A MESS OF DIVISION LOBBIES & RADICAL RETICENCE. Xanadu search linking to 3 degrees of separation. @JoeBlob20 @DavidGolemXIV @PMotels @financialeyes @joezl @GwynneSteve

Selection_138.jpg

All good points and first we do need to bring people together again and nationalism is the first step.

My piece short piece on nationalism and why EU membership is inherently divisive, hint : europhiles and euroskeptics

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157143969492488&id=560977487

Followed by another short piece and why an excessive focus on economics at the expense of cultural and social cohesion risks transforming communities and societies into an incoherent gaggle of self-centred individuals only out for themselves.

https://radix.org.uk/news/let-the-idea-of-collaboration-between-nation-states-flourish-again/#comment-22638

Selection_140

IT’S ENOUGH TO MAKE REMAINERS SCREAM

    
5
(1)
3184839175_9d16f48c33_b-1

It really is enough to make Remainers scream.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157143969492488&id=560977487

Selection_137.jpg

Stephen Gwynne says

Thanks for your reply. It is interesting that you point out broad brush strokes about large groupings of people and how that is counter to social cohesion and then proceed to apply broad brush strokes about large groupings of people regarding the usual #ProjectFear signifiers of hard left and hard right. Similarly these are just your views.

Personally I find it inconceivable that a democratic majority would ever choose any of these extreme options. Unless of course the majority are idiotic gullible racists.

Brexit of itself is clearly not nothing unless you consider national autonomy, national democracy over national policy and national self determination to be valueless. Some find intrinsic value in these things, some clearly don’t.

Some might find this article interesting which argues that democracy is the source of independent and critical thinking that outweighs the vague objectivity of experts.

Brexit offers democratic possibilities which EU membership will never be able to achieve. The national debates that democracy engenders coalesces a national population around shared concerns and shared issues, unlike the EU which simplifies concerns and issues around itself and the integrity of rigid EU Treaties. This loss of dynamic means a separation between actual lived life and aspirations, whereby the aspirations are set and people are expected to conform.

This expectation to conform is the underlying reason why Brexit has become so divisive because it engenders a significant separation between those that have willingly conformed and those not yet conformed. This dynamic is essentially authoritarian in nature with one group expecting the other group to be like themselves.

The homogenising effect of the EU is clearly at odds with liberty, equality and fraternity and why throughout the history of the EU project, it has divided European populations into two distinct groups, europhiles and euroskeptics.

Self-evidently the EU project is socially divisive in each different national population with europhiles over time using sophistry to force or coerce euroskeptics to conform. So it was hardly surprising that the EU referendum emboldened europhiles to deploy authoritarian tactics to try and pressure euroskeptics to be subservient.

Clearly this is an extremely dysfunctional way in which to organise societies and promote well-being. Similarly, it disempowers and disenfranchises one grouping of society from the political process. Over time, this division has been entrenched through reward and punishment so that those that conform are rewarded with better privilages, better positions and better opportunities.

National democracy and national autonomy, which Brexit represents, is a radical turn from this dysfunctional state of affairs and as I said allows national populations to integrate through the process of national debate whereby concerns and issues become shared concerns and issues rather than a dynamic of conformity and homogenization.

Obviously everyone will have their own vision of British society once national democracy and national autonomy have been reclaimed. However rather than two distinct groupings conflicting over a rigid aspiration, people will be able to voice and lobby from any aspiration.

National debate will bring together this plethora of aspirations, which will organically coalesce into definable sets of ideas about how to sustain our national future. We are after all creatures that are biologically hardwired for self-preservation unlike the EU Treaties which are hardwired to produce specific economic conditions.

As such, independent free thinking aspirations will blend and mould into definable ideas which will then be represented by different political parties and quite rightly people will have the opportunity to choose which one they prefer. Despite the diversity of these aspirational sets of self preservation, everyone will be relatively secure in the knowledge that aspirational sets are indeed underpinned with self preservation even if one disagrees with how it is to be achieved.

Consequently, democratic societies tend to be peaceful societies.

So in answer to your question, Brexit isn’t nothing, it is everything and provides unlimited possibilities in which people can experience liberty, equality and fraternity. This is in stark contrast to EU membership, whereby the dynamic is not liberty, equality and fraternity but conformity, coercion and intransigence.

  • Joe Zammit-Lucia says

    Stephen

    On this I believe that we are in agreement. You might like to read the article that will appear in our press pages this afternoon.

    I too believe in the nation state as the repository for democratic legitimacy and building social cohesion.

    In my opinion, the worst thing that we have done is to put Europe and the nation state in opposition. This is as much the obsessive pro-Europeans’ doing as that of the obsessive anti-Europeans.

    The reality is that the two do not need to be in opposition but rather can both be respected for what they offer – which is different but can be complementary.

    We are not there – yet. But I am hopeful that we will eventually get there, if for no other reason that, if we don’t, then the ‘Europe’ idea will collapse.

    Having said that, I believe that we are better off finding this new settlement of complementarity than working actively to make ‘Europe’ collapse.

%d bloggers like this: