Isolationism - yes or no?

[Marulus]

Do you support certain degree of isolationism-protectionism of your country? Do you think it is even possible in this age?

On condition you think it is both possible and desirable, how do you think it could be reconciled with a minimum degree of intra-European cooperation (and it is clear that some degree of cooperation between sovereign nations will be necessary in future)?

I would describe myself as moderate isolationist.

[Menydh]

If this question arises from the comment made by some, that opposing to a form of Pan-Europeanism or euro-centralism equals isolationism, then in my opinion that is not isolationism.

I don't support isolationism, neither for my country nor for Europe as a whole. It is the details and the limits of aperturism that should be considered and discussed. But for aperturism to be, politically it must start at a sanitized point of tightness, and develop from there under set conditions.

The model of Europe should be worked on a project of confederation of sovereign nations, based on a symbiotic relation between the nation-states and the confederation. Such a confederation should exist to ensure the protection and preservation of the national identities and their interests in a wider global framework.

[United Faith]

I do like Isolationism but not really how Protectionism is used. I don't think you should restrict things with tarriffs - they should just be banned.

[Menydh]

Australia is already geographically (and more) isolated enough.

The thread question was about isolationism in Europe. I fail to see how the issue of isolationism in an island in the antipodes is of any interest to the question of isolationism in Europe.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If this question arises from the comment made by some, that opposing to a form of Pan-Europeanism or euro-centralism equals isolationism, then in my opinion that is not isolationism.

Yes, let's concentrate on concrete contents, rather than on mere words, than can somtimes prove misleading.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The model of Europe should be worked on a project of confederation of sovereign nations, based on a symbiotic relation between the nation-states and the confederation. Such a confederation should exist to ensure the protection and preservation of the national identities and their interests in a wider global framework.

It is a good idea, a confederation of sovereign nations, but I would like to make some additional remarks.

There should be no meddling into interior businesses of individual nations (like pressures because of the situation with "human rights" and similar); no forcing of free trade, meaning that nations-countries should be free to choose whether or not allow the import of these or those goods, no meddling into internal economic policy of nations (like agricultural quotes and similar); no constraints of the "free movement of people and goods" inside Europe, meaning that every country should be free to decide whom to receive and whom not; the same goes for acquiring property for foreigners; no interfering with the internal political system of every individual country (republic, monarchy, democracy, corporativism...); every country guards its own intra-European borders; every country would have is own currency.

What should be common? Some basic cooperation in guarding the external frontiers of Europe; a sort of international military force for the purpose of defence from external threats (not a unified European army; individual countries should retain their own armed forces); a coordination of foreign policy towards the rest of the world (but individual countries would retain their own foreign policy as well, intra-European embassies, as well as embassies in the countries of the rest of the world and would be free to make arrangements with extra-European countries, on condition that those agreements do not harm all-European interests).

A language in which all these international bodies would function should be chosen. Maybe many of you will laugh at this proposal, deeming it totally unrealistic (perhaps it indeed is), but I think Latin would be the best choice (of course, all nations would retain their own languages in the internal usage, I mean only for these international bodies). A true common European spirit could be better expressed in that language than in any other.

At the same time, I tend to see the current EU as absolute evil, a blight to Europe, that is ruining the European civilization steadily. My opinion is that it must be dismantled in order for Europe to survive.

Maybe once the EU (when it was yet EEC) had a certain positive role, in loosening the tensions among European nations that resulted from the biggest carnage in European history (1939-1945), but today it has degenerated into a dangerous and venomous cocktail of Freemasonic Jacobinism ("Constitution") and American-style globalism (economistic way of thinking, power of megacoroporations, a sign that EU is more and more resembling a kind of caricature of the USA). Not to mention the immigration and multicult as an inevitable concomitant effects of the evils I just listed...

What is more, this hypertrophied beaurocratic organization, which is ostensibly trying to unify Europe, may be the agent of its disintegration, but the worst form of disintegration. Below the surface of faceless and uniform beaurocratic Eden there is a host of small particularities and local conflicts teeming all over Europe. It means that EU could implode like USSR once did or even worse, like Yugoslavia did, with one million ethnic conflicts and the disintegration of many present-day states. Imagine that, coupled with all those immigrant non-European communities, which wouldn't all of a sudden disappear. Europe would be disintegrated into many tribes, many of them Arabic or Berber speaking, others speaking European languages, but it would nevertheless start to resemble, say, Papua New Guinea. It would end up as protectorate of China or who knows whom else...

You think I'm a kind of prophet of doom and gloom? No, I am trying just to figure out some of the possible scenarios that could result from losing European identities form the bearocratice uniformity increasingly imposed by Brussels.

[United Faith]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Australia is already geographically (and more) isolated enough.

The thread question was about isolationism in Europe. I fail to see how the issue of isolationism in an island in the antipodes is of any interest to the question of isolationism in Europe.

My response wasn't in reference to Australia at all.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by United Faith

My response wasn't in reference to Australia at all.

Well, the question is about European countries, and the answers are expected from the European people who live in those countries.

Take no offense but..

[Magian]

Do you believe that Enclaves of security and prosperity can exist in a Sea of poverty and insecurity?

Isolationism could be only short term solution... but it could prove helpful and refreshing to the European economies.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Magian

Do you believe that Enclaves of security and prosperity can exist in a Sea of poverty and insecurity?

Isolationism could be only short term solution... but it could prove helpful and refreshing to the European economies.

When I started this thread, I didn't mean isolationism in absolute terms, it was just a provocative idea that occurred in my mind, a principle worth thinking of as something that runs counter to the current trends imposed by the rulers of the world, ideological trends that foment too much integrationism on both micro and macro level, the result being destruction of identities...

But I am well aware that it isn't possible to live like Robinson Crusoe.

[Magian]

As I mentioned before, I think that some kind of Mercatilism is not bad idea at all. A country should produce and export more than it imports and the wealth of a nation should be measured in it's gold reserves.

I'm not an economist, but to me this is what "healthy" economy sounds like.

On the other hand population of 470 million people of EU is big enough to be possible to implement some isolationist-mercantilist policy towards the Rest of the World.

Extreme isolationism and small population means - North Korea.

[Menydh]

One can do better than isolationism, through protectionism. You don't have to call it isolationism but in many senses it can be a one way isolationism.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

One can do better than isolationism, through protectionism. You don't have to call it isolationism but in many senses it can be a one way isolationism.

OK, I am more interested in the essence of things than in mere words.

[Errigal]

I would say I'm against foreign adventurism but am in favour of military alliances when needed. For example, I think NATO made sense when there was a Soviet threat but has been misused and perverted since then.

[Menydh]

The warning of the Soviet threat lasted much longer than it was in reality. Keeping alive the shadow of a Soviet invasion over Europe helped to prolongue the life of NATO and the influence of America over Europe.

Prior to that, we must not forget that the Americans devised the division of Europe at Yalta, instead of pushing farther east, with the intention of dominating over Western Europe.

Failing the Soviet Union to exist, Americans to-day have constructed the new threat, which is the new Russia, undermining where possible any attempt of approach of Russia to the EU countries and keeping Europe divided.. it's business as usual.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The warning of the Soviet threat lasted much longer than it was in reality. Keeping alive the shadow of a Soviet invasion over Europe helped to prolongue the life of NATO and the influence of America over Europe.

Prior to that, we must not forget that the Americans devised the division of Europe at Yalta, instead of pushing farther east, with the intention of dominating over Western Europe.

Failing the Soviet Union to exist, Americans to-day have constructed the new threat, which is the new Russia, undermining where possible any attempt of approach of Russia to the EU countries and keeping Europe divided.. it's business as usual.

The very EU is problem, being just an outpost and a faithful servant of the Yankee Judaea. So Russia rightfully distrusts EU.

The present day political class of EU grew in the decades in which the American influence over Europe was prevalent and the perceived danger from the USSR make the parasitical beaurocrats to cling all the more to their transatlantic ally (read: master).

The "threat" disappeared, being replaced with the mythical substitute called Al Qaeda, but the old alliance is still in its place. They know of no better, Atlanticism is the sea in which these fish swim and feel at ease. Some apparent anti-Americanism coming from the leftist European politicians should not deceive: it is a sort of interior, "constructive" critique, designed to correct and better the system, not to subvert it in any way. No wonder that the seat of the NATO and of the EU is in the same city. Nothing good can come from those parasites.

[Berrocscir]

I think all nations should strive to become as self-sufficient as possible and should ideally enter into agreements with other nations when it is to their mutual benefit, but these should be as informal as possible. Unforntunately with the global economy as strong as it is I can't see this sort of arrangement happening in the foreseeable future.

In my opinion 'isolationism' is a negative term. Self-sufficientcy is good not only from an economic point of view, but also because it can strenghen national identity/pride.