A good recent example that springs to mind is the constant labelling of the YouTuber PewDiePie as a "nationalist" by the mainstream media. This is a Swedish guy, living in Brighton, England. With an Italian girlfriend. An obsession with Japanese culture, and a truly global audience. Who makes media content for a global audience. A very odd type of nationalist if indeed he is one. Which I don't think he is.
The truth is the media don't like him not because he's a nationalist, but because he's the wrong type of globalist. (Plus, to be fair, he has said a few mildly controversial things).
He's a self-made globalist. Who isn't as easily managed as the people within the corporate top-down structures. Sometimes he says things he's not supposed to say. Or doesn't quite follow the narrative the more organised leaders of globalism have in mind. He's freer. A loose cannon in their eyes.
(YouTube creator PewDiePie)
Anyhow, this top-down/bottom-up battle has got me thinking about freedom of movement. As in open borders. This is the one major attraction of the EU (and the other globalist plans and projects). At least in an idealistic sense anyway. This idea that we're all one people, that we can all freely go and live wherever we want. It's a noble vision. It's optimistic.
Now if, on the other hand, you find yourself on the opposite side of the argument you look at best pessimistic. Saying "sorry, we're full now, you can't come in!" looks a bit selfish. Even racist or bigoted in the eyes of many people. However, it really does depend on the context, and you could even argue that it's bigoted to judge and label people as racist simply for having a view on immigration different to your own.
If you have a nice house and a nice job and everything is going well for you it's very easy to be optimistic. Things seem to be heading in the right direction. In contrast, if you live in a tiny council flat with three kids, there's damp on the walls, one of your kids has asthma and you've been on a housing waiting list for 18 months. All the time knowing full well that more immigration means more waiting, and more hardship for you and your family, it's not quite so easy to be enthusiastic.
I often think of it like hosting a party. At 8:00 pm there may be 30 people in your home. There's a very cordial atmosphere and everything's running smoothly. By 9:00 pm there are 40 people. The drinks are flowing and everyone's having a great time. When 10:00 pm comes around there are 50 people - you start to worry if you have enough room for everyone. If you have enough food and drink. What if things get out of hand? How is everyone getting home? ..and so on and so forth.
By 11:00 pm there are now 60 people and you decide it's time to stop letting anymore people in. You feel a little bad turning people away, but you know it's the sensible thing to do. Your friend, who's drunk and in an ebullient mood at this point, then tells you to stop being mean and to let these nice people in - they only want to have a good time, they've came all this way. However, it's easy for your friend to say that. It's not their house. They're not the ones that are responsible for all the people inside. They won't be cleaning up the mess. They won't be facing the consequences of things getting out of hand.
Your friend is pretty much the liberal elites right now, calling everyone in Europe and North America horrible racists simply because they're concerned things are getting out of hand and want to put the brakes on.
Still though, the idea of open borders is a great ideal. So it's understandable why the more heady and idealistic are so reluctant to abandon the idea.
So, is there a bottom-up way of having open borders?
I would say yes.
There's no reason why countries can't have open border arrangements with each other, as long as the underlying sovereignty is still respected. This essentially means entering agreements with the proviso that such agreements can be ended by either party if they feel it's not in their interest to continue the relationship. Much like entering a marriage, but with the right to divorce at some point in the future. A fixed period of time, say 10 or 20 years would be perfect. Then if things were going well it could simply be renewed for another 10 or 20.
A bit like leasing a property. An agreement that has a fixed time period, at the end of which it can be renewed or ended depending on the wishes of the parties involved. The beauty with such fixed time agreements is that it places responsibility on both sides of the arrangement. The landlord has to behave well otherwise the tenant will up sticks and leave. The tenant has to respect the property, otherwise the landlord can decide not to renew the tenancy. Obviously, in real life things aren't always as simple. However, it's much preferable to being tied into a bad situation in perpetuity with no leverage.
Whether two countries should have an open border agreement or not should be dependant upon three questions.
a) Is it mutually beneficial?
b) Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity?
c) Is there mutual respect between both countries?
That it's mutually beneficent is desirable for obvious reason. It's only fair that it should be in both party's interests to have an open border. Likewise economic parity, and parity in living standards, is desirable as it means that there won't be excessive movements of people or wealth. Limiting potential chaos, conflict and upheaval. A certain amount of legal parity and synchronisation is also obviously necessary.
As for the third point, "respect" is perhaps the wrong choice of word. However, by it I simply mean that the countries involved must actually like each other and have common bonds and values. Both in regard the respective governments and the people at large. For example, not even zealous open-border advocates would argue that Britain should have complete open borders with countries like Saudi Arabia and China as per the current world situation.
If we look at the open borders within the EU and apply the above rules we can see what did and didn't fit.
If we consider Britain and Germany first.
Is it mutually beneficial to both countries? Yes. Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity? Yes. Is there mutual respect between each country? Again, Yes.
Consequently both British and German people are relatively happy with the situation, and the migration between both countries hasn't been excessive.
If we then consider Britain and Romania things are a little different.
Is it mutually beneficial? Probably not. At least from the British perspective anyway. Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity? No. There's a fair bit of difference. Is there mutual respect? Yes, to an extent, but Romania is much more remote and culturally different to Britain than Germany is. There aren't any deep cultural ties and bonds between the two countries.
Consequently, many British people aren't especially happy about this open border arrangement. Plus, due to the economic disparity there has been an excessive flow of people. Creating tension.
Now this appraisal may sound a little unfair, and people reading may disagree with it. However, the only true judge is the democratic process. It's the only fair way we can decide these things. So I would argue that all such border arrangements must pass the test of democracy. Democracy provides a feedback loop where information is constantly being fed into the governing system. When this system breaks down or is ignored sooner or later chaos ensues. This is why the EU is now in chaos.
You may also be thinking that it would be impractical for each country to have its own arrangements with other countries. Who all in turn have arrangements with other countries themselves. However, such a system would actually be more flexible, more robust and less chaotic. A fluid multi-lane system.
Look at the chaos the Brexit process is causing now. Especially to EU nationals living in different countries to their origin. This chaos is a consequence of the EU not planning or allowing for a country to change its plans or to choose a more flexible arrangement. Or to respond to its democracy. Again, like getting married without the provision for getting a divorce. Though much worse, as this is politics and it requires common sense. Unlike love and marriage which is ennobled by such hope and eternal vows.
So, currently there is no plan for what happens to EU nationals living in Britain precisely because such circumstances were never envisioned by the idealists creating this new world in their image. With every EU border dissolving by decree of these heady few, instead of in lockstep with the democratic processes of the countries involved.
A fluid system would envision such changes and plan for them. This should not be beyond human reason. Really the EU should be a forum for democracies to arrange agreements and accordance with each other. Not be a liberal tyrant doling out gifts that do not belong to it.
****************
No comments:
Post a Comment