countries "fit
> together" and I would suggest that for this to happen we require a large
> number of things to be very similar:
> * Legal system - so views on what constitutes lawful and illegal action
> * Economic system - so avoid regional divisions by e.g. area and
> "haves" and "have nots".
> * History
> * culture
> * Language
> * Education system - so that the same "identity" is being taught to all
> * Religion (we can see the problems in Northern Ireland where a
> minority can be excluded from power)
> * Political system
> * Climate
> The less uniform a society is on these types of things, the more likely it
> is to fragment into subdivisions - whereby a large minority to control the
> state and disadvantage others. So, the less we can tick all the boxes and
> say "uniform", the less chance there is of these groups being able to live
> together amicably within one nation.
> We can also look at history to tell us what works. In the past, European
> states have naturally developed to cover regions where enough people in
> that region feel enough homogeneity and enough of a single identity to
> enable a state to function effectively.
> If Europe were homogeneous enough to make a Europe-wide state work, there
> would have been historical precedents. But in sharp contrast, not once in
> the whole history of "Europe" (not itself a meaningful term) has there ever
> been a state covering the whole area and those that tried failed dismally.
> So, to me, it is absolutely certain that should anyone be daft enough to
> put all these disparate countries (each with their own history, language,
> culture, economics, etc.,) into one large state, that this state will
> inevitably disintegrate. And of course, those regions with the most
> distinct culture, law, history, etc. will be most isolated. So, I can be
> absolutely sure (given the onward rush to create a single huge monolithic
> state) that Britain will leave the EU in the near future because we are
> large enough an d too distinct from the continent to fit in with this
> monolithic state they are trying to build.
> That doesn't mean that some countries may not be able to build a single
> state. Nor does it mean that a loose alliance of states could work. But it
> does mean that a single state across the whole of the EU will inevitably
> fail just as the Greek economy cannot exist in the same monetary system as
> the German economy.
> That doesn't mean we won't co-operate. But it does mean we are
> sufficiently different from the other nations in Europe that we want an
> "amicable divorce" so that we can still be friends, but can live
> independently running our own affairs our way.
> Mike Haseler