3 ms·

1. Nations exist and have implications. 2a. If a Pole used to a certain living standard is happy to work for a lower wage than a Briton who is used to a higher

by cja 7y ago

1. Nations exist and have implications. 2a. If a Pole used to a certain living standard is happy to work for a lower wage than a Briton who is used to a higher standard of living then is that good or bad? Is it ok to have an opinion about it? Is it ok to have an opinion about it if you are a low paid Briton and a million Poles move to the UK? 2b. The UK is of finite size. Population is concentrated in certain areas within it. A significant growth in population has an effect. It affects traffic ("but we could build more roads" "but maybe I like the countryside and don't want more roads"), it affects housing ("but we could build more accommodation" "but maybe all that housing will be built close to jobs and amenities and thus be small and ugly and result in more crowded towns and cities and maybe I have a subjective view about that"), etc. 3. Foreign aid budgets and charities. More can be done. Make a donation! Be the change! 4. National security. Food rationing in the second world war. Farmers look after the countryside. Maybe we like to have farms and farmers. Is it ok to like to have farmers and farming? The EU thinks so - read about the CAP.

OscarCunningham 7y ago
My point is that none of those arguments have anything about them that makes them specific to nations. For example 2a could equally be said by someone in London about immigration from the North. Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?
- cja 7y ago
  "Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?" Because nations already exist and are they are accepted. Sometimes their borders are accepted too. Around 2015 I had a conversation with a Slovenian who told me that if I didn't like the new population density in my city then I could move to Wales. It's unlikely that I would be allowed to build a wall around Worcester or that London would be allowed to create a high tech system for identifying, catching and repatriating northerners. (Although a Chinese-style social credit system might work.)

by cja 7y ago

OscarCunningham 7y ago

My point is that none of those arguments have anything about them that makes them specific to nations. For example 2a could equally be said by someone in London about immigration from the North. Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?

cja 7y ago
"Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?" Because nations already exist and are they are accepted. Sometimes their borders are accepted too. Around 2015 I had a conversation with a Slovenian who told me that if I didn't like the new population density in my city then I could move to Wales. It's unlikely that I would be allowed to build a wall around Worcester or that London would be allowed to create a high tech system for identifying, catching and repatriating northerners. (Although a Chinese-style social credit system might work.)