Brexit Splatfest: Remain vs. Leave

[PrinceOfKoopas]

(Not everyone subscribes to World Politics Review!)

While I didn't study International Affairs as an undergrad (so I'm not gonna sound as smart, nuanced, or well-read), I reject that there's nothing we can do to prevent a New World Order one-nation world, and I certainly reject that it's at all desirable.

Just because there is all of this identity politics in the USA doesn't necessarily mean that people are gonna drop their Americanism. The current state of culture and politics trend towards in-fighting, but it's not outside the stretch of my imagination to be able to reverse that.

(Free) Trade is economically desirable. It brings that cultural diffusion you're talking about, but I don't see how it necessitates the obliteration of a democratic nation-state. Countries absolutely, absolutely should be able to have a relative degree of control of what goes on in there. Freedom is the best policy within a country, but I don't think it's the best one for foreign relations. A country's own people should always come before refugees or foreigners.

You say the EU carefully waded stuff, but I say that the EU was set up to be a total bureaucratic nightmare and a disaster. I'm philosophically opposed to anything super-national, and that's why I'm glad the United States has a strong streak of opposing that. (USA needs to get out of the United Nations, though. The sooner the better.)

I also strongly believe that open borders are a disaster (which prevents me from being a Libertarian). Lax flow of skilled labour is fine and great, and I'm reading in particular how some UK game industry companies are pretty unhappy about Brexit because I guess the UK has a shortage of skilled computer scientists. That can be arranged, and with strong border controls, at the same time, with streamlined visas and stuff. (And making sure you don't lose the visa-holder like what the USA has done.)

 

[BlackZero]

(Not everyone subscribes to World Politics Review!)

Then read Hyperconflict: Globalization and Insecurity by James Mittelman. It goes in to greater detail as to how globalization helps seemingly local incidents develop international reverberations. There were numerous things that contributed to the Arab Spring, but domestic economic grievances (namely the cost of food items) was a major one.

I reject that there's nothing we can do to prevent a New World Order one-nation world

Please re-read my post. I said the old way of dividing the world via political borders is being phased out and replaced with something else. I never mentioned the words "one-nation world." I have no doubts that national institutions will adapt to stay relevant in a world where populations become increasingly multinational in nature. They won't be able to rely on the more traditional nationalist approach, as domestic communities connect with foreign counterparts however.

I certainly reject that it's at all desirable.

It's neither good or bad. It's just different. I think we are along ways from there though. Actually, globalization will probably make the globe feel very crowded for some countries (particularly in Asia). The problem is, technology renders geography increasingly irrelevant (internet, aircraft, etc); yet in doing so, it makes geography more important than ever from a security standpoint. For centuries, China and India were not particularly concerned with their shared border due to a huge mountain range separating them. Long-range aircraft and ballistic missiles meant the Himalayas were no longer an effective barrier between the two, and that shared border became very relevant in the 1960's (iirc). Expect more of that in the future as these "disrupting technologies" create security dilemmas for many countries that used to have geographic barriers separating them from their neighbors.

Just because there is all of this identity politics in the USA doesn't necessarily mean that people are gonna drop their Americanism.

I specifically said this was in its early phases, and these changes happen over very long periods of time. To give you some idea, it took over a thousand years for world leaders to embrace the concept of collective security (NATO/mutual defense pacts) as an alternative to regional hegemony (dominance) on the systemic level. This change will probably play out over the next couple of decades. Bear in mind that this is not limited to the US, and it is probably less apparent to Americans because the US has far more cultural exports than it does imports.

(Free) Trade is economically desirable. It brings that cultural diffusion you're talking about, but I don't see how it necessitates the obliteration of a democratic nation-state.

I never said anything of the sort.

Countries absolutely, absolutely should be able to have a relative degree of control of what goes on in there

When you say "country," do you mean its citizens, or the political institution that governs them? If the former, how are you going to get an entire population to decide what should come into the country in a way that does not step on the rights of those who don't want it and visa versa? If the latter, how can that result in a free society if the government decides what they have exposure to?

Furthermore, how are you going to prevent people from entering a country and bringing their culture with them? Look at how successful any given country has been at policing its borders. Some may be effective at controlling their borders, but the vast majority aren't.

You say the EU carefully waded stuff, but I say that the EU was set up to be a total bureaucratic nightmare and a disaster.

So? Its structure may be inefficient, but look at European history pre-EU and look at it post-EU. You'll notice a lack of wars between Western European powers. It speaks volumes that European powers actually went along with German reunification based on its joining. If you know anything about history, you know that a united Germany/Prussia tended to make the rest of Europe nervous.

I'm philosophically opposed to anything super-national, and that's why I'm glad the United States has a strong streak of opposing that. (USA needs to get out of the United Nations, though. The sooner the better.)

This is ironic on two levels. First, the US is technically a super-national entity itself. Second, the US created the UN in order to institutionalize its position at the top of the international food chain. It's no coincidence that all the permanent members of the UN Security Council at the time the UN was founded were all allies of the US. America literally built the UN so that it could keep abreast of all international goings on and to solidify key diplomatic partnerships with the most powerful countries at the time. It expected the USSR/Russia to be a problem child, though it was completely blindsided by China.

I also strongly believe that open borders are a disaster (which prevents me from being a Libertarian).

That can be arranged, and with strong border controls, at the same time, with streamlined visas and stuff.

Policing borders has become a very complicated challenge. Desperate people are very motivated, and there are few things that can stop people who are sufficiently motivated. Open borders may not be a good thing, but border control can only do so much. Anything short of shoot-on-sight policies will not make a dent in illegal immigration. The EU has made it very easy for legitimate transnational travel between member-states, and have policies for impeding illegal immigration/asylum seeking. Granted they are a work in progress, but they work about as well as any other system barring "shoot-on-sight" orders.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Hmm, which side would Callie be on? and Marie? I could totally see that happeni--

>sees OP
>sees replies

...

 

[Aori]

Real talk: I don't really know if we should be comparing video game things to actual serious real life events that may put people in danger.
Things like this aren't exactly things to joke about, from my knowledge. I'm not even interested in politics, but I know that it's a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and it's probably not the best thing to do this with.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

Real talk: I don't really know if we should be comparing video game things to actual serious real life events that may put people in danger.
Things like this aren't exactly things to joke about, from my knowledge. I'm not even interested in politics, but I know that it's a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and it's probably not the best thing to do this with.

I dunno, I thought Hillary Clinton and The Dark Age of the Law from Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney — Dual Destinies go along perfectly.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

The fact that "article" or whatever you call that, supports Trump says a lot. Good thing I only read the last line in it. Would have wasted more time otherwise.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

The fact that "article" or whatever you call that, supports Trump says a lot. Good thing I only read the last line in it. Would have wasted more time otherwise.

Do you usually start at the end?

That's, like, literal "the ends justifies the means" philosophy right there.

 

[Of Moose & Men]

Do you usually start at the end?

That's, like, literal "the ends justifies the means" philosophy right there.

Only with certain websites. You can judge a pretty good chunk of an article by how it ends yes. If the conclusion is pedantic and just over all stupid, it's usually safe to assume the entire article follows suit. Conclusions are when people let their colors show because people that disagree with their message have left, so they can say what they please to the audience that agrees with them. This one falls right into place.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

Only with certain websites. You can judge a pretty good chunk of an article by how it ends yes. If the conclusion is pedantic and just over all stupid, it's usually safe to assume the entire article follows suit. Conclusions are when people let their colors show because people that disagree with their message have left, so they can say what they please to the audience that agrees with them. This one falls right into place.

...Hey, that conclusion wasn't pedantic, at least.

That said, if you skip to the conclusion, you'd miss the “Hillary Clinton and The Dark Age of the Law from Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney — Dual Destinies go along perfectly." part of it. And that's why you'd click to begin with, wouldn't it? To see how they go together?

And, as said, the skipping part is literally "the ends justifies the means" philosophy, which is the philosophy discussed and discredited in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney — Dual Destinies that perpetuated The Dark Age of the Law. So your interaction with it fits nicely, just not in a way that makes you look good!

 

[Flareth]

I know this was basically some sort of joke thread, but since y'all are taking this seriously...

So, the basic gist of this that I'm getting is that the U.K. is kinda screwed, or at least it will be in the future. All uprisings and despair from here on out? Then I'd hope my friend doesn't get caught up in it.

 

[BlackZero]

...Hey, that conclusion wasn't pedantic, at least.

That said, if you skip to the conclusion, you'd miss the “Hillary Clinton and The Dark Age of the Law from Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney — Dual Destinies go along perfectly." part of it. And that's why you'd click to begin with, wouldn't it? To see how they go together?

And, as said, the skipping part is literally "the ends justifies the means" philosophy, which is the philosophy discussed and discredited in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney — Dual Destinies that perpetuated The Dark Age of the Law. So your interaction with it fits nicely, just not in a way that makes you look good!

It is possible to skim an article and only read actively the part or parts that you consider most relevant. It's called "BLUF."

I know this was basically some sort of joke thread, but since y'all are taking this seriously...

So, the basic gist of this that I'm getting is that the U.K. is kinda screwed, or at least it will be in the future. All uprisings and despair from here on out? Then I'd hope my friend doesn't get caught up in it.

The problem is short term financial uncertainty; I doubt the UK will completely self-destruct over this. Investors are not sure how this will impact both the British and continental economies. Thus, they aren't as willing to invest in either place. This is why Merkel wants the UK to **** or get off the pot: the longer the UK drags this out, the more investment in the EU will stagnate due to uncertainty. Give it two to five years, and the greater public will probably forget it ever happened. That's assuming the UK goes through with it. Right now, it seems British policymakers are backpedaling so hard they might pull a muscle.