National borders are becoming irrelevant, says John McDonnell

The Shadow Chancellor thinks that national borders will disappear so that people can come and go as they please.

I don't see how that can happen while ever we have a country with a national government and a national economy.

What he seems to be trying to say is that he expects either anarchy or a single world government because there won't be any benefit to being a sovereign nation if people can just walk in from somewhere that's not as nice.

On the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme, McDonnell said: “Inevitably in this century we will have open borders.

 

“We are seeing it in Europe already. The movement of peoples across the globe will mean that borders are almost going to become irrelevant by the end of this century so we should be preparing for that and explaining why people move.”

 

The Shadow Chancellor thinks that national borders will disappear so that people can come and go as they please.

 

Not sure he went that far.

I agree with what he is saying, a little. There are more people wanting to move, country to country, because the difference in wealth/health/safety is much greater.

Although the UK has a sea to cross before they can get here, so the problem is more one for other EU countries.

I posted the following on a now closed thread:

Perhaps we should consider what the relevance of a country is at all then?

John Lennon asked us to imagine a world with no countries, and perhaps that is a noble hope that I share for the future. But then he asked us to imagine peace, no religion and no greed as well. I rather suspect that states are a direct result of those things still existing, and whilst they still do exist states are a good idea.

At this point in our evolutionary development states are an extension of the family, with shared values. History shows us that breakdown in states leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to violence ...

I'll give McDonnell the benefit of doubt, and assume that he merely shares the utopian hope that Lennon expressed in his song. It might happen one day, but if he hopes that it will happen within our children's lifetimes then he is inviting anarchy.

Why does he think we have borders in the first place?

I sort of get his point too, but I don't see any practical route to get to what he's predicting.

While governments exist to set taxes and spend them on behalf of citizens who in turn control their own personal wealth and vote the governments in and out, I don't see how it's remotely possible.

His idea would just drag everyone to a much lower quality of life than we in the UK enjoys today, and just watch us fight like cats in a sack if that happens.

He probably thinks Isis will expand further and take over the whole World which would make national borders irrelevant .

He probably thinks Isis will expand further and take over the whole World which would make national boarders irrelevant .

I don't see how ISIS could get rid of certain tenancy agreements.

Not sure he went that far.

 

I agree with what he is saying, a little. There are more people wanting to move, country to country, because the difference in wealth/health/safety is much greater.

It's absolutely inevitable in the long run so I don't think it's a particularly big statement from him, but if he put a 100 years time frame on it/and not mentioned when people will go from and to, then it's way too vague, I think. (hence not really newsworthy IMO, it's more pub chat/forum chat type thing)

Not sure he went that far.

 

I agree with what he is saying, a little. There are more people wanting to move, country to country, because the difference in wealth/health/safety is much greater.

Greater than what though?

Think back 100 or 200 years ago [and then beyond] of the UK, somewhere now developed - there would have been a small percentage of rich people, and the rest would have been poor by comparison. It's not much different now in most countries (inc. here), the only difference we have here is that our people here can't appreciate how rich we are compared to the rest of the world. All we want is more more more.

What IS greater, is the number of people in the world who can easily see on their mobiles/internet who the poorest people in this country (working / benefits / both / neither) have the following things:

Shelter/heat or energy

Easy access to food

Easy access to clean water

A relatively stable country

Anyone on the planet with 1 or more of those missing, will want them. And pushed far enough will head for places with all 4.

Although the UK has a sea to cross before they can get here, so the problem is more one for other EU countries.

I'm not sure it is harder to get here. European countries can (and have) built walls.

Another example of why we need an electable opposition not this communist we are the world shower who would destroy this country in a heartbeat if they got near power.

In a globalised economy where there is free trade, the concept of borders is becoming increasingly irrelevant. For example the recent furore over multinational companies not paying their 'fair share' demonstrates this.

While large companies, and the financiers in the City of London (and other capitals) have reaped the rewards, ordinary Joe Bloggs doesn't seem to have benefitted to the same extent, if at all.

I think there is a huge democratic deficit in our society arising from globalisation that does need addressing.

He's becoming accident prone and not thinking things through. I wouldnt read too much into it.

This is in the Huffington Post about what he said and Yvette Coopers response.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has come under fire from Yvette Cooper after declaring that refugee crises and mass migration will make open borders "inevitable."

 

The former Shadow Home Secretary and current head of Labour's refugee task force hit out following Mr McDonnell's remarks on the BBC on Sunday.

 

Speaking on the Sunday Politics programme this morning, Mr McDonnell said it is inevitable that there will eventually be open borders, warning that people are already "ignoring" boundaries that currently exist.

 

Former leadership contender Ms Cooper strongly dismissed the notion, and said a borderless world would undermine security, economic stability and efforts to stop people trafficking.

 

She said: “Border checks are really important for managing the refugee crisis - including stopping trafficking gangs, protecting child refugees who are disappearing in Europe, making sure proper asylum assessments take place so refugees get swift help and preventing people from travelling illegally if they are not refugees and have a safe home to return to.

 

"We need a system of clear border controls alongside sanctuary for refugees to cope with the terrible humanitarian crisis we face - that is why the Schengen system in Europe isn't working any more and many countries are rightly re-introducing border checks.

 

"At a time of extremist and terrorist threats, countries also need strong border checks for example to stop their own citizens going to join ISIL, or to prevent terrorists, extremists or criminals travelling with guns or weapons. And of course governments need to be able to manage and enforce immigration rules in the interests of the country and the economy.

 

"Labour needs to maintain a policy in favour of firm and effective border controls alongside help for refugees. I also disagree with John McDonnell about what will happen in the coming decades. Given the challenges we face, proper border checks are likely to become more important not less in future."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/31/uk-must-act-on-migrants-as-borders-become-irrelevant_n_9124716.html

I cna see what he means but its not qualified.

In a globalised economy where there is free trade, the concept of borders is becoming increasingly irrelevant. For example the recent furore over multinational companies not paying their 'fair share' demonstrates this.

While large companies, and the financiers in the City of London (and other capitals) have reaped the rewards, ordinary Joe Bloggs doesn't seem to have benefitted to the same extent, if at all.

 

I think there is a huge democratic deficit in our society arising from globalisation that does need addressing.

I don't see how this bold follows on from your first paragraph which I agreed with.

What do you mean here in bold Mister? - were you quoting the post above and agreeing that there isn't a credible opposition? I may have misread, so apols if I have.

I don't see how ISIS could get rid of certain tenancy agreements.

.................