Devil's Advocate
I think the phrase "yoghurt-knitted hogwash" is well worth preserving for posterity, but that's about as far as I can agree with "Dave".
The important question here is not, "do we want to repatriate ethnic minorities" (answer: a tiny percentage of racist loons do, the vast majority don't), but rather, given that a lot of people in this country have concerns about immigration, crime, terrorism and so on, which are linked to the racial and cultural mixing that British society has seen over the last 50 or so years, what do you to alleviate, or at least address, those concerns?
A quick look at any one of several European countries is enough to tell us that people, in the absence of any actual debate on issues like multiculturalism, immigration and so on, which are pretty much treated as desirable 'givens' by the MSM, will turn to extremists like le Pen, Haider etc.
The best way to deal with the BNP is to engage them in argument. I wouldn't particularly care to link to their website but the idea that Nick Griffin would "demolish" anyone in argument is laughable.
Regarding Martin's argument that race is far less important than culture, and that people can get ahead in Western societies regardless of race, it's true as far as it goes. But only when those other races are distinct minorities thoroughly integrated into the culture. When those minorities become large and form their own insular subculture, and the rest of the native population feels that the society is no longer theirs, that's a recipe for conflict. And then no one get's ahead.
......Why does the EU rob the Brits of a right to self-government more than a British government robs Scotland/England/London/wherever their right to self-government? Drawing the line between Britain and Europe is totally arbitrary......
I can't let that one go unchallenged.
Great Britain is a nation, The EU isn't. As a Conservative with Libertarian leanings, I tend toward self government for the individual, but I recognise that nation states would have to be invented if they didn't exist.
The European Union is not a nation, not an empire, and yet it has usurped a huge amount of power from our representatives. It is only loved by those who like what it does (The end justifies the means).
It is very difficult to construct and argument in favour of the EU that doesn't end in a cliched parody snatched straight from a 1960s drug addled mind.
We have a cultural, social and historical connection to the rulers in Westminster however, which despite their many faults gives them a legitimacy that the alternatives do not have.
The EU will end in tears, because it is an experiment in social engineering, and they always do.
EU Serf,
I don't understand your point.
Why does the nation state ("that would have to have been invented") have to be the size of the UK and not the EU? My question was on what basis can we justify drawing a line between [the UK] and [Europe] rather than, say, [The UK, France] and [the rest of Europe>] or [England] and [the Rest of Great Britain and the rest of Europe]. In what sense is Great Britain a sensible area to have a central government body for, but not any smaller or larger area?
I just can't see how the EU is, in any deep sense, different in kind rather than degree from a centralised body for the UK.
Alex
Size isn't really the issue, it can be any size so long as there is enough binding force to bind it together as a nation. A nation is more than a territory. A single language, religion, culture, history, figurehead, national myth or even just a common enemy can do this.
However the EU has none of these, despite trying to make America it's common enemy, so the natural forces of dissolution will eventually make it fall apart.
Please have a look at
gettingcaned.blogspot.com
if you get a minute
>>"when 99.9% of racist attacks are whites on minorities;
Commenting by HaloScan
