I'm content to let the group define itself. If that definition belittles me I'll fight the group. Nonetheless, if I've interacted with this group, to achieve mutual goals, before our oncoming deathmatch, I'll go to my grave, happy in the knowledge that I've moved forward in the journey to my goal. Or else I'll move on to the next fight, happy in the knowledge that I've moved forward.
That feels like a bit of a cop out, with regard to answering your question. So allow me to put it this way: I see sovereignty as something concrete, not as an aspiration. To me, self-sufficiency, is an absolutely necessary ingredient in sovereignty. Without it, sovereignty is but an aspiration.
I would see either your goal or Fluffy's as possibly leading to sovereignty. They would both most certainly be progressive, when compared to what we have now. I suppose, historically speaking, my own political leanings would be closer to traditional republican ideals than the ideals espoused by the likes of the SWP. Yet I'd not be accurately described as being either a republican or a socialist (of any hue). There need not be homogeneity for me to want to cooperate with either party, only agreement as to what we need to cooperate on.
Simply put, you show me a plan that will provide for the cherishing of all the children equally and I'll sign a blood oath on it. When we arrive at that destination, I might get off the train with you. Or I might just stay on the train.
Mutual satisfaction guaranteed, and we retain the right to see others. A slut I am!
Last edited by Seán Ryan; 02-11-2012 at 04:04 PM.
You still think Frau Merkel and Herr Steinbruck are like your friends down at the long tables in the Biergartens. I can't agree with someone who thinks we should have our lives controlled by others.
I happen to think that there are sovereign republics in this world who make a real attempt at equality and such republics exist on the fringes of Europe such as Iceland and Norway. Of course the unionists ridicule any attempt at egalitarian Irish republicanism/Irish sovereignty as fantasy when they in fact want us to remain largely in the status quo, by staying in an unequal political union which compromises us on many issues, not just economically but also on foreign policy, neutrality etc.
I am a firm believer that small nations will always end up as colonies in political unions. Historical evidence also will show that all attempts at enforced european federalism have caused wars, and in fact that most small nations when sovereign and free, have no desire to attack other countries.
Truth is, I don't see the SWP as an insurmountable obstacle. I recognise that it's got lots of intelligent, dedicated and hard working individuals in it. Individuals that I've worked with and will most assuredly work with again. A good example here would be Joan Collins. Joan isn't a member of the SWP, but she is a member of People Before Profit (People be for profit ). I've worked with Joan in the past on a number of mutual projects and I've not a single complaint. I could and can think of lots of areas where I'd disagree with Joan. But I'd prefer to save such arguments until they become either unavoidable or obsolete. Either way, I look forward to working with her again.
After that, I agree with you in totality. Indeed, my point on self-sufficiency lends itself beautifully to what you've said about small sovereign nations having no desire to attack others.
Apjp and seán. I agree with both of you on this. There is historical evidence that small soverign nations do not go around provoking others. Indeed, one could argue from the same historical point of view that all larger nations are ''internal'' empires who will act belligerently towards their neighbours. England as the real nation behind britain, castille as that behind spain, paris or the historical frankish area as that behind france, etc. And all three of these countries have been war-mongering for centuries.
Although, it has to be noted that it seems to be a european phenomenon, (including european offshoots around the globe, mainly british offshoots) and thus maybe we should be looking outside of europe as to examples of how to start up a nice soverign independent republic.
Another point of view is that for a small republic not to slip back into colonialism, its generally needs its own distinct culture + language, and have a strong economy with natural resources (i'm thinking oil, fish, agri, money (swiss), etc.). This, in general, gives such a small polity confidence in themselves and thus acts as a barrier to any attempts at recolonisation, either from within or without. Here im thinking of norway, iceland, switzerland, venezuela, ecuador, bolivia and uruguay. I would cite african countries if they had not all been pillaged horribly and also asian ones if i was more in the know. (I dont think japan counts as a small country).
Libya has a lot of potential. Similar demographics to Ireland and Norway, and with a diverse culture, it offers the World much but the Americans have a foothold there and the Libyans are starting to find out the cost of relying on NATO to overthrow a despot. Egypt will be interesting as they seem very much against Israeli policy having reopened the Gaza tunnel and stopped the free gas, but there is definitely a military chain of command there from what we've discussed, that has not given up much power. The North African/the Lebanon region interests me a lot, especially as speaking French gets you far down there. On the contrary, I have no wish to visit the cults homeland in Israel/occupied Palestine whilst it remains an apartheid state.
The Irish have a lot to offer the World. But only we can help ourselves first. We would be foolish to shackle ourselves to a political union, which only benefits the well renowned merchant class as one good poster put it. There is no reason why we could not take a leading role in international affairs like the Swiss do. We should remember though that we have a lot more in common with the countries of Africa than we have with the countries of Europe.
Last edited by Apjp; 02-11-2012 at 07:59 PM.
marking this for reading later on also! Need to read over and give good replies!
My opinions were always a United Europe of federal states run by workers for workers and not a stand alone nation . My way of thinking makes a lot more sense to me the way I see the world going and Republicanism is something I have always not held in high opinion due to its blinkered viewpoint (the other site would have evidence of that) . We need change our thinking, how does Republcianism give a practical solution to the problems we are experiencing at the moment?
How can a nation without sovereignty legitimately decide to become part of a federal union?
Surely sovereignty must come first. Cart before horse etc.
It's not a matter of understanding the meaning of sovereignty. It's a matter of whether or not it exists. That said, your interpretation of it is extremely vague. Sovereignty has nothing to do with deciding what happens to us, as such things involve chance, the actions of other nations, the weather, etc. It has everything to do with being able to decide how to respond to such things.
As for what a federation is. That should not need to be interpreted either. The point being made is that sovereignty is required in order to legitimately decide to join or support such an entity. Without sovereignty, joining such an entity is an act of succumbing to a dictatorial edict or fascist threat. And such an act can neither result in sovereignty or be legitimately described as a sovereign entity. As I said: "cart before horse." That's what needs to be understood.
A time between ashes and roses is coming
When everything shall be extinguished
When everything shall begin