AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[UndercoverElephant]

Much of the trouble stems from the very limited powers that the UN has

Exactly. The UN is almost useless. The same cannot be said of our domestic political system, which for all its faults does actually result in an elected authority which is capable of making and enforcing decisions. We have some degree of real power, as voters in the UK and contributors to British cultural life, over what goes on in the UK. We have very little power, and probably no right, to determine what goes on elsewhere.

Therefore you are NOT a "world citizen." You are a British citizen. You appear to be uncomfortable with this idea, as if merely by stating this fact you will somehow be tainted with J2M-juice.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is one English, British or a citizen of the EU?

Clear answer: we (most of the people involved in this discussion) are British citizens.

Most of us also consider ourselves to be English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, but the Scots should not and generally do not call themselves "Scottish citizens", and will not do so unless Scotland votes for independence (which it won't.) We certainly aren't citizens of the EU.

Placing on the focus on the nation (the UK in yours and my case) is a problem. There is good argument that some issues should be dealt with at a smaller scale and also good argument that other issues should be dealt with a larger scale.

Yes, but things like state/religion separation or attitudes to marriage can't be settled at the UN. They are too culture-specific. What is "right" for Iran might not be the same as what is "right" for China or the UK.

We live in the real world, and in the real world "nation states" is the primary large-scale division.

It really isn't just about nation states any more, the multi-national corporation tax issue is a recent example.

Some problems, the most obvious of all being climate change, could only conceivably be solved by international co-operation. However, it is now very obvious that no such international co-operation is going to happen, because the organisational structures above the level of nation states are not capable of doing what is required.

[Totally_Baffled]

Going back to UK immigration, other than cultural integratioin issues, what about all of the issues caused by net immigration of 200,000 - 300,000 per year?

Already in the UK housing is a massive issue, energy is a massive issue, water is a massive issue (although the current flooding has knocked that one a bit! ), Hospital waiting times and treatment availaility are a massive issue, the public financing of welfare/NHS/education is a massive issue etc etc

All of the above (given our lack of economic growth propects) are hardly going to improve with 200,000 - 300,000 people arriving net every year - who not paid anything into the system before their arrival?

I am pro immigration, but controlled, (after all 6 million Brits live abroad!) - the numbers are just insane and we are asking for trouble....

[biffvernon]

The UN is almost useless. The same cannot be said of our domestic political system, which for all its faults does actually result in an elected authority which is capable of making and enforcing decisions. We have some degree of real power, as voters in the UK and contributors to British cultural life, over what goes on in the UK. We have very little power, and probably no right, to determine what goes on elsewhere.

Therefore you are NOT a "world citizen." You are a British citizen. You appear to be uncomfortable with this idea, as if merely by stating this fact you will somehow be tainted with J2M-juice.

I'm very happy to be a British citizen, but I am also aware of its limitations. Had the UN had a little more power and the UK a little less we might not have invaded Iraq in quite the way we did. I think many of us can agree that that attempt to determine what goes on elsewhere was not Britain's greatest moment.

[Little John]

Going back to UK immigration, other than cultural integratioin issues, what about all of the issues caused by net immigration of 200,000 - 300,000 per year?

Already in the UK housing is a massive issue, energy is a massive issue, water is a massive issue (although the current flooding has knocked that one a bit! ), Hospital waiting times and treatment availaility are a massive issue, the public financing of welfare/NHS/education is a massive issue etc etc

All of the above (given our lack of economic growth propects) are hardly going to improve with 200,000 - 300,000 people arriving net every year - who not paid anything into the system before their arrival?

I am pro immigration, but controlled, (after all 6 million Brits live abroad!) - the numbers are just insane and we are asking for trouble....

Thank God we've gone back to the numbers since this was the original thrust of this thread and was also my own primary concern as I made quite clear in my earlier posts. Cultural integration issues are important but very much secondary. It's funny how those who would wish to stifle any argument about the numbers are usually the one's who are only too ready to bring the issues of cultural integration into such an argument. It seems to me this is a favoured technique, that is to say, an accusation of "racism by association" by those who wish to close down otherwise legitimate arguments about immigration

[Little John]

The UN is almost useless. The same cannot be said of our domestic political system, which for all its faults does actually result in an elected authority which is capable of making and enforcing decisions. We have some degree of real power, as voters in the UK and contributors to British cultural life, over what goes on in the UK. We have very little power, and probably no right, to determine what goes on elsewhere.

Therefore you are NOT a "world citizen." You are a British citizen. You appear to be uncomfortable with this idea, as if merely by stating this fact you will somehow be tainted with J2M-juice.

I'm very happy to be a British citizen, but I am also aware of its limitations. Had the UN had a little more power and the UK a little less we might not have invaded Iraq in quite the way we did. I think many of us can agree that that attempt to determine what goes on elsewhere was not Britain's greatest moment.

The UK armed forces didn't go into Iraq because the UK is powerful. They went in because the British establishment is the American establishment's bitch.

[Catweazle]

For me, I should say the answer is simple. I help the stranger from my own community first. The reason is simple. It's because charity begins at home. The reason it begins at home is because I don't know when I may need help but, when/if I do, I am probably going to need to look to my neighbour for that help before expecting it from someone from far way in another community. By showing preference for my own community I am showing good sense. But, that contract works both ways. That is to say, it only remains stable as long as I can be sure that, when push comes to shove, I know that my neighbours will catch me when I fall. I can only be sure of that by knowing that, in all of the fundamentals of life, we share the same beliefs and cultural practices. If there exists on the one community two entirely different and incompatible belief systems about those fundamentals, then we are not looking at one community any more. It is, in effect two communities that simply happen to exist in the same space. Fine, as long as times a good. Very bad when times get tough.

Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

[UndercoverElephant]

The UN is almost useless. The same cannot be said of our domestic political system, which for all its faults does actually result in an elected authority which is capable of making and enforcing decisions. We have some degree of real power, as voters in the UK and contributors to British cultural life, over what goes on in the UK. We have very little power, and probably no right, to determine what goes on elsewhere.

Therefore you are NOT a "world citizen." You are a British citizen. You appear to be uncomfortable with this idea, as if merely by stating this fact you will somehow be tainted with J2M-juice.

I'm very happy to be a British citizen, but I am also aware of its limitations. Had the UN had a little more power and the UK a little less we might not have invaded Iraq in quite the way we did. I think many of us can agree that that attempt to determine what goes on elsewhere was not Britain's greatest moment.

Yes, and because this is Britain, and we care about fair play, Tony Blair will be remembered as Tony Bliar, because he lied to parliament on this issue, and still hasn't apologised for it. He could have gone down as one of the greatest PMs in British history.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

SC: Well if the practice is not shared between all members of the group then it is not a shared practice is it? So the short answer is 100%. A fair example would be to define churchgoers as a cultural group - if an individual does not go to church then he is not a churchgoer - though he may be Christian (not opening the can of worms of what might define a Christian but it gives another good example of the difficulty of defining a cultural belief in the manner which you suggest).

In reality this condition is unlikely to be met unless you choose a specific practice and a very small group at which point your definition is likely to be tautological (a group comprised of people who believe in X believe in X) forcing the only logical conclusion - you can't make any judgement about any group of people, only about individual beliefs and practices.

Ahhh, the eidetic instance argument.

I think you'll find that cultural membership, although fuzzy and non-exclusive, is very real.

The further removed you are from my cultural norms then the harder you will find it to fit in and in the words of us common people, fit in or F--k off.

[UndercoverElephant]

I want some people on here to imagine the following thought experiment.

You have two people. You have not personally met either of them. One of them, though, is a member of your community to which you culturally may be said to belong. The other is a member of a distant community to which you culturally may be said to not belong. You discover both of these people are in imminent danger of, say, starvation, and that you only have sufficient spare resources of your own to be able to help just one of them. Do you choose to help none of them or one of them? If you do choose to help one of them, what criteria do you use to decide which one?

The thought experiment, above, is an extreme situation rarely found in such a literal form in the real world. However, it is informative in terms discovering where one's bottom line exists, as it were. For me, I should say the answer is simple. I help the stranger from my own community first. The reason is simple. It's because charity begins at home. The reason it begins at home is because I don't know when I may need help but, when/if I do, I am probably going to need to look to my neighbour for that help before expecting it from someone from far way in another community. By showing preference for my own community I am showing good sense. But, that contract works both ways. That is to say, it only remains stable as long as I can be sure that, when push comes to shove, I know that my neighbours will catch me when I fall. I can only be sure of that by knowing that, in all of the fundamentals of life, we share the same beliefs and cultural practices. If there exists on the one community two entirely different and incompatible belief systems about those fundamentals, then we are not looking at one community any more. It is, in effect two communities that simply happen to exist in the same space. Fine, as long as times a good. Very bad when times get tough.

All of which is why it is not sufficient to state that this patch of land called England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales is merely the arbitrary place where people simultaneously happen to reside and where those people should feel no more or less commitment to the well being of their neighbours than they do towards someone from a distant land. If people really felt like that, we would never have been able to build institutions such as the NHS, nor have been able to persuade people of the need for the social contract that is progressive taxation. Nor would we have had the fortitude to stand united against the tyranny of the Third Reich. Frankly, I find it disgusting to listen to the limp-wristed cultural self-loathing and apathy of some people on here.

The thing about this kind of cultural relativism is that, very quickly, it can morph into cultural apathy and, eventually, to cultural selfishness and, finally, to complete nihilistic cultural atomisation. As I said previously, if this is really how some people feel, they deserve to lose what culture they have. One that our ancestors took somewhat more seriously and were prepared, on occasion, to lay their lives down for.

Yes.

[Totally_Baffled]

Had the UN had a little more power

It still wouldn't do sod all about anything and never will!

US suggests action on whatever - China/Russia veto, and visa versa.....

[RenewableCandy]

erm point of information: in the UK church and state aren't separate. You have to go to France for that.

Furthermore, although we're better at women's rights than a lot of the ME, it was not ever thus.

The victorians practiced fgm (it was considered a "cure" for orgasm. Yes, really). Not all that long before that, women were considered not to own any property, the implication being that they were themselves property. Iirc that was put right during the Victorian era.

RenewableGrandmaman was born a mere 2 years after the end of Victoria's reign, so those times are, very nearly, within living memory. RenewableMaman was born just 4 years after women received full voting rights in the UK. So that is well within living memory.

Of course, we have to make sure none of our present-day fairness falls victim to "multi-culturalism" in the UK, but while doing so we shouldn't go around thinking that we, as a culture, have always had the moral high ground.

[UndercoverElephant]

erm point of information: in the UK church and state aren't separate.

Exactly.

In the UK, this actually works. Most other places it doesn't. This difference is cultural and historical. It is part of what makes us what we are. Why does the UK need church/state separation? We pioneered this problem, and ended up with our own sort of solution. It isn't utopian, but what existing system would you swap it for?

[Little John]

erm point of information: in the UK church and state aren't separate. You have to go to France for that.

Furthermore, although we're better at women's rights than a lot of the ME, it was not ever thus.

The victorians practiced fgm (it was considered a "cure" for orgasm. Yes, really). Not all that long before that, women were considered not to own any property, the implication being that they were themselves property. Iirc that was put right during the Victorian era.

RenewableGrandmaman was born a mere 2 years after the end of Victoria's reign, so those times are, very nearly, within living memory. RenewableMaman was born just 4 years after women received full voting rights in the UK. So that is well within living memory.

Of course, we have to make sure none of our present-day fairness falls victim to "multi-culturalism" in the UK, but while doing so we shouldn't go around thinking that we, as a culture, have always had the moral high ground.

Well, yes, quite. All of which are good reason to value the fragile and precious flower that is the best of our culture. A Flower that was fertilised with the tears, the sweat and sometimes, even, the blood of our ancestors and stop treating it as if it is something to be constantly apologised for or that needs to perpetually bend over backwards to accommodate cultural practices and beliefs that are, in truth, anathema to our culture, and rightly so.

As for whether we occupy the entirety of the moral high ground on all matters of human affairs, quite clearly we do not. However, we should have the confidence to assert when we quite clearly know that we do.

[RenewableCandy]

It was merely a point of order, not a complaint