A couple of days ago, I was watching a ceremony on ABC welcoming new Australians to the fold. There were Indians of various sorts, Chinese (ditto), Filipinos, Indonesians and so on. If you watch tennis, you will see that many of the names of Australians are clearly recent immigrants (Dokic, Tomic, Guccione, Stosur etc). Australia is an immigrant society, just as the United States was in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Are we approaching a stage where people will be so mobile that the old concept of nationality is becoming obsolete? The European Union is one example of how things might go (though it seems to be in such trouble at the moment that one wonders whether it will survive). The United Nations is an older attempt at something more extensive.

(And if anyone wishes to comment on this, can we please keep away from the topic of Israel?)

(And if anyone wishes to comment on this, can we please keep away from the topic of Israel?)

:lol:

That aside.....Yes it seems to be going that way & I dont see a problem with it....in large western civilizations.

Like you said that is basically where the USA came from...A giant melting pot of nationalities & the US did very well with it.

But many countries are & will likely always be closed to such change & who knows...maybe that is the best route for them.

If Thailand opened its doors think of what the result may be for the 70 million that live there. If foreigners were allowed to buy land (legally) What would become of all the nice shorelines & the folks that live & make there livings there.

Nationalism is out. The new fashion is neo-colonialism.

(And if anyone wishes to comment on this, can we please keep away from the topic of Israel?)

:lol:

That aside.....Yes it seems to be going that way & I dont see a problem with it....in large western civilizations.

Like you said that is basically where the USA came from...A giant melting pot of nationalities & the US did very well with it.

But many countries are & will likely always be closed to such change & who knows...maybe that is the best route for them.

If Thailand opened its doors think of what the result may be for the 70 million that live there. If foreigners were allowed to buy land (legally) What would become of all the nice shorelines & the folks that live & make there livings there.

The answer about the beaches is easy: In the US, nobody is allowed to own a beach, beaches are for all people, by definition.

That aside, I can imagine a world in which nationalities (not nationalism) is outdated. People have dual and triple citizenships already and probably settle in a fourth country. Countries are merged (the EU passport *will* come, it's only be delayed when the European Constituion was rejected by one or two countries), and ASEAN is following the model of the EU. In the Americas, we see closer cooperation among the countries of the Andean Community.

On the other hand, we see countries falling apart, the Balkan comes to mind, or even Sudan as the latest example. Nobody can predict the future, but my guess is that closer cooperation between countries will lead to more cooperation, FTA and finally economic communites and political communities.

There might be a number of countries though: Europe, Americas, Asia-Oceania (incl AU/NZ), for example. Without any outside competitors, the individual countries won't have a reason to get closer together.

(And if anyone wishes to comment on this, can we please keep away from the topic of Israel?)

:lol:

That aside.....Yes it seems to be going that way & I dont see a problem with it....in large western civilizations.

Like you said that is basically where the USA came from...A giant melting pot of nationalities & the US did very well with it.

But many countries are & will likely always be closed to such change & who knows...maybe that is the best route for them.

If Thailand opened its doors think of what the result may be for the 70 million that live there. If foreigners were allowed to buy land (legally) What would become of all the nice shorelines & the folks that live & make there livings there.

The answer about the beaches is easy: In the US, nobody is allowed to own a beach, beaches are for all people, by definition.

Not exactly......Note my post said shoreline

In many places in the USA the deeds read all the property to the shoreline.

As such expensive resorts are put up & shoreline access is restricted.

Yes they are in some areas also required to provide a small path called public access. But those are the hotels only.

The rich folks who own homes of course do not allow folks to access the shoreline by crossing *their* private property. So when rows of mansions exist the shoreline is thus restricted. Yes you can swim pass it but you cannot get into or out of the water via their property.

That aside.....Yes it seems to be going that way & I dont see a problem with it....in large western civilizations.

Like you said that is basically where the USA came from...A giant melting pot of nationalities & the US did very well with it.

But many countries are & will likely always be closed to such change & who knows...maybe that is the best route for them.

If Thailand opened its doors think of what the result may be for the 70 million that live there. If foreigners were allowed to buy land (legally) What would become of all the nice shorelines & the folks that live & make there livings there.

The answer about the beaches is easy: In the US, nobody is allowed to own a beach, beaches are for all people, by definition.

Not exactly......Note my post said shoreline

In many places in the USA the deeds read all the property to the shoreline.

As such expensive resorts are put up & shoreline access is restricted.

Yes they are in some areas also required to provide a small path called public access. But those are the hotels only.

The rich folks who own homes of course do not allow folks to access the shoreline by crossing *their* private property. So when rows of mansions exist the shoreline is thus restricted. Yes you can swim pass it but you cannot get into or out of the water via their property.

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, Thailand could always make a law stating that that beaches cannot be privately owned, but what are the chances of that.

Definition of the restriction?

High tide plus ten metres?

High-high tideline?

Low tide?

Low-low tideline

Mean water line?

Difficult to define when there is a big variation in high/low tidelines.

In the UK places like Weston Super Mare and Lytham St Annes have very large differences between high and low tides - depending on the time of year the difference can be well over a mile.

As regards nationalities - I believe that latent nationalism will eventually destroy the concept of the EU. The politicians like it, but the average voter wants to be able to have a say in the laws of his/her country, not have regulations imposed by a non-elected, faceless set of bureaucrats in Brussels. And the Euro is out of favour with the majority of French and German citizens (and probably the Greeks as well).

I cannot see the ASEAN group following the EU pattern when it is so obviously a disaster. The will make their free-trade area, already have good travel-visa set-up (visit for up to three weeks as an Asean citizen without visa) and keep their political differences low-key. But political union? No. Economic union? No.

As regards nationalities - I believe that latent nationalism will eventually destroy the concept of the EU. The politicians like it, but the average voter wants to be able to have a say in the laws of his/her country, not have regulations imposed by a non-elected, faceless set of bureaucrats in Brussels. And the Euro is out of favour with the majority of French and German citizens (and probably the Greeks as well).

I cannot see the ASEAN group following the EU pattern when it is so obviously a disaster. The will make their free-trade area, already have good travel-visa set-up (visit for up to three weeks as an Asean citizen without visa) and keep their political differences low-key. But political union? No. Economic union? No.

There will always be regional quarrels, you have the English vs the Scots, Northern Germans vs the Bavarians, and so on. But still these regions belong to one country, respectively.

The politicians in the European parliament are elected. The problem is the Public Relations: Many people don't know that they are, or what they do, or who they are. I think the problems is simply that they don't have enough to do, so they come up with ideas like the shape of tomatoes or bananas. They should be able to pass real laws, then people would be more interested. There should also be more info to the public about the European Parliament and the European Commission.

ASEAN is following the path of the EU, I will look for the road map. In 2015, the AEC (ASEAN Economic Community) will start, which is the same as the former EEC (European Economic Community).

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time. Here, nationalism is alive and well... China being its main stronghold.

Here is a list of territorial disputes in Asia, in all of which there is a nationalistic element:-

1. Tibet, controlled by China but, we hear, wanting to be independent

2. Kurile Islands, disputed by Russia and Japan

3. Senkaku (Tiaoyutai) Islands, Japanese or maybe Chinese

Taiwan, claimed by China, claiming China, or wanting to be independent

4. Spratly and Paracel Islands, claimed by all sorts of people (including China)

5. Hong Kong, resumed by China, possibly against the will of the people there

6. Preah Vihear, claimed by Thailand and Cambodia

I've probably missed some, but what this list suggests is that Asia is politically backward, however dynamic its economies may be.

When the anti-Christ takes over, Nationalism will be a thing of the past.

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time.

That's because ASEAN is the next strong block in Asia, and it's modeled after the EU. It's good to look what happened there and learn. Economists say that the member countries of ASEAN are closer (I don't know whether they mean culturally or economically or what) than the member countries of the EU, so it should be easier here.

If we were in Latin America, I would look at the Andean Community - and also compare it with the EU. The EU is simply the most recent example of several countries forming a political union.

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time. Here, nationalism is alive and well... China being its main stronghold.

Here is a list of territorial disputes in Asia, in all of which there is a nationalistic element:-

1. Tibet, controlled by China but, we hear, wanting to be independent

2. Kurile Islands, disputed by Russia and Japan

3. Senkaku (Tiaoyutai) Islands, Japanese or maybe Chinese

Taiwan, claimed by China, claiming China, or wanting to be independent

4. Spratly and Paracel Islands, claimed by all sorts of people (including China)

5. Hong Kong, resumed by China, possibly against the will of the people there

6. Preah Vihear, claimed by Thailand and Cambodia

I've probably missed some, but what this list suggests is that Asia is politically backward, however dynamic its economies may be.

politically backward compared to what? Your beloved Occidental matter?

I'm amused, per usual, Birdy.

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time.

That's because ASEAN is the next strong block in Asia, and it's modeled after the EU. It's good to look what happened there and learn. Economists say that the member countries of ASEAN are closer (I don't know whether they mean culturally or economically or what) than the member countries of the EU, so it should be easier here.

If we were in Latin America, I would look at the Andean Community - and also compare it with the EU. The EU is simply the most recent example of several countries forming a political union.

I get your point, Tom, but it overlooks one thing, which my list was intended to point out.... the way Chinese nationalism is still strong, and is looking in several directions to consolidate... Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong all as part of China, and the little islands because of prospects of finding oil.

I don't see any sort of political union developing out of ASEAN in the near future. I can't see the Muslim countries joining amicably with the largely Buddhist countries, or Myanmar coming back into the real world. Add to that the substantial economic differences between Laos and Singapore, for example.

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time. Here, nationalism is alive and well... China being its main stronghold.

Here is a list of territorial disputes in Asia, in all of which there is a nationalistic element:-

1. Tibet, controlled by China but, we hear, wanting to be independent

2. Kurile Islands, disputed by Russia and Japan

3. Senkaku (Tiaoyutai) Islands, Japanese or maybe Chinese

Taiwan, claimed by China, claiming China, or wanting to be independent

4. Spratly and Paracel Islands, claimed by all sorts of people (including China)

5. Hong Kong, resumed by China, possibly against the will of the people there

6. Preah Vihear, claimed by Thailand and Cambodia

I've probably missed some, but what this list suggests is that Asia is politically backward, however dynamic its economies may be.

politically backward compared to what? Your beloved Occidental matter?

I'm amused, per usual, Birdy.

Always glad to amuse you, zzaa.

Politically backward compared to practically everyone else! Especially in this context, backward in its attitude to nationalism.

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time.

That's because ASEAN is the next strong block in Asia, and it's modeled after the EU. It's good to look what happened there and learn. Economists say that the member countries of ASEAN are closer (I don't know whether they mean culturally or economically or what) than the member countries of the EU, so it should be easier here.

If we were in Latin America, I would look at the Andean Community - and also compare it with the EU. The EU is simply the most recent example of several countries forming a political union.

I get your point, Tom, but it overlooks one thing, which my list was intended to point out.... the way Chinese nationalism is still strong, and is looking in several directions to consolidate... Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong all as part of China, and the little islands because of prospects of finding oil.

I don't see any sort of political union developing out of ASEAN in the near future. I can't see the Muslim countries joining amicably with the largely Buddhist countries, or Myanmar coming back into the real world. Add to that the substantial economic differences between Laos and Singapore, for example.

As I menioned before, I don't believe that the whole world will become one country, but that smaller countries join to become larger countries. I named the EU and ASEAN as examples.

I agree with you that China will not join such a political union. I think China will remain one of the larger countries. Tibet and Hong Kong are part of China, but that does not preclude that these areas split and become part of another political union (my bet is that they will remain parts of China though).

About ASEAN, we disagree. I believe it will beomce a strong block and lead to a political union. Let's see the development in 5-10 years. And keeping in mind how long it took the EU to get where it is, ASEAN is developing much faster.

After living in Hong Kong for 25 years, I feel rather strongly about the way Britain behaved before the handover. HK need not have been returned to China; basically it was Thatcher's fault. But that's all water under the bridge. Tibet.... Chinese imperialism!

One thing we should not forget... the larger the country, the more difficult it is to run. Witness India... and the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.

ASEAN... I'll see you in 5 years' time, Tom. I hope you're right.

When the anti-Christ takes over, Nationalism will be a thing of the past.

Yet, what if such deeper references of a Christ or an anti-Christ isn't viewed as universal or a definitive circle as it might be throughout the Eurocentric world?

It's interesting to see that everyone looks at Europe! After all, most of us live in Asia, and many have done so for a long time. Here, nationalism is alive and well... China being its main stronghold.

Here is a list of territorial disputes in Asia, in all of which there is a nationalistic element:-

1. Tibet, controlled by China but, we hear, wanting to be independent

2. Kurile Islands, disputed by Russia and Japan

3. Senkaku (Tiaoyutai) Islands, Japanese or maybe Chinese

Taiwan, claimed by China, claiming China, or wanting to be independent

4. Spratly and Paracel Islands, claimed by all sorts of people (including China)

5. Hong Kong, resumed by China, possibly against the will of the people there

6. Preah Vihear, claimed by Thailand and Cambodia

I've probably missed some, but what this list suggests is that Asia is politically backward, however dynamic its economies may be.

politically backward compared to what? Your beloved Occidental matter?

I'm amused, per usual, Birdy.

Always glad to amuse you, zzaa.

Politically backward compared to practically everyone else! Especially in this context, backward in its attitude to nationalism.

Yes, of course......"everyone"

One thing we should not forget... the larger the country, the more difficult it is to run. Witness India... and the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.

ASEAN... I'll see you in 5 years' time, Tom. I hope you're right.

As for India and China: I never said that all future mega-countries will be democratic. In fact, I agree with you that large countries are difficult to rule.

I'll take you up on the challange about ASEAN. Name your favourite brand of beer, and one case of of it is what I wager.

When the anti-Christ takes over, Nationalism will be a thing of the past.

Yet, what if such deeper references of a Christ or an anti-Christ isn't viewed as universal or a definitive circle as it might be throughout the Eurocentric world?

That's a gem, even from you, zzaa. Can anyone tell me what he means?

One thing we should not forget... the larger the country, the more difficult it is to run. Witness India... and the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.

ASEAN... I'll see you in 5 years' time, Tom. I hope you're right.

As for India and China: I never said that all future mega-countries will be democratic. In fact, I agree with you that large countries are difficult to rule.

I'll take you up on the challange about ASEAN. Name your favourite brand of beer, and one case of of it is what I wager.

Done, in Beer Lao... oh well. I suppose we'd better make it Chang. But it's going to be difficult to agree who's won.

One thing we should not forget... the larger the country, the more difficult it is to run. Witness India... and the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.

ASEAN... I'll see you in 5 years' time, Tom. I hope you're right.

As for India and China: I never said that all future mega-countries will be democratic. In fact, I agree with you that large countries are difficult to rule.

I'll take you up on the challange about ASEAN. Name your favourite brand of beer, and one case of of it is what I wager.

Done, in Beer Lao... oh well. I suppose we'd better make it Chang. But it's going to be difficult to agree who's won.

Both Beer Lao and Chang are fine with me. We'll find some rule (or excuse) to have that case, no doubt.

It sounds like both of you will be winners on this one.

(PS: For legal reasons lets keep any discussion of wagers, no matter how friendly, to a minimum).

When the anti-Christ takes over, Nationalism will be a thing of the past.

Yet, what if such deeper references of a Christ or an anti-Christ isn't viewed as universal or a definitive circle as it might be throughout the Eurocentric world?

That's a gem, even from you, zzaa. Can anyone tell me what he means?

That he has some kind of a grudge against Europe.

When the anti-Christ takes over, Nationalism will be a thing of the past.

Yet, what if such deeper references of a Christ or an anti-Christ isn't viewed as universal or a definitive circle as it might be throughout the Eurocentric world?

That's a gem, even from you, zzaa. Can anyone tell me what he means?

That he has some kind of a grudge against Europe.

More like imbibing reality and what is....

It sounds like both of you will be winners on this one.

(PS: For legal reasons lets keep any discussion of wagers, no matter how friendly, to a minimum).

Oops, well noted.

The politicians in the European parliament are elected. The problem is the Public Relations: Many people don't know that they are, or what they do, or who they are. I think the problems is simply that they don't have enough to do, so they come up with ideas like the shape of tomatoes or bananas. They should be able to pass real laws, then people would be more interested. There should also be more info to the public about the European Parliament and the European Commission.

As I understand it, the shape of tomatoes or bananas was not decided in the European Parliament, but by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

That is why, in my earlier comments, I distinguished between laws (passed by elected representatives) and regulations (imposed by non-elected civil servants).

You can find all the information you need on the EU at the Open Europe web-site.

The more countries you have in your grouping (European Community, ASEAN or whatever) , the more bureaucrats making silly rules. The more rules you have, the less people understand them (witness Foggy Bottom, or Washington if you must). Every country in the group wants representation in everything, so your expenses go up. The thing isn't democratic either, as people don't know who their elected representatives are (as Tom said).

And what do you do when someone breaks the rules (like Greece, Portugal and Ireland in the Eurozone)? Put more money in. Whose money? Preferably someone else's.

I have yet to be convinced that these groupings of states really work. It's a good idea, but the road to Hell etc. (Before someone says so, I will. The United States is a federation which works approximately well, but it's based on different principles than the multi-nation groups).

I think the way ahead may involve more, smaller nations, who can be genuinely democratic (if they want to be); Switzerland and the Nordic States are examples (Switzerland itself is, of course, a federation, but it seems to rub along pretty well... apart from the occasional maniac in Zug, or was it Schwyz?).

The politicians in the European parliament are elected. The problem is the Public Relations: Many people don't know that they are, or what they do, or who they are. I think the problems is simply that they don't have enough to do, so they come up with ideas like the shape of tomatoes or bananas. They should be able to pass real laws, then people would be more interested. There should also be more info to the public about the European Parliament and the European Commission.

As I understand it, the shape of tomatoes or bananas was not decided in the European Parliament, but by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

That is why, in my earlier comments, I distinguished between laws (passed by elected representatives) and regulations (imposed by non-elected civil servants).

You can find all the information you need on the EU at the Open Europe web-site.

Unelected bureaucrats have that power? It's not about the shapes, it's about what people think about the EU, so that power to ridicule the EU should be taken away from them.

But then, maybe I didn't pay much attention whether it was a law or a decreee or whatever, because I don't live there any more and it really doesn't concern me too much.

Unelected bureaucrats have that power? It's not about the shapes, it's about what people think about the EU, so that power to ridicule the EU should be taken away from them.

Power to ridicule the EC should be taken away from them? Now I find that a really odd remark... ridicule is so often the thing most needed when dealing with a bureaucracy (otherwise you just go nuts!).

Perhaps after all it would be better to live in Zug or Schwyz!