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
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13502
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote: What I am not clear about, UE, is what you would like me to do. Saying "it is time to grow up, stop the fluffybunny thinking, and face reality as it actually is", doesn't help much. What, in practical terms, should I actually do?
It's not just about practical things. We do discuss practicalities on this board, but it is primarily a place where we debate the complex issues surrounding peak oil and associated topics, from a British perspective. In other words we are having difficult discussions about the future of northwest Europe, and especially our little corner of it. What should you actually do? I think you need to shift your thinking in some important ways, and as a result you should be responding differently when faced with certain difficult moral and political questions.

There is a pattern both within transition town movements and within the green movement. That pattern is of internal divisions causing the movement as a whole to be impotent as an intellectual fighting force, and in many cases to fall apart and cease to exist. There are always going to be serious differences of opinion, especially on moral questions. This cannot be avoided. What can be avoided are serious differences of opinion that are the result of one or more of the participants simply refusing to accept reality, whether that is physical/scientific reality or the human realities like global politics and human psychology. I think that you actually know, deep down, that you are clinging on to an impossible dream - that you are peddling "false hope" and basing your politics on this. What you do not understand is that there are serious real-world negative consequences to this peddling of false hope. In short, it is NOT possible for people like myself or Steve Cook to fix the intellectual divisions in this community, because our position result from the acceptance of grim realities. It IS possible for you to fix them, because your position results from the peddling of what you know, deep down, to be false hopes and impossible dreams.

What I want you to do is stop being the cause of serious intellectual disputes within this community and the wider environmental movement. There is no justification for you to continue being the cause of these disputes, because your false hopes and impossible dreams are not actually helping anybody or anything. The only purpose they actually serve is to make you feel like you are morally superior to us, when in reality you are nothing of the sort. Paul Kingsnorth sums it up in one sentence: False hope is worse than no hope.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

What I want you to do is stop being the cause of serious intellectual disputes within this community and the wider environmental movement.
Translation = "agree with me".

Paul Kingsnorth is not necessarily right.

No doubt I will be ignored or called a troll.

Happy Christmas everybody, including UE.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Er, UE, that doesn't really answer my question, even if I leave out the word 'practical'. All you seem to be doing is asking me to stop writing here. Hmmm.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm peddling "false hope". I just pointed out that I tend towards the Kingsnorth/Jenson position, that I'm pessimistic about the future for humanity and think the most likely outcome is mass extinction in the not too far off future. Where is the false hope in that? In the off-line company I keep I am well known as the doom-monger, the one who is forever going on about how bad things are going to get. However, I'm going to keep a toe in the door of hope, as nothing is certain and without any hope life seems to me to lose much of it's purpose.

Perhaps what really annoys you is that I don't restrict my writing to a British perspective? I think that when discussing issues that do not recognise national boundaries, such as global warming, a global perspective is appropriate. I don't see how England, acting in isolation, can achieve much.

So UE, let's ask the question again, What should I do?
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

UE, that's just... delusional. It appears that you are unwilling to accept the grimmest reality: our complete lack of consequence. You actually seem to think your arguments have some meaning in the world, rather than a moot among colleagues.

Fear not, though, Biff. All you have to do to heal the green movement is accept UE's reality unquestioningly. UE would accept yours if he could, but unfortunately yours is wrong.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

:lol:
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

:lol: :lol:
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

This thread reminded me of what Biff posted about the word 'hypocrisy' - that it's perfectly ok to have high ideals or aims whilst not achieving them, not being allowed to achieve them, indeed them being impossible to achieve.

I took these, David Fleming's, words to heart and have since used them in conversation, whenever someone has criticised my principles.

Some here post about 'reality' above ideals and some post about ideals above reality. If we could accept that (and quit the insults) the thread would move up a level.
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
Little John

Post by Little John »

emordnilap wrote:This thread reminded me of what Biff posted about the word 'hypocrisy' - that it's perfectly ok to have high ideals or aims whilst not achieving them, not being allowed to achieve them, indeed them being impossible to achieve.

I took these, David Fleming's, words to heart and have since used thm in conversation, whenever someone has criticised my principles.

Some here post about 'reality' above ideals and some post about ideals above reality. If we could accept that (and quit the insults) the thread would move up a level.
Hypocrisy is of little relevance if the consequences of it only affect the hypocrite. However, if those consequences affect every one else, then is is highly relevant. One of those consequences has been to make any reasoned debate about immigration controls all but impossible to the extent that anyone who objects is labelled as racist. This, in turn, has created a vacuum that the far right have been only too happy to fill.

In short, I am saying that the petty bourgeoisie strangling of rational debate about border controls.and immigration is a direct causal factor in the rise of the far right across Europe.
SleeperService
Posts: 1104
Joined: 02 May 2011, 23:35
Location: Nottingham UK

Post by SleeperService »

jonny2mad wrote::shock: the tribal paradigm has its original base in evolution good luck with bucking that long term

And to sleeperservice not only did we declare war on the germans, we got peace offers and hitlers deputy rudolf hess trying to get peace with the uk...hey we had to fight the germans because they wanted to invade us, us declaring war on them and bombing them didnt have anything to do with it
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belguim, France et.al. all had agreements with the Nazis, the USSR even had a Treaty FFS. They meant nothing as Hitler was a bigger liar than Stalin. We declared war on Germany as they invaded a country we had a Treaty with (as did France). It's what a civilised Nation did, we were one of the World Powers at the time. You should try reading The Hess Transcripts at the National Archive (they do match the tape recordings BTW), the man had obviously had a mental breakdown or was seriously delusional. After the War the British interviewed most of the German Leadership with the purpose of finding out what had happened, bearing in mind they were motivated to help (to mitigate their crimes at the upcoming Nuremberg Trials), nobody could offer an explanation. That suggests remarkable secrecy with a mission known only to Hess, Hitler and nobody else......

If you really believe that we did the wrong thing then I'll accept that me and thee have completely opposite beliefs and will not take this any further.
Scarcity is the new black
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:anyone who objects is labelled as racist.
Has anybody labelled anyone as racist in this discussion?
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

Me, I throw it at UE a lot. Mainly because I'm uncomfortable with justifications like 'culturally backwards nations', Africa being 'one or two steps above primitive tribalism scaled up to national level' (not on Zuma's Christmas card list then) and a lot of previous debates the nadir of which was UE suggestion that Africans may be genetically incapable of government. So I feel it's kind of justified. I think it's fair to say that a lot of debate about immigration is based on misinformation and ignorance; degenerating the debate into one about racism is often invited.

ETA: Oh, and I take it J2M is a given.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

The trouble as I see it is that some of Biff's posts give the impression that all would be hunkydory if we could just, just get rid of national borders/nation-states. I think he's right in a way but has confused cause with effect: we could get rid of borders if everything (else) was hunkydory.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

RenewableCandy wrote:The trouble as I see it is that some of Biff's posts give the impression that all would be hunkydory if we could just, just get rid of national borders/nation-states.
Oh! I certainly did not mean to give that impression. I'd like to see much greater freedom for folk to migrate, the removal of national borders and the restriction to nation level government of those things that are best dealt with at that level only. This might make it easier to solve a lot of other problems, but they would still need solving.

And yes, AndySir, right in both your two last paragraphs. I had thought that since this was a discussion about within EU migration, the race issue was not relevant, but I see it has been dragged in.
SleeperService
Posts: 1104
Joined: 02 May 2011, 23:35
Location: Nottingham UK

Post by SleeperService »

biffvernon wrote:....I'd like to see much greater freedom for folk to migrate, the removal of national borders and the restriction to nation level government of those things that are best dealt with at that level only. This might make it easier to solve a lot of other problems, but they would still need solving....
That is very similar to thoughts I've been having recently. In the UK day-to-day issues could/should be dealt with at the local level (county?). If things don't get done to the population's satisfaction then they would have a better chance of getting action. Feedback could be improved by a rolling re-election system so some members of the council get elected each year.

The next level would be regional (MEP constituency?) dealing with larger projects, industry impact, the macro issues like defense and monetary policy. That would leave an English parliament of 60 MPs. I could live with that as long as they weren't able to dabble in the internal affairs of other regions. Each region then sent a representative to the European Parliament. So 9 MEPs again a better solution. If things go awry then there are less to play the 'Blame Game'.

The redundant MPs and staff can then retrain to discover 'The Oil Yet to be Found' and RC's 'Sofa's Yet to be Brought' :lol: Or try their hand at working for Tossco or Amazin :twisted:
Scarcity is the new black
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13502
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:Er, UE, that doesn't really answer my question, even if I leave out the word 'practical'. All you seem to be doing is asking me to stop writing here. Hmmm.
No. I'm asking you to stop lying. Write all you like, but try to keep it real instead of writing things you know damned well aren't actually true, or things you don't actually believe.
Perhaps what really annoys you is that I don't restrict my writing to a British perspective? I think that when discussing issues that do not recognise national boundaries, such as global warming, a global perspective is appropriate. I don't see how England, acting in isolation, can achieve much.

So UE, let's ask the question again, What should I do?
Stop lying and stop being disingenuous.

There is a perfect example in this thread, Mr Vernon. In response to my claim that there are too many people in the UK already, you actually came back with this (or something like it): "plenty of economists wiser than me have shown that it would benefit the UK economy by raising GDP". You then qualified this with "if this is true", but the real truth is you know damned well that raising GDP is NOT part of any sustainable solution for the UK. So I asked you why you posted it and you replied "because I believe it." Sorry, Mr Vernon, but you are playing stupid f**king word games, deliberately misleading people and trying to avoid having a straight, honest debate. You did not need to post this at all. If you were being HONEST you would either have admitted that an extra X00,000 people is bad news or not said anything at all about what mainstream economists have to say on this issue.

OK? What I want you to do is have an honest, straight debate instead of playing stupid, dishonest games like the one just described.
Post Reply