Brexit!

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

We need more borders, not less.

 

The Kurdistan and the Tibetan people both deserve their independence from Iraq and China. Two there for starters. 

...and I'm sure the Iraqis and Chinese would respect those borders, as has been the case at the beginning of pretty much every single conflict in recent history....right?

 

"Good borders making good neighbours" doesn't stop humans being human and if history is any judge doesn't really do a great deal (a little, perhaps) to even limit it. The problem is the idea of "us and them" that argues the necessity of putting a border up in the first place.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

...and I'm sure the Iraqis and Chinese would respect those borders, as has been the case at the beginning of pretty much every single conflict in recent history....right?

 

"Good borders making good neighbours" doesn't stop humans being human and if history is any judge doesn't really do a great deal (a little, perhaps) to even limit it. The problem is the idea of "us and them" that argues the necessity of putting a border up in the first place.

Well if they don't that why we have the United Nations isn't it?

 

People are different whether you like it or not and probably always will be - borders save lives, they ensure we don't live like primitive savages (though some still do) and ensure different tribes and cultures can live separately when they want to.

 

It's time to get in the real world. The whole "no borders" nonsense is the preserve of educated western liberals because they've grown up living in a peaceful society as the norm and fail to realise those borders are part of what delivered that.

[bovril]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's time to get in the real world. The whole "no borders" nonsense is the preserve of educated western liberals because they've grown up living in a peaceful society as the norm and fail to realise those borders are part of what delivered that.

So the whole 'more borders' nonsense is the preserve of uneducated illiberals?

 

Do tell us about your experience in the "real world" though, I'm fascinated to hear about your travels and how they've convinced you that the current peace and prosperity of the Western world is due to more borders, not fewer.

Edited 1 October 2019 by bovril

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well if they don't that why we have the United Nations isn't it?

 

People are different whether you like it or not and probably always will be - borders save lives, they ensure we don't live like primitive savages (though some still do) and ensure different tribes and cultures can live separately when they want to.

 

It's time to get in the real world. The whole "no borders" nonsense is the preserve of educated western liberals because they've grown up living in a peaceful society as the norm and fail to realise those borders are part of what delivered that.

I'm unconvinced as to either of those things given that an awful lot of dying and living like savages goes on even with more borders than perhaps in the history of the world. The UN might work better if they actually had some enforcing teeth and were not totally beholden to the nations that they sometimes need to limit.

 

Frankly, it's all a tacit acceptance that mankind is inherently a savage animal and only fencing him in and attempting to make it more difficult to act on his worst instincts (though again the success of that is debatable) will stop him lashing out. If one wants to believe that, fair enough - there's certainly enough examples around to justify it - but if that's all we are and that's all we'll continue to be in the future then that's a bit sad considering the potential for so much more is there.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

  

7m ago15:51

Priti Patel's speech

Priti Patel, the home secretary, is speaking now.

She starts by saying the Conservatives have restored their reputation as the party of law and order.

8m ago15:49

Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown asked to leave conference after 'unacceptable' incident

The Conservatives have said that Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown has been asked to leave the conference after the incident earlier. The party said he had tried to take someone into the international lounge who did not have the relevant pass. That person was stopped by a member of staff. Clifton-Brown then “remonstrated” with the staff member, leading to security being called.

A party spokesman said:

The incident was totally unacceptable. Geoffrey has been asked to leave conference and we are establishing all of the facts to see if further action is necessary. We will always adopt a zero tolerance approach to any inappropriate behaviour towards our hardworking staff.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

So the whole 'more borders' nonsense is the preserve of uneducated illiberals?

 

Do tell us about your experience in the "real world" though, I'm fascinated to hear about your travels and how they've convinced you that the current peace and prosperity of the Western world is due to more borders, not fewer.

Not uneducated at all. These people are often educated - sheltered is a better word. I'm very well travelled thank you but that has nothing to do with this at all.

 

You only have to take a keen interest in the news and global affairs to see how many people have perished because they were a minority group who didnt have access to their own borders and nation and all the security that can bring. 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not uneducated at all. These people are often educated - sheltered is a better word. I'm very well travelled thank you but that has nothing to do with this at all.

 

You only have to take a keen interest in the news and global affairs to see how many people have perished because they were a minority group who didnt have access to their own borders and nation and all the security that can bring. 

As above, the news and global affairs and a brief glance at history also shows that minority groups haven't really often fared well even with their own nation and borders.

 

Borders are far less important than mentalities IMO - and I'm certain the latter are not set in stone.

[Finnaldo]

It makes a lot of sense to be fair, look at the hard borders of Ukraine & Russia and  Pakistan & India, places of peace and prosperity compared to the oft-war torn areas of the European Union.

 

In fact, the borders implemented between Middle Eastern and African nations by Imperial powers have worked wonders, we certainly need more of these borders. 

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As above, the news and global affairs and a brief glance at history also shows that minority groups haven't really often fared well even with their own nation and borders.

Yep. So just imagine how bad it would be for many of them if they were still denied them now.

Edited 1 October 2019 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

Funny how debates on here can cause interesting sidetracks..... re. the Kurds this time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29702440

 

"Between 25 and 35 million Kurds inhabit a mountainous region straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia. They make up the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they have never obtained a permanent nation state".

 

I was vaguely aware that the Kurds inhabited part of the territory of Turkey, Iraq and Syria, but didn't know that they were in Iran and Armenia, too. Neither did I know that there were so many of them.

 

Almost makes situations like N. Ireland and Israel/Palestine seem straightforward....

[Guest MattP]

Blimey - Labour have selected Diane Abbott to do Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow in place of Jeremy Corbyn. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Blimey - Labour have selected Diane Abbott to do Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow in place of Jeremy Corbyn. 

 

Surprising choice. 

 

Is Johnson coming back to do it or is someone else standing in for him?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

Surprising choice. 

 

Is Johnson coming back to do it or is someone else standing in for him?

Raab in for him.

 

Thornberry really must have upset the leadership. She was pretty good at it, being sidelined for RBL and now Abbott - maybe that was the problem? 

[Lionator]

Borders should be dependent on cultural, social and historical purposes, there isn't a consistent consensus. As people are saying, Western Europe (where open borders should exist) is completely different to parts of central asia. As Brits however we can't exactly talk about borders with confidence considering it was our interpretation of borders which still causes the messes we see in Kashmir and Israel/Palestine.  

[bovril]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Borders should be dependent on cultural, social and historical purposes, there isn't a consistent consensus. As people are saying, Western Europe (where open borders should exist) is completely different to parts of central asia.   

There are parts of Western Europe that have seen conflict more recently than parts of Central Asia. The fact you can now drive around some of these places without even noticing you're moving from one country to the other is something that should be celebrated. 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

It makes a lot of sense to be fair, look at the hard borders of Ukraine & Russia and  Pakistan & India, places of peace and prosperity compared to the oft-war torn areas of the European Union.

Are we forgetting about Bosnia?

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Are we forgetting about Bosnia?

 

Not in EU. Croatia & Slovenia are now, but weren't at the time of the Balkan wars....

[HappyHamza]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

Well if they don't that why we have the United Nations isn't it?

 

People are different whether you like it or not and probably always will be - borders save lives, they ensure we don't live like primitive savages (though some still do) and ensure different tribes and cultures can live separately when they want to.

 

It's time to get in the real world. The whole "no borders" nonsense is the preserve of educated western liberals because they've grown up living in a peaceful society as the norm and fail to realise those borders are part of what delivered that.

This is an interesting way of looking at the world. That man-made lines on a map have saved savage humankind from killing itself. Almost as if ordinary people are bloodthirsty masochists rather than war being almost always driven by nationalist egocentrics and/or dictators that have been given the power of the military precisely because borders have been created that confer power beyond reason. 

[Finnaldo]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Are we forgetting about Bosnia?

 

The Bosnians didn’t set up a border and the Serbs just went away, the Serbs went away after several UN freedom payloads. 

 

To be honest my post was extremely tongue-in-cheek, but the point is very real. Ethnic strife isn’t caused by a lack of borders, but hard borders, as my given examples show, certainly exacerbates them. Civilisation has only progressed because of a lack, or at least extreme fluidity of borders. Has social, political and economic progression benefitted from borders in centuries gone? Yes, but in the 21st Century, North, South, West & Central Europe had proven to co-exist in a proto-borderless society, with the East slowly but surely getting up to standard. 

 

It’s pretty nonsensical to use examples like Tibet as to why borderless countries wouldn’t work, seeing as they’ve faired just as well with a ‘hard’ border. Either way, without a determined supranational effort, ethnic/national suppression will always happen.

 

It’s also pretty lazy to group every under the ‘no borders’ banner as wanting to abolish all borders tomorrow, as it also encompasses those who want to see reform on how human trafficking and illegal migration is codified. I’m pretty sure even idealists wouldn’t suggest ending national borders tomorrow as it would also require significant infrastructural and economical buildup to make happen.

Edited 2 October 2019 by Finnaldo

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Yep. So just imagine how bad it would be for many of them if they were still denied them now.

I'm not entirely sure how it could have been much worse for some of them, to be honest.

 

4 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

This is an interesting way of looking at the world. That man-made lines on a map have saved savage humankind from killing itself. Almost as if ordinary people are bloodthirsty masochists rather than war being almost always driven by nationalist egocentrics and/or dictators that have been given the power of the military precisely because borders have been created that confer power beyond reason. 

Yup, this is about right.

 

4 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

The Bosnians didn’t set up a border and the Serbs just went away, the Serbs went away after several UN freedom payloads. 

 

To be honest my post was extremely tongue-in-cheek, but the point is very real. Ethnic strife isn’t caused by a lack of borders, but hard borders, as my given examples show, certainly exacerbates them. Civilisation has only progressed because of a lack, or at least extreme fluidity of borders. Has social, political and economic progression benefitted from borders in centuries gone? Yes, but in the 21st Century, North, South, West & Central Europe had proven to co-exist in a proto-borderless society, with the East slowly but surely getting up to standard. 

 

It’s pretty nonsensical to use examples like Tibet as to why borderless countries wouldn’t work, seeing as they’ve faired just as well with a ‘hard’ border. Either way, without a determined supranational effort, ethnic/national suppression will always happen.

 

It’s also pretty lazy to group every under the ‘no borders’ banner as wanting to abolish all borders tomorrow, as it also encompasses those who want to see reform on how human trafficking and illegal migration is codified. I’m pretty sure even idealists wouldn’t suggest ending national borders tomorrow as it would also require significant infrastructural and economical buildup to make happen.

And so is this.

[The Guvnor]

An interesting take on the application of the Benn bill.I understand the wording of the letter has been prescribed but If Boris writes a letter saying something along the lines, I am doing this becsuse I am required to by law but I see no purpose in an extension and have nothing more to talk about.

What a predicament that becomes for the EU because if they then impose an extension, if that's what they did, surely that becomes pretty complicated.

[FerrisBueller]

Is anybody else waiting for confirmation of Settled Status? My girlfriend applied a few months ago and still hasn't heard anything back, they claimed it would take 3-4 days.

Just getting a bit worried now as the threat of no deal seems more likely.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

An interesting take on the application of the Benn bill.I understand the wording of the letter has been prescribed but If Boris writes a letter saying something along the lines, I am doing this becsuse I am required to by law but I see no purpose in an extension and have nothing more to talk about.

What a predicament that becomes for the EU because if they then impose an extension, if that's what they did, surely that becomes pretty complicated.

The purpose of the extension would be to hold a general election (or referendum, though that seems unlikely), so Boris’ view is not really that relevant, particularly as he is in a minority government so not really in power.

[The Guvnor]

34 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The purpose of the extension would be to hold a general election (or referendum, though that seems unlikely), so Boris’ view is not really that relevant, particularly as he is in a minority government so not really in power.

Not really, the purpose of the Ben bill was to prevent a no deal Brexit, so if after the 31st we have left a referendum becomes irrelevant. There will however, I have no doubt, be a General Election soon after.

[WigstonWanderer]

9 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Not really, the purpose of the Ben bill was to prevent a no deal Brexit, so if after the 31st we have left a referendum becomes irrelevant. There will however, I have no doubt, be a General Election soon after.

I think I must have misunderstood your point.