EU immigration row / time to get out

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:10 pm

Post by AndySir »

stevecook172001 wrote:No he's no doing that at all, as you well know.
I'm surprised again it's even possible to deny that. Look at the power that is being claimed by the speaker when he calls someone a traitor. I may legitimately call myself Scottish, British, European, or as Biff and Marcus Aurelius might do a citizen of the world, or none of the above. In calling me a traitor UE not only claims the authority to decide to which group I belong, but if I disagree with him about my own identity he claims the moral imperative to punish me for my wickedness.

This is the language of tyrants, theocrats and racial supremacists coming out of the mouth of someone who claims to be opposed to those things.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14634
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

Looks like there might be a well-timed documentary coming out.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

UndercoverElephant wrote:
AndySir wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: Re: the first question, as far as I am concerned, BiffVernon's expressed opinion is nothing less than treachery, and, quite frankly, were I in charge then I'd throw him to the Jonny2Mad's to do with whatever they think is appropriate.
I have to say I've got a problem with describing an opinion as treasonous - this is the language of totalitarianism.
I don't care if you think it is "the language of totalitarianism". It's a word that means "betrayal" or "disloyalty", and in this case it means betrayal of, or disloyalty to, the people of your own country (rather than the monarch). As far as I am concerned, that is precisely what Biff Vernon is guilty of. I also believe that you will not find a more pertinent example of why UKIP and the FN just won (that's right - they came first) the euro-elections in the UK and France.
Treachery? Moi? I am loyal to my Parish/County/Country/Continent/Planet. All are deserving of loyalty in their own particular circumstances but I don't generally hold one as having more merit than another. It's a matter of context. Right now, I happen to think that the governance of the EU, for all its faults, has merits in some areas that are sadly lacking in the UK.

I do so wish, UE, you could conduct a discussion without resorting to personal abuse.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11271
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
AndySir wrote: I have to say I've got a problem with describing an opinion as treasonous - this is the language of totalitarianism.
I don't care if you think it is "the language of totalitarianism". It's a word that means "betrayal" or "disloyalty", and in this case it means betrayal of, or disloyalty to, the people of your own country (rather than the monarch). As far as I am concerned, that is precisely what Biff Vernon is guilty of. I also believe that you will not find a more pertinent example of why UKIP and the FN just won (that's right - they came first) the euro-elections in the UK and France.
Treachery? Moi? I am loyal to my Parish/County/Country/Continent/Planet. All are deserving of loyalty in their own particular circumstances but I don't generally hold one as having more merit than another. It's a matter of context. Right now, I happen to think that the governance of the EU, for all its faults, has merits in some areas that are sadly lacking in the UK.

I do so wish, UE, you could conduct a discussion without resorting to personal abuse.
If you think "traitor" is personal abuse, perhaps you shouldn't be so disloyal to people in your own country? You appear to be proud of it, so I'm not sure why you think it is "abuse."
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

UndercoverElephant wrote:If you think "traitor" is personal abuse, perhaps you shouldn't be so disloyal to people in your own country? You appear to be proud of it, so I'm not sure why you think it is "abuse."
Maybe this has been covered in the past, but I can't remember. biffvernon has, on many occasions, explained how he doesn't think there's anything particularly important about the nation state, as opposed to smaller political entities or larger ones. When in comes to freedom of movement why do you think the nation state is the important scale, against which there can't be any disloyalty - instead of smaller units like England or Sussex or larger units like Europe? Is there a concept of disloyalty to Sussex or Europe?

In my opinion whether we draw our personal lines at the county, country, nation state or Europe is subjective and very dependent on what we're talking about. It only makes sense to talk about CO2 at the global level and dog mess at the parish or county level.

So immigration? I can see arguments for having controls at the nation state level (as we have for non-Europeans) and European level. There's certainly no simple and obvious right answer.
extractorfan
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Ricky
Contact:

Post by extractorfan »

In the 1750's Thomas Turner kept a diary about life in England. There were major restrictions on people moving from county to county, entirely for economic reasons.

1750 wasn't that long ago really, in the greater scheme of things and it's amazing how similar life was in some ways.

He didn't half walk a lot though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Turner_(diarist)
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

UndercoverElephant wrote: If you think "traitor" is personal abuse, perhaps you shouldn't be so disloyal to people in your own country? You appear to be proud of it, so I'm not sure why you think it is "abuse."
No, it wasn't the word 'traitor' I object to. That doesn't really mean very much to me. If I let my dog mess on the pavement I'm a traitor to my parish; if I emit carbon dioxide I'm a traitor to the planet.

It was
were I in charge then I'd throw him to the Jonny2Mad's to do with whatever they think is appropriate.
Now that is a seriously scary threat.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11271
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:If you think "traitor" is personal abuse, perhaps you shouldn't be so disloyal to people in your own country? You appear to be proud of it, so I'm not sure why you think it is "abuse."
Maybe this has been covered in the past, but I can't remember. biffvernon has, on many occasions, explained how he doesn't think there's anything particularly important about the nation state, as opposed to smaller political entities or larger ones. When in comes to freedom of movement why do you think the nation state is the important scale, against which there can't be any disloyalty - instead of smaller units like England or Sussex or larger units like Europe?
Because that is where most of the power lies.
Is there a concept of disloyalty to Sussex
Not really, no. Certainly not that can be acted upon, because "Sussex" does not exist at any electoral level, and even if it did then it wouldn't have any relevant powers.
or Europe?
Yes, in principle.
In my opinion whether we draw our personal lines at the county, country, nation state or Europe is subjective and very dependent on what we're talking about.
The fact that nation states are the most important level of power is not subjective.
It only makes sense to talk about CO2 at the global level and dog mess at the parish or county level.
Laws concerning dog mess could be enacted at a national level. As could, and do, laws about CO2.
So immigration? I can see arguments for having controls at the nation state level (as we have for non-Europeans) and European level. There's certainly no simple and obvious right answer.
Here is the key question Biff Vernon needs to answer:

What is the primary responsibility of the UK government?

(a) The well-being of the people of the UK.
(b) The well-being of everybody in the world.

As far as I am concerned, the only reasonable answer is (a). The government of the UK is elected by the people of the UK in order to serve the people of the UK. But from his posts, it is pretty obvious that Biff Vernon believes the primary responsibility of the government of the UK is to everybody, regardless of whether they are citizens of the UK or not. This is the root of this disagreement.
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:10 pm

Post by AndySir »

UndercoverElephant wrote: Here is the key question Biff Vernon needs to answer:

What is the primary responsibility of the UK government?

(a) The well-being of the people of the UK.
(b) The well-being of everybody in the world.

As far as I am concerned, the only reasonable answer is (a). The government of the UK is elected by the people of the UK in order to serve the people of the UK. But from his posts, it is pretty obvious that Biff Vernon believes the primary responsibility of the government of the UK is to everybody, regardless of whether they are citizens of the UK or not. This is the root of this disagreement.
I think that my responsibility is to everyone in the world and therefore it should be that of my government. If the UK government cannot share that objective, then it does not represent me and I will use my vote and my voice to seek a body which closer matches this goal. Like the government in Brussels.

How can I be a traitor when my government is foreign to me?
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

UndercoverElephant wrote: What is the primary responsibility of the UK government?

(a) The well-being of the people of the UK.
(b) The well-being of everybody in the world.

As far as I am concerned, the only reasonable answer is (a). The government of the UK is elected by the people of the UK in order to serve the people of the UK. But from his posts, it is pretty obvious that Biff Vernon believes the primary responsibility of the government of the UK is to everybody, regardless of whether they are citizens of the UK or not. This is the root of this disagreement.
That's quite an interesting question.
Let's go with (a) being the reasonable answer. However, the question must not be asked in isolation. We must also ask What is the primary responsibility of my Parish Council, the District Council, the County Council the EU and the UN. Each has its area of primary responsibility, such as dog mess for the Parish and Ozone depletion for the UN, but also each level of governance has a shared responsibility for the other levels in the subsidiarity hierarchy. The Parish has to be mindful of carbon emissions and the UN has a role in enabling the smaller units of governance to carry out their responsibilities. We have to both act locally and think globally, holistically.

Border controls are just one issue, that, today, are dealt with at the arbitrarily defined levels of the edge of the UK and at the edge of the Shengen Agreement area (which, geographically, is a somewhat tricky line.)

By the way, I haven't been to Ireland for many years but what sort of border controls are there between Ulster and the rest of Ireland. When I was there last, at the height of 'the troubles' we just drove across it. Can you still do that?
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

UndercoverElephant wrote: What is the primary responsibility of the UK government?

(a) The well-being of the people of the UK.
(b) The well-being of everybody in the world.

.

It is a double edged sword. It is in the interest of the people of the UK to have peace and prosperity in the rest of the world so that the resources of the world can be traded for fairly and other populations are not driven by desperation to migrate to or attack the UK. total self serving isolationism sounds nice but cannot deliver the promised prosperity or safety.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11271
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

double post
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11271
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

vtsnowedin wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: What is the primary responsibility of the UK government?

(a) The well-being of the people of the UK.
(b) The well-being of everybody in the world.

.

It is a double edged sword. It is in the interest of the people of the UK to have peace and prosperity in the rest of the world so that the resources of the world can be traded for fairly and other populations are not driven by desperation to migrate to or attack the UK. total self serving isolationism sounds nice but cannot deliver the promised prosperity or safety.
I wasn't advocating self-defeating, self-serving isolationism. We are talking about the UK, not the tea-party movement in the US.

It's not a double-edged sword. The point you are making is that it's not as simple as some of the nationalists think it is or present it to be. Sometimes what is in the best interests of the people of the UK requires a more intelligent analysis of the situation than some people on the far-ish right have to offer (obvious examples being Jonny2Mad, Nigel Farage and George W Bush).

The question I am asking is not about how best to achieve the goal (of serving the people of the UK or the people of the whole world), but what the goal should be. In other words, it's a question about moral responsibility, not about the practicalities.
Little John
Posts: 8776
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

UndercoverElephant wrote:...it's a question about moral responsibility,...
Yes
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:10 pm

Post by AndySir »

stevecook172001 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:...it's a question about moral responsibility,...
Yes
The UK government should represent you, so what you're telling me is that your moral responsibility should be to the humans who live near to you and you have none to those that live far away (except where their well being is of practical benefit to the nearby humans).

I don't think either of you do believe this, as I've heard both of you speak passionately about our crimes in Iraq and Ukraine - both that could be considered the UK and US governments acting only it their own country's interests. I'm fairly certain you would also object to our support of 'stable' totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Laos etc.

I'm not sure I agree with Biff's answer about primary responsibilities to their jurisdiction. At present there is no world authority, so the UK government is the most appropriate authority for Ozone depletion.
Post Reply