Is the nation state dead?

[Buzzer]

Oh no. I'm a mass of contradictions. I aspire to be a small government libertarian but I can never get past how selfish that is, so end up describing myself as a one-nation Tory in the classical, old-fashioned meaning of the word.

 

[e77]

I think mass migration does challenge the concept of nations.

 

[rogersix]

why is that selfish?

 

[Buzzer]

There's no safety net, if you fail once, you're pretty much f*cked. If you never had the chance to succeed then likewise.

 

[rogersix]

family and friends. the "bio-region", nation state can still wipe your little bottom if
it all ****sup for you

 

[Buzzer]

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

 

[rogersix]

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

well vote as left wing as you dare; i dont know what will happen, but it will be a laugh

 

[Buzzer]

I'm voting Caroline Lucas next election. Not for her politics but because an honest politician is a thing to be treasured. Left-wing enough for you?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Interesting article in this week's New Scientist saying the nation state (which only came into being about 150 years ago) has outlived its usefulness.

I was always taught that the modern legal nation state - as opposed to just countries, which evolve over time and are far more nebulous - was brought about by the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which after the Thirty Years War clarified a lot of stuff regarding the sovereignty of these European entities that are headed up by sovereigns. But I think a lot of it is a 19th century construction.

Anyway, as a dedicated Europhile, I've always liked the idea of a Europe of the regions myself: there's a lot of examples around where a country/nation/region has never matched up with the historical accident of the legally defined nation state, often with disastrous consequences.

 

[Gwylan]

Germany has been Germany for well over 2 centuries. A political split did not change that one iota.

Germany hasn't at all - it's been Germany for barely a century (and its borders have changed many times in that period). And as for "Cry God etc". As I said in my previous post, you mustn't mix up nationality and ethnicity: one's a legal concept, one's a genetic/cultural one. There clearly was such a thing as English in Shakespeare's time but it didn't have the trappings of a nation state.

You do seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a) I welcome this and b) it's some sort of socialistic ideal. I'm not sure about a) - some part of me does, some part of me doesn't and as for b) the future could easily be a massive free market with no social provision at all.

The article doesn't say what will take the place of the nation-state. It holds up Singapore as an example of what could be possible, a city state of multiple cultures, languages and religion that's economically successful but doesn't prescribe this for all states

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Germany has been Germany for well over 2 centuries. A political split did not change that one iota.

Only since 1871 prior to that it was split into a number of states of varying size - prior to Napoleon there had been over 130, this was reduced to 35 in 1815 and gradually whittled down during the next 55 years until one, Prussia, ruled them all. That regionalism is still inherent in the federal political structure and particularly in Bavaria who at various times looked to union with Austria whom they felt they had more in common. Prussia itself originally lay outside the old boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire and its military landowner ruling classes were held responsible for World War One and to a lesser extent World War Two, enough for the allies - Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt - to agree it should be wiped off the map after 1945, in order to change the underlying political ethos of Germany. To that end post 1945 Germany is a different kettle of fish to what went on for the 73 previous years.

 

[Buzzer]

Hang on Gwylan. You keep telling me what things aren't. But you definitely didn't make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity and you still haven't explained what nation-state is. You have, however predicted the end of the nation-state. Please...what is a nation-state and what has England been for the last 1000 years if not a nation-state?

 

[Buzzer]

Only since 1871 prior to that it was split into a number of states of varying size - prior to Napoleon there had been over 130, this was reduced to 35 in 1815 and gradually whittled down during the next 55 years until one, Prussia, ruled them all. That regionalism is still inherent in the federal political structure and particularly in Bavaria who at various times looked to union with Austria whom they felt they had more in common. Prussia itself originally lay outside the old boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire and its military landowner ruling classes were held responsible for World War One and to a lesser extent World War Two, enough for the allies - Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt - to agree it should be wiped off the map after 1945, in order to change the underlying political ethos of Germany. To that end post 1945 Germany is a different kettle of fish to what went on for the 73 previous years.

Okay, accepted but 150 odd years is near to 2 centuries as opposed to the 2 decades stated by Machiavelli. And England has been a nation-state for a lot, lot longer.

 

[rogersix]

I'm voting Caroline Lucas next election. Not for her politics but because an honest politician is a thing to be treasured. Left-wing enough for you?

absolutely champion fella, and yes, a weird beast indeed.
one thing tho, what do you mean by "one nation tory", that aint the greens

 

[Buzzer]

absolutely champion fella, and yes, a weird beast indeed.
one thing tho, what do you mean by "one nation tory", that aint the greens

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism

This kind of sums it up. Iain Macleod is my hero.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Germany hasn't at all - it's been Germany for barely a century (and its borders have changed many times in that period). And as for "Cry God etc". As I said in my previous post, you mustn't mix up nationality and ethnicity: one's a legal concept, one's a genetic/cultural one. There clearly was such a thing as English in Shakespeare's time but it didn't have the trappings of a nation state.

You do seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a) I welcome this and b) it's some sort of socialistic ideal. I'm not sure about a) - some part of me does, some part of me doesn't and as for b) the future could easily be a massive free market with no social provision at all.

The article doesn't say what will take the place of the nation-state. It holds up Singapore as an example of what could be possible, a city state of multiple cultures, languages and religion that's economically successful but doesn't prescribe this for all states

I'm always fascinated by places which are still very much vestiges of what preceded the modern nation state: city states, basically, often with castles as the power base at their centre. Hamburg, for example, feels very much like one to me: to this day the place has huge amount of political autonomy as both a city and a "Land".

Pre-Prussian Germany was nuts, incidentally: the small village where I lived in Germany as a kid now has a population of just over 10,000; you can walk from one end of it to the other in 15 minutes max, if that (and a very nice walk it is too). As far as I can work out, it only stopped being its own independent country as relatively recently as 1803.

 

[rogersix]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism

This kind of sums it up. Iain Macleod is my hero.

ta for the link and soz; poorly phrased question, i meant what do you mean, not disraeli. he's on about paternalistic upper classes, i would very much entertain the idea of a meritocracy; so that i am given a fair crack of the whip to attend my own botbots.
never heard of that chap, i'm the on case now

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Hang on Gwylan. You keep telling me what things aren't. But you definitely didn't make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity and you still haven't explained what nation-state is. You have, however predicted the end of the nation-state. Please...what is a nation-state and what has England been for the last 1000 years if not a nation-state?

England isn't a nation-state though, it is part of the state of the United Kingdom, albeit the dominant nationality within it. England as a state has not existed since the Act of Union in 1707 which politically bound the two kingdoms of England and Scotland together after a century of dynastic union. England as a national conscience didn't exist until the 14th century, the ruling class since 1066 had been Norman-French and had retained estates in France, spoke and followed French culture and fashions. It really is only through the 1300s that England's Kings began speaking English and projecting themselves as such. But even then the state was welded to the dynastic aims of the King not in that of the people who lived within it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It's quite simple. Gwylan has said that it's "not a question of if but when in regards to nation-states" and you agreed and stated that the idea of the nation-state is a modern phenomenon and doomed to failure.

Germany has been Germany for well over 2 centuries. A political split did not change that one iota.

I think (hope) you'll agree that historical determinism is a socialist concept. So please tell me what you mean by 'nation-state' and on what basis do you stand by your assertion that nation-states are either a modern phenomenon or unable to cope with a modern global economy?

It seems to me that those countries with a laissez-faire economy are doing quite well despite predictions to the contrary and once again socialist economies in practice are abject failures.

Both of you are under the impression that nation-states are doomed to failure in place of some other system hence my comments about historical determinism. I've heard it so often before yet here we are, the free market actually working and the theoretical socialism destined to replace it being shown to be the failed experiment that it is.

Human nature is not socialist. That there is your problem.

Germany hasn't at all - it's been Germany for barely a century (and its borders have changed many times in that period). And as for "Cry God etc". As I said in my previous post, you mustn't mix up nationality and ethnicity: one's a legal concept, one's a genetic/cultural one. There clearly was such a thing as English in Shakespeare's time but it didn't have the trappings of a nation state.

You do seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a) I welcome this and b) it's some sort of socialistic ideal. I'm not sure about a) - some part of me does, some part of me doesn't and as for b) the future could easily be a massive free market with no social provision at all.

The article doesn't say what will take the place of the nation-state. It holds up Singapore as an example of what could be possible, a city state of multiple cultures, languages and religion that's economically successful but doesn't prescribe this for all states

I may well be missing the bleedin' obvious - it wouldn't be the first time - but surely the removal of border controls would also lessen any government's ability to provide a safety net, never mind a system of taxes, control and "equality"?

Were these to be removed what would be interesting would be if people gravitated to those areas where there was more cash to trouser (as per the Wild West I suppose) or if people gravitated to where the support network was over generous and they could survive by exerting and achieving relatively little (as some say is the reason people are currently attracted here).

It would certainly settle one or two arguments. But as Buzzer says, in reality, it'll never happen.

 

[Buzzer]

England isn't a nation-state though..

I'm really not trying to be facetious but can someone please tell me what a nation-state is rather than what it isn't?