• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




Post Brexit - The End of Nationalism and rise of the City State?

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
This was the first thought that crossed my mind when the referendum results came in, and I learned that London was very much in favour of being a part of the EU (as well as NI and Scotland of course.)

Now, we see this in Bristol --- Bristol 24/7 | News | Politics | The independent city state of Bristol





Very exciting stuff!

In my view, one's position in the question of the EU really does come down to a question of loyalties. I.e. What is the hierarchy of social groupings that one commits allegiance to? From family upwards? (edit - sense of belonging.)

- Are those elements of our society wherein nationalistic breasts swell with sentimental self-regard for their own nation and national characteristics, actually on their way to extinction?!

And in its stead shall we see the rise of smaller sub-state groupings breaking away, pledging their allegiance to their own cities, provinces, and then above that to a supra-European federation, skipping national allegiance entirely?!

The way I see it, in a society as complex as ours, it is incontrovertible that there are certain "non-exclusive competences" that cannot be performed at a more local level in the true interests of the entire 'supra-community' of people. Thus, power needs to be where it properly belongs. (Indeed, often that involves leaving power as close to the action as possible, but not always). This is a good thing, particularly in the light of our own recent experiences (1997-2007).

In this regard I like that in the European model of governance, while there is a necessary interdependence, the aim is actually to maximise independence, and ensure there is room for the small to influence the mighty, while ensuring there is mutual confidence to encourage positive disagreement and argument. And so on.

It seems quite beautiful actually that we may be coming back around again to the original conceptions of the city state of Athens, from where our concepts of democracy (and indeed the etymology of the idea of democracy) originated.

Exciting times, and exciting opportunities.
 


Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
It seems quite beautiful actually that we may be coming back around again to the original conceptions of the city state of Athens, from where our concepts of democracy (and indeed the etymology of the idea of democracy) originated.

Exciting times, and exciting opportunities.
It may be quite beautiful if accompanied by a form of direct democracy/strong local governance, and if further, it could happen without the xenophobia and conflict that traditionally accompanied city states in the past (city states had their own harsh immigration policies and issues)... a beautiful potentially backward step.

This is just another way to separate people by pack.. and I don't see why we shouldn't aim toward becoming one pack.. so for me the q is how to allow for difference within a democratic form of global governance and further how to deconstruct political power so that broader forms of government (such as the EU) don't become corrupted.
 

Artful_Dodger

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
202
Isn't this what libertarians argue in favour of? Small communes? Independent cities?

An end to massive nation-wide administrations.
 

Artful_Dodger

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
202

Cellachán Chaisil

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
10,011

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
Nation states and associated nationalistic sentiment are an anachronism.

A lot of today's conflicts and problems might be resolved through adopting such a paradigm shift.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,441
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,190
With 20% unemployment, time for Wexit? (Wexford)
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,349
Nation states and associated nationalistic sentiment are an anachronism.

A lot of today's conflicts and problems might be resolved through adopting such a paradigm shift.
Agree with the gist of your first statement.

Do you seriously think city states never had conflicts or problems, though?
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,967
The way I see it, in a society as complex as ours, it is incontrovertible that there are certain "non-exclusive competences" that cannot be performed at a more local level in the true interests of the entire 'supra-community' of people. Thus, power needs to be where it properly belongs. (Indeed, often that involves leaving power as close to the action as possible, but not always). This is a good thing, particularly in the light of our own recent experiences (1997-2007).
The principle of subsidiarity - power devolved to the lowest appropriate level - is supposedly built into the EU treaties, but we've heard precious little of that lately.

The EU is poisoned by big vs small state imbalances. Breaking the big nations down into city state-size entities would erase these and, as you say, make the EU a genuine, beneficial entity of supra-community governance.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
Agree with the gist of your first statement.

Do you seriously think city states never had conflicts or problems, though?
Absolutely not. I'm quite sure they did.

But the point is that such thinking could bring something new to the table in a number of current impasses.

Certain 'unretractable' positions based along nationalist lines become simply irrelevant, with new solutions proffered.

No doubt new conflicts and problems would arise. But at least the old ones have been put to bed!
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
The principle of subsidiarity - power devolved to the lowest appropriate level - is supposedly built into the EU treaties, but we've heard precious little of that lately.

The EU is poisoned by big vs small state imbalances. Breaking the big nations down into city state-size entities would erase these and, as you say, make the EU a genuine, beneficial entity of supra-community governance.
Is it (the principle of subidiarity) not still there?

Between the EU having to assume much of the responsibility for cleaning up the fall-out of 1997-2007, largely stoked at national level, and the accompanying headlines in the tabloids about the big bad EU at whose feet all the blame should be laid, no doubt there is a current perception existing.

But in the areas not within its "exclusive competence" has the EU not actually respected the principle of subsidiarity? For example should it really have devolved more of its economic decision-making to Bertie and Enda post-2007? Or looking to another area, should its environmental directives really have been run by Tom Parlon and the IFA first, to get their input?

Personally I don't think they have done so bad, considering the times that have been in it - when it was perhaps too much devolvement of power to national level during 1997-2007 that necessitated their taking an amount of it back so as to deal with the issues affecting the entire community!
 

Equinox

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
3,070
City state? I think you mean feudal corporatocracy.

'Welcome to The City', can I see your passport/employee ID please? Ahh, you're from Goldman Sachs? I visited there once, lovely this time of year with the picnic theme company lunch.. oh, do go straight to HQ in an acredited taxi, you don;t want to end up in the shanty town, they've been known to litterally eat employee/citizens alive down there I hear!'
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
Another point is economic benefit.

Looking back to the period of the two major economic depressions in recent history, 1873-98, and post 1929, it was innovation in organisation that really turned those recessions around.

In particular, the development of urban 'mega-region' economic areas (of course together with, for example, the consolidation of the railroads, petroleum and steel industries in the late nineteenth century, or the rise into prominence of the new 'management science' in the 40's and 50's, and so on).

'City States' would certainly bring a new impetus to economic organisation. It would be a major innovation. An innovation with the power to create an incredible 'boom'.

Always, it was something new on this type of scale that turned bust into boom, particularly looking back at the nineteenth century during the period of unregulated 'competitive capitalism', and the 'busts' of 1815, 1825, 1836-9, 1847-8, 1857, and 1866. (Before the really big one of 1873, mentioned above).
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,074
Agree with the gist of your first statement.

Do you seriously think city states never had conflicts or problems, though?
Presume he is being facetious, Renaissance Italy was like modern day Venezuela, we are bleeding lucky to be alive today above all previous eras in the West.
 

michaelss

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
5
i am from Ukraiane , and they say they will help us right here , they made big war , and a lot of people dying and they hoping to go there , but they lying
 

ivnryn

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
1,304
The principle of subsidiarity - power devolved to the lowest appropriate level - is supposedly built into the EU treaties, but we've heard precious little of that lately.
The problem with subsidiarity is the question of who decides at which level decisions should be made.

Whatever level has the right to decide what level a particular power operates is likely to bias things in that level's direction.

In the EU powers can only be moved to the EU level if all the members agree. This gives the members power over the decision. On the other hand, powers are never moved back to the members.

The EU is poisoned by big vs small state imbalances. Breaking the big nations down into city state-size entities would erase these and, as you say, make the EU a genuine, beneficial entity of supra-community governance.
I think if there were rules which allowed moving powers back to member states, it could balance things. A "competency" would need to maintain a super-majority of support or it gets moved back to the members.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,650
The problem with subsidiarity is the question of who decides at which level decisions should be made.

Whatever level has the right to decide what level a particular power operates is likely to bias things in that level's direction.

In the EU powers can only be moved to the EU level if all the members agree. This gives the members power over the decision. On the other hand, powers are never moved back to the members.

I think if there were rules which allowed moving powers back to member states, it could balance things. A "competency" would need to maintain a super-majority of support or it gets moved back to the members.
What "powers" would you like "moved back"?

List your top three.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top