Brexit

[abbey road d enfer]

Other countries have different cultures and ideas about family size, but we have no responsibility to soak up the results of their choices, they have to learn themselves, I fail to see where bigotism enters the argument or applies to this conversation.

You call it culture, I call it religion.

There has to be some limitation or else the Italians will still be paying for the Roman Conquest, The Mongols for the rape of Europe and the French for Napoleons adventures  and Charles X's in Algeria, not forgetting of course the British Empire.

I don't belong to the section of society that lives in perpetual guilt over what their ancestors did 100's of years ago.

Neither do I; I believe in the lessons of history, though, because it could prevent doing the same "mistakes" again. I don't feel "guilty" about Napoleon, but I certainly wished we cease to use him as an example. I don't feel guilty about France's conquest of Algeria, but I feel sorry for the missed opportunity.

 

[DaveP]

Neither do I; I believe in the lessons of history, though, because it could prevent doing the same "mistakes" again. I don't feel "guilty" about Napoleon, but I certainly wished we cease to use him as an example. I don't feel guilty about France's conquest of Algeria, but I feel sorry for the missed opportunity.

I think on that point we have reached an entente cordiale.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I think on that point we have reached an entente cordiale.

DaveP

"Au choc des idées jaillit la lumière" (Boileau)

 

[DaveP]

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
― Plato

 

[micaddict]

DaveP wrote:

I think we have to recognise that conquest and Empires were an unfortunate part of our past

Really?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Really?

Please elaborate...

 

[micaddict]

Please elaborate...

I was thinking of old games in new clothes.

And with other weapons.

 

[mattiasNYC]

If there was a country that practiced open borders and prospered, then we would all copy the principle but there are none.

Well, within the EU borders were essentially open to other member-states, at least in Schengen, and that "worked" without creating pure criminal chaos, which is what you implied. So if you begin to widen that zone of free movement you must sooner or later end up with an area inhabited by people that are somehow not capable of living in law and order, according to your argument. In other words, "we" are capable of it, and "they" are not.

The problem with that argument is that it lives in a bit of a vacuum in my opinion. I mean, I actually understand what is implied there and I don't totally disagree with some of it, but it leaves out our own actions. In other words, while "they" come to our lands and misbehave at a supposedly larger rate than "we" do, what do "we" do abroad? What policies do we support that affect "them"? I would essentially maintain that "we" are no better than "they" are when we take international actions into account, it's just a matter of means and scale. From a US standpoint its essentially entirely hypocritical to support the crimes of nation-states against other nations while then complain about the dangers of foreigners entering the country. It obviously doesn't mean that I'm in favor of the latter, just that I think it's a hypocritical stance.

So from a philosophical and moral standpoint I think I can understand that there's an objection to be had, while acknowledging that there are real practical problems to be solved.

Just because some cultures do not practice birth control and consequently have to export their surplus population, does not mean that we are obliged to be responsible where they are not.

DaveP

It's pretty much clear as far as I know that having many children is to a very large degree dependent on wealth, education and freedom. Unfortunately said wealth really have an effect on education and freedom, so really a lot of it has to do with just wealth. China is an interesting example, but it isn't entirely applicable because it really is an exception. The one-child policy was fine but we saw the effects of the very same basic problem of poverty in that the children given up for adoption were mostly girls or boys with birth defects or illnesses, and now China has a problem with too few girls.

Generally speaking though the issue should then be seen in a much broader context. Are "we" at all responsible for the lack of wealth in the nations in which birth rates are really high? Again I would argue that we are. So there is at least an indirect responsibility.

 

[DaveP]

Well, within the EU borders were essentially open to other member-states, at least in Schengen, and that "worked" without creating pure criminal chaos, which is what you implied. So if you begin to widen that zone of free movement you must sooner or later end up with an area inhabited by people that are somehow not capable of living in law and order, according to your argument. In other words, "we" are capable of it, and "they" are not.

The EU is a bad example to pick as "worked" as after the Brexit vote a member wants out.

Its not PC to say it but countries like Ukraine are not ready to join, not until they stop trading punches in parliament and get their corruption under control.

Generally speaking though the issue should then be seen in a much broader context. Are "we" at all responsible for the lack of wealth in the nations in which birth rates are really high? Again I would argue that we are. So there is at least an indirect responsibility.

No, we have a direct responsibility because we started curing their diseases with our medical science and providing water technology without obtaining birth control to balance the effect of our anti-evolutionary intervention.  Just another example of non-joined up thinking.  It may seem like a harsh thing to say, but famine and thirst are even harsher expressions of reality.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The EU is a bad example to pick as "worked" as after the Brexit vote a member wants out.

Its not PC to say it but countries like Ukraine are not ready to join, not until they stop trading punches in parliament and get their corruption under control.

I would say it's the visible part of the iceberg, and one that's kinda funny. EU with 6-9 members worked because there was a common foundation, but the forced-march mutation towards a 20+ EU turned out to be a disaster because of lack of planning due to the lack of said common foundation, so the number of criteria had to shrink to that of a miserable merchant's union.

No, we have a direct responsibility because we started curing their diseases with our medical science and providing water technology without obtaining birth control to balance the effect of our anti-evolutionary intervention.  Just another example of non-joined up thinking.  It may seem like a harsh thing to say, but famine and thirst are even harsher expressions of reality.

Your position and that of mattias are too extremely opposite. The subject of colonization is a very difficult one, tainted by guilt vs. rightousness in the best case, by racism vs. revenge in the worst. I have a personal experience of the aftermath of colonization, and I am wary not to express definitive opinions.

 

[DaveP]

Don't get me wrong, I think that the 18th and 19th century's of colonisation  was regrettable and it would have been better never to have happened.  Their mindset back then is alien to modern thinking and hindsight.

I would say it's the visible part of the iceberg, and one that's kinda funny. EU with 6-9 members worked because there was a common foundation, but the forced-march mutation towards a 20+ EU turned out to be a disaster because of lack of planning due to the lack of said common foundation, so the number of criteria had to shrink to that of a miserable merchant's union.

I agree with that
DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

The EU is a bad example to pick as "worked" as after the Brexit vote a member wants out.

Its not PC to say it but countries like Ukraine are not ready to join, not until they stop trading punches in parliament and get their corruption under control.

That makes complete sense if you willingly ignore the Brits exporting their football houliganism to EU member states. Or does this influx of crime only export one-way?

No, we have a direct responsibility because we started curing their diseases with our medical science and providing water technology without obtaining birth control to balance the effect of our anti-evolutionary intervention.  Just another example of non-joined up thinking.  It may seem like a harsh thing to say, but famine and thirst are even harsher expressions of reality.

DaveP

It sounds harsh for a completely different reason. Imperialism and conquest set nations back tremendously. To hear a descendant of imperialists then say that it's thanks to them that there's now medicine is just borderline obscene. And that excludes the fact that corporations sit on patents making domestic production of goods impossible due to international law. And add to that the ability to 'carpet bomb' nations with cheap goods while not allowing them to reciprocate or protect their domestic production to grow their economies and this "savior image" you're portraying smells bad. At least of ignorance.

Sorry if that was harsh.

 

[DaveP]

You are firing at the wrong guy, I wish that colonisation never happened. I also wish that drug companies were  under more government control, they make viagra when they should be working on antibiotics.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

That wasn't what I was talking about of course.

 

[DaveP]

You had better make your point clearer then :-\

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Your wishes regarding whether or not colonization should have happened is different from what you imply when you say that "we" helped them cure diseases. It comes off as the white man taking responsibility for curing them from their diseases when they themselves are incapable (we're the saviors), and that they should by now know and do better by having fewer babies, while simultaneously completely ignoring the fact that their lack of wealth and a great deal of other things are the result of that colonization, and thus by extension also the birth rates not declining.

"We" aren't responsible for only the nice part of things. That was my point. That has nothing to do with what you wish did or didn't happen in the past.

 

[DaveP]

I try to say exactly what I mean in good English, implications are something you are responsible for.

Having unfortunately colonised these countries, what were they supposed to do?  Not set up any hospitals?  Wouldn't that have incurred even more criticism?

When I worked in the Congo, I thought the government under Mobutu (a corrupt Dictator) did however make the right choice of concentrating on Education before health care.  As I worked for an NGO which provided a hospital and the healthcare for 100.000 people, I think it could be possible that I know something about what western medicine and surgery was capable of doing for these peoples lives and what their local witchdoctor could not.

With the exception of a few indoctrinated schoolkids, the vast majority of the population were extremely grateful for the help that we gave them. the cynical attitude that you describe I have only found in European liberals, not Africans in Africa.

In anycase, I was not referring to any patronising  colonialists, we are talking way later than their time.  I was referring to the work of NGO's and charities which help sustain a larger population than the local areas can sustain.

DaveP

 

[Script]

Just read that burger maker McD plans on moving headquarters from Luxemburg to Britain -- well, only the financial department, meaning that McD will tax all EU-wide revenue in Britain in the future, and at a lower rate of course (the Apple et al approach).

Could it be that Britain plans on attracting more big corporation through low corporate taxation and thus effectively help them legally avoid tax payments on the continent? Is that a pattern? Is Britain planning on turning into a tax haven for big corporations? Does that not sound like post-Brexit neo2-liberal Britain plans on spreading its legs... Fie! Tut! Ugh!, Faugh!

Sorry for the language.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Just read that burger maker McD plans on moving headquarters from Luxemburg to Britain -- well, only the financial department, meaning that McD will tax all EU-wide revenue in Britain in the future, and at a lower rate of course (the Apple et al approach).

Could it be that Britain plans on attracting more big corporation through low corporate taxation and thus effectively help them legally avoid tax payments on the continent? Is that a pattern? Is Britain planning on turning into a tax haven for big corporations? Does that not sound like post-Brexit neo2-liberal Britain plans on spreading its legs... Fie! Tut! Ugh!, Faugh!

Sorry for the language.

Not unexpected to try to work this angle but AFAIK the UK has not negotiated what their trade relationship will be with the continent post-BREXIT so any future benefit from being UK based is yet to be determined. I don't expect the EU to let them withdraw with no economic consequences.

It seems Ireland would be a safer (or more well defined country wrt EU trade). 

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

AFAIK the UK has not negotiated what their trade relationship will be with the continent post-BREXIT so any future benefit from being UK based is yet to be determined. I don't expect the EU to let them withdraw with no economic consequences.

It seems Ireland would be a safer (or more well defined country wrt EU trade). 

JR

Indeed Ireland (well, Eire) has used low taxes and exemptions to attract entrepreneurs, but pressure from G20 has progressively made it less enticing, the icing on the cake being the EU decision to recall $14 billion of back-taxes from Apple, which is likely to be followed by several other companies (Google, Amazon...). Of course, this decision is under appeal and may not meet its end before a number of years, but I think the UK would be be very wary of engaging in a policy that might cause it to incur the wrath of the EU, of which it still wants to be a partner.