Theresa May: Article 50 to be triggered before end of March next year

[Hillary]

Brexit isn't gonna get blocked by this.

Mostly likely you're right.

On the other hand, at least now there's some oversight instead of just. 'hey we won the referendum we can do anything we want and call it brexit'

This, basically. There is also the hope that Article 50 can be delayed until we know what the fuck the repercussions are of triggering it.

May has set about her premiership with an outstanding display of arrogance - she needs yanking back into line.

[Hillary]

Um... you just posted two wildly contradictory things. Yes, they majority are pro-Brexit, and 75% are pro-Remain.

Sorry about that - I read your question as "Are the majority pro-Remain?", which is why I answered "yes". Not sure how I managed that. They are pro-remain.

[jwl]

It's all very well talking about the rule of law, but how the law stands is in doubt here, that's the whole point of the case. From reading the ruling, it seems the argument against the royal prerogative having this power is the assumption that leaving the EU will repeal the EU laws, and the royal prerogative can't change domestic law under the Case of Proclamations, 1610. However, there is the question of whether activating Article 50 will necessarily mean the law is changed, you could envisage a scenario where the UK formally leaves the EU but keeps to the EU laws anyway.

The referendum itself has nothing to do with it, though, it's non-binding.

[Titan Uranus]

YES!!!

Best news I've heard in a while.

Yeah!
Fuck the will of the people, the masses are not fit to rule themselves!

Cute straw man, asshole.

I actually believe in direct democracy by referendum. And were this done legally, I would probably, however grudgingly, accept the results.

However, I am also a believer in the rule of law, and Britain is first and foremost a representative democracy. If the Brexit vote was done improperly, if Parliamentary approval is required, then that is what should happen. Weather the system should be subsequently changed to allow such decisions to be made by referendum alone is another question.

And I am happy to see the the agenda of far Right nationalist xenophobes blocked, yes.

You are cheering the possible overthrow of the will of the people in a referendum that was said to be binding beforehand (culturally if not legally, which is just as important for society), you are not pro-direct democracy.
If the majority voted for sovereignty then it is not a "far-right" issue.

Oh yeah, and a rising tide of nationalism is the only method by which globalism and corporatism can be fought. If you ceed that ground to the right, then it will be a right-wing nationalism.

And yes, 52% of those who cared enough to vote is enough to count as "the will of the people".

[Zaune]

I'm not actually sure you can have left-wing nationalism, at least not without radically altering the definition of one or both terms.

[Starglider]

I'm not actually sure you can have left-wing nationalism, at least not without radically altering the definition of one or both terms.

Of course you can. North Korea is the ultimate expression of left-wing nationalism.

[Tribble]

Sorry, I'd like my above post deleted as I think it is makes more sense to have it in a separate thread.

[Done ~ NL]

[Zaune]

Of course you can. North Korea is the ultimate expression of left-wing nationalism.

That's the horseshoe effect for you, I guess; it's actually really hard to be a proper socialist or a proper libertarian if you're an actual tyrant.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah!
Fuck the will of the people, the masses are not fit to rule themselves!

Cute straw man, asshole.

I actually believe in direct democracy by referendum. And were this done legally, I would probably, however grudgingly, accept the results.

However, I am also a believer in the rule of law, and Britain is first and foremost a representative democracy. If the Brexit vote was done improperly, if Parliamentary approval is required, then that is what should happen. Weather the system should be subsequently changed to allow such decisions to be made by referendum alone is another question.

And I am happy to see the the agenda of far Right nationalist xenophobes blocked, yes.

You are cheering the possible overthrow of the will of the people in a referendum that was said to be binding beforehand (culturally if not legally, which is just as important for society), you are not pro-direct democracy.

I explained my reasoning already.

I support direct democracy. However, I also generally support the rule of law. If current law does not permit such a decision to be made via referendum, then you can argue for changing the law, but until then, the government should abide by the law.

Or are you arguing that one is not a true advocate for something unless they believe in ignoring the law every time it doesn't conform to their preferences?

So, I support direct democracy, through legal channels.

I will also add that their are some things which most supporters of democracy, of one kind or another, probably agree should not be left up to just a majority vote (like basic human rights). That's part of why countries have a constitution, isn't it?

Considering that Brexit not only fundamentally alters Britain's relationship with neighbouring countries, and poses a threat to the rights of immigrants, but that it indirectly threatens the dissolution of the UK, its arguably one of the things that should not be left up to just a majority vote.

Now, maybe you feel that I shouldn't be celebrating the overturning of the Brexit. But I see it as a case of "the right thing for the wrong reasons." Sure, I'd vastly prefer that it had been shot down in the referendum. But its the right outcome, even if achieved the wrong way.

Kind of like how I'm glad we beat the Nazis even though I don't approve of things like the firebombing of Dresden or allying with Stalin, or how I'm glad we landed men on the Moon even though we did it with the aid of Nazi scientists we let off the hook.

If the majority voted for sovereignty then it is not a "far-right" issue.

And if the majority vote for Donald Trump in five days, will you argue Trump is not a far Right candidate?

This strikes me as being akin to an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Something does not change its nature because it has majority (among those who actually voted at least) support.

Oh yeah, and a rising tide of nationalism is the only method by which globalism and corporatism can be fought. If you ceed that ground to the right, then it will be a right-wing nationalism.

A completely unsupported assumption.

First off, I support globalism, in the sense that I support moving towards greater international cooperation and ultimately (theortically at least), global government. And it pisses me off to no end when people equate globalism and global capitalism/corporatism.

I do not support corporatism, but it is ridiculous to assert as fact the unproven assumption that only nationalism can counter it.

My preferred counter ideology, for the record, is democratic socialism.

And nationalist bigotry is ground that I am quite happy to "cede" to the Right. Let the deplorables own the gutter, if they wish.

And yes, 52% of those who cared enough to vote is enough to count as "the will of the people".

So, a tiny majority of a fraction of the populace, when some admitted that they were doing a protest vote and didn't expect it to pass?

Well, that may be how democracy works, but its hardly a resounding mandate.

[Flagg]

Rheresa May has said the formal withdrawal process for Britain leaving the European Union will be invoked by the end of March 2017.

Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the prime minister also confirmed plans for a "Great Repeal Bill" to overturn legislation that took Britain into the EU.

However Mrs May came under attack from Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon after she said there is "no opt out from Brexit" and we will "never allow divisive nationalists to undermine the precious union between the four nations of our United Kingdom".

Mrs May also said she will not accept any limits on Britain's ability to control immigration in negotiations to leave the EU.

Source
Well of course Nicola Sturgeon is going to have something to say about there being no opt-out. Nice Job Breaking it, Theresa- you've just handed the Scottish Independence groups all the ammunition it will need for a fresh campaign.

Good. Fuck the UK, I hope Wales is next.

[Crazedwraith]

Good. Fuck the UK, I hope Wales is next.

Not likely, Wales was strongly pro-brexit.

[K. A. Pital]

I will also add that their are some things which most supporters of democracy, of one kind or another, probably agree should not be left up to just a majority vote (like basic human rights). That's part of why countries have a constitution, isn't it?

Is it? Historically the constitution originated as a document that would limit the absolute power of monarchs.

First off, I support globalism, in the sense that I support moving towards greater international cooperation and ultimately (theortically at least), global government. And it pisses me off to no end when people equate globalism and global capitalism/corporatism.

Why are you pissed? Globalism, as it happens now, is the demolition of nation-states. They lose their borders, their economic power (many have no own currency), their military power (many have no military and thus rely on "master great powers" to uphold their territorial claims, like NATO/US or China and its satellites). If you demolish the nation-state structures, something will come to fill the vacuum. Remove the army, and you have PMCs filling the niche. Remove the nation-state, and you leave the space open for a naked power grab by corporations. International structures, due to their undemocratic, unelectable nature, are even more at risk of being coopted by corporations (and indeed they are). You can be blind to this, but blindness is no excuse.

I do not support corporatism, but it is ridiculous to assert as fact the unproven assumption that only nationalism can counter it.

So far, given the betrayal of the social democrats, it seems like the nationalists are filling a vacuum again. Social democrats or "democratic socialists" betrayed the working class, sold them out to corporations, laughed as neoliberal vultures destroyed the welfare state and enriched themselves in the process. Major facts of corruption and collusion of social democratic candidates with megacorporations have been established over the last several decades. Traitors cannot be trusted, so the working class mistakenly turns to the nationalists. Of course, these are dozen for a dime and will certainly betray again and again, so nothing is improving, essentially.

My preferred counter ideology, for the record, is democratic socialism. And nationalist bigotry is ground that I am quite happy to "cede" to the Right. Let the deplorables own the gutter, if they wish.

If you don't understand the concerns of the population, in the end, "nationalist bigotry" will prevail. Stop shoving the neoliberal globalist mantra where uber oligarchs wield enough power to buy up whole countries down the worker class throat, and you may find that many more ordinary people in the First World agree with you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it? Historically the constitution originated as a document that would limit the absolute power of monarchs.

Well, its certainly an argument in favour of constitutional government today, that it places a limit on the so-called "tyranny of the majority".

Why are you pissed? Globalism, as it happens now, is the demolition of nation-states.

"as it happens now"

I wish to contest that status quo.

Stronger, more standardized international regulation could act as a check on corporations that move operations from country to country in order to dodge tax laws and laws that protect the rights of workers.

They lose their borders, their economic power (many have no own currency), their military power (many have no military and thus rely on "master great powers" to uphold their territorial claims, like NATO/US or China and its satellites). If you demolish the nation-state structures, something will come to fill the vacuum. Remove the army, and you have PMCs filling the niche. Remove the nation-state, and you leave the space open for a naked power grab by corporations. International structures, due to their undemocratic, unelectable nature, are even more at risk of being coopted by corporations (and indeed they are). You can be blind to this, but blindness is no excuse.

Beware of false dichotomies.

If you wish to make the assertion that their are only two possible outcomes, nationalism or corporatism, I expect you to prove it.

So far, given the betrayal of the social democrats, it seems like the nationalists are filling a vacuum again. Social democrats or "democratic socialists" betrayed the working class, sold them out to corporations, laughed as neoliberal vultures destroyed the welfare state and enriched themselves in the process. Major facts of corruption and collusion of social democratic candidates with megacorporations have been established over the last several decades. Traitors cannot be trusted, so the working class mistakenly turns to the nationalists. Of course, these are dozen for a dime and will certainly betray again and again, so nothing is improving, essentially.

Actually, something rather different seems to have been happening to an extent in the current US election.

Their was a strong anti-establishment push in the primaries, and it basically went two ways.

On the one hand, Donald Trump, a raving, incompetent, bigoted narcissistic demagogue.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders, a social democrat/democratic socialist.

While most of Bernie Sanders' supporters have gotten behind Clinton (if only to stop Trump, in some cases), some have gone third party/independent/write-in, or even switched to Trump. Clinton has a lot to recommend her as a candidate, but it is nonetheless arguable that the Democrats missed a real chance to steal the anti-corporate establishment thunder away from the Republicans.

I would also argue that you are making an overgeneralization about social democrats.

Or maybe you just think anyone to the right of Marx is colluding with megacorporations, I don't know.

If you don't understand the concerns of the population, in the end, "nationalist bigotry" will prevail. Stop shoving the neoliberal globalist mantra where uber oligarchs wield enough power to buy up whole countries down the worker class throat, and you may find that many more ordinary people in the First World agree with you.

Where have I ever advocated for a neoliberal agenda, or for rule by unaccountable oligarchs?

Oh yeah. Nowhere.

I'm coming at this from a different viewpoint than the neoliberal establishment, the communist, or the Right wing nationalist. That being, essentially, that I would like to see a greater cooperation between states (democratic states in particular), in part to provide a check on the abuses of multi-national corporations, with the ultimate end goal being a global government along democratic socialist lines.

My reasoning, in brief, is that their are some problems which are global in nature and therefore require a global response, particularly in an age of mass transit and mass communication on a global scale; that globalization is a reality and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, barring an apocalyptic collapse of modern civilization; that it is simply not possible to even pretend to isolate oneself from the world without embracing bigotry and despotism on a North Korean scale; and that therefore, greater involvement in the affairs of other nations is obligatory, and our best option is not to fight globalism, but to promote a form of globalism which better protects the interests of the people.

[Civil War Man]

Good. Fuck the UK, I hope Wales is next.

Were, hypothetically, something like that to happen, I'd wager Northern Ireland as the next most likely territory to secede after Scotland. It also voted overwhelmingly Remain, and there is a long history of separatism, though Sinn Fein has remained pretty quiet in recent years.

Not saying it will happen, but the part of me that's descended from Northern Ireland troublemakers would get an odd sense of satisfaction from seeing a reunified independent Ireland. My grandmother who used to refer to the northern counties as "Occupied Ireland" would definitely have thrown a party if it happened and she were still alive.

If there were some UK breakup betting pool, I'd say probably no breakup. But if it were to happen, I'd bet Scotland to win, Northern Ireland to place, and as a dark horse Gibraltar to show.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, its certainly an argument in favour of constitutional government today, that it places a limit on the so-called "tyranny of the majority".

Why does the government need to protect itself from the majority, whose interests it apparently represents, though?

I wish to contest that status quo.

Stronger, more standardized international regulation could act as a check on corporations that move operations from country to country in order to dodge tax laws and laws that protect the rights of workers.

Is there any example of this? There are many examples to the contrary: where worker rights are routinely undermined by globalization, and this happens not only in the First World but in the Third World as well.

Beware of false dichotomies.

If you wish to make the assertion that their are only two possible outcomes, nationalism or corporatism, I expect you to prove it.

No, there are many possible outcomes, but being a self-professed globalist in a world where "globalism" is just a front for corporatist transnational operations is a bit dumb. You can't seriously expect a "left globalism" to progress when the left has been basically marginalized in the First World nations (key agents of globalization), and when there is no actual power structure that would allow such initiatives to be put in place. Maybe the WTO is a left-wing organization? IMF? World Bank? No? I guess the way they are built, it is downright impossible for them to be anything socialist and democratic. Are there elections? How are they run? Does the population have a say in their policies, especially the poorest part?

Actually, something rather different seems to have been happening to an extent in the current US election.

Their was a strong anti-establishment push in the primaries, and it basically went two ways.

On the one hand, Donald Trump, a raving, incompetent, bigoted narcissistic demagogue.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders, a social democrat/democratic socialist.

While most of Bernie Sanders' supporters have gotten behind Clinton (if only to stop Trump, in some cases), some have gone third party/independent/write-in, or even switched to Trump. Clinton has a lot to recommend her as a candidate, but it is nonetheless arguable that the Democrats missed a real chance to steal the anti-corporate establishment thunder away from the Republicans.

I would also argue that you are making an overgeneralization about social democrats.

Or maybe you just think anyone to the right of Marx is colluding with megacorporations, I don't know.

No, actually, Sanders I've observed with great interest as one of the potential left-wing disruptions. But, was his agenda not, at least partially, anti-globalist? Sanders opposed TTIP and favored non-intervention in other nations, last time I got news on his positions. If so, this is an example of a left politician who refused to just give assholes like Trump legitimate grievances to be used as weapons in his political campaign. Which means, you can't just ignore the concerns of all the Brexiters likewise.

My reasoning, in brief, is that their are some problems which are global in nature and therefore require a global response, particularly in an age of mass transit and mass communication on a global scale; that globalization is a reality and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, barring an apocalyptic collapse of modern civilization; that it is simply not possible to even pretend to isolate oneself from the world without embracing bigotry and despotism on a North Korean scale; and that therefore, greater involvement in the affairs of other nations is obligatory, and our best option is not to fight globalism, but to promote a form of globalism which better protects the interests of the people.

That is a very well-meant position, which, however, ignores the fact that the power structures of globalism are undemocratic, are non-local and isolated, and thus uniquely susceptible to hijacking by special interests of the elite. This is a problem with any large government, but with a transnational one it reaches global proportions. Which nations are to become dumps and which to become gardens? Who willl decide? The equally remote, objective transnational bureaucrat in this "union of democratic nations"? That looks a lot like way to cause more people to run away from this vision even before it is enacted.

Is there an organization with siginficant political power to enact this vision of yours? Is there even an attempt to create one?

[Edi]

To return to to the High Court ruling for a bit, this is distilled from a post on another forum:

"The result of the ruling is that Parliament must vote to trigger Article 50, since this would result in undermining a whole pile of primary legislation dating back to the European Communities Act - essentially the PM can't just use prerogative powers to do so, since when the referendum legislation was passed it explicitly stated that the referendum was to be advisory rather than binding.

People voted Yes on the question "should the UK leave the European Union" and Theresa May has since been using this (as an unelected PM, and acting without Parliamentary oversight) to demonise firms employing foreign workers, and do her best to undermine any future trading relationship with the EU. What the court has done is say that any changes to legislation that result from this (and triggering Article 50 will lead to a mountain of changes in the law) must be subject to the will of Parliament, i.e. that of our elected representatives."

Seen in this context, there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about the High Court ruling and now the Parliament must gets its house in order and make a decision. Which way they are going to decide is a separate matter.

[Flagg]

Good. Fuck the UK, I hope Wales is next.

Were, hypothetically, something like that to happen, I'd wager Northern Ireland as the next most likely territory to secede after Scotland. It also voted overwhelmingly Remain, and there is a long history of separatism, though Sinn Fein has remained pretty quiet in recent years.

Not saying it will happen, but the part of me that's descended from Northern Ireland troublemakers would get an odd sense of satisfaction from seeing a reunified independent Ireland. My grandmother who used to refer to the northern counties as "Occupied Ireland" would definitely have thrown a party if it happened and she were still alive.

If there were some UK breakup betting pool, I'd say probably no breakup. But if it were to happen, I'd bet Scotland to win, Northern Ireland to place, and as a dark horse Gibraltar to show.

Yeah, I don't know much about the current political situation in Northern Ireland (Protestant bastards!!! /Catholic). Were they to merge with the rest of the island would the population be in danger of persecution? I mean they treated (I'm assuming past tense) the Catholic minority there really shittily for over a century and you had the good old ( ) IRA so should there be concern for retribution were the Protestant population to suddenly be in the minority? I mean short of violence/second class citizenship, cry me a river, but I'd hate for things to go back to the bad old days.

[His Divine Shadow]

So far, given the betrayal of the social democrats, it seems like the nationalists are filling a vacuum again. Social democrats or "democratic socialists" betrayed the working class, sold them out to corporations, laughed as neoliberal vultures destroyed the welfare state and enriched themselves in the process. Major facts of corruption and collusion of social democratic candidates with megacorporations have been established over the last several decades. Traitors cannot be trusted, so the working class mistakenly turns to the nationalists. Of course, these are dozen for a dime and will certainly betray again and again, so nothing is improving, essentially.

I believe you can have 2 out of 3 of the following:
1. Democracy
2. Globalization (of the balls deep type we have atm)
3. Sovereign nation states

You can't have all three. Globalization invariably leads to corporate interests taking over nations, which leads to populism and fascism in response. Like what we are seeing today.

With hindsight we can look back and see that social democratic nation states did more for GDP growth, protecting the workers rights and expanding the middle class did, than this era of globalization ever did.

[The Romulan Republic]

So far, given the betrayal of the social democrats, it seems like the nationalists are filling a vacuum again. Social democrats or "democratic socialists" betrayed the working class, sold them out to corporations, laughed as neoliberal vultures destroyed the welfare state and enriched themselves in the process. Major facts of corruption and collusion of social democratic candidates with megacorporations have been established over the last several decades. Traitors cannot be trusted, so the working class mistakenly turns to the nationalists. Of course, these are dozen for a dime and will certainly betray again and again, so nothing is improving, essentially.

I believe you can have 2 out of 3 of the following:
1. Democracy
2. Globalization (of the balls deep type we have atm)
3. Sovereign nation states

I largely agree with this.

I would add that, since globalization of one form or another is pretty much just a reality of a technologically advanced world, we are effectively left with a choice, in the long-term, between democracy and the nation state.

Given that my guiding political principle can largely be summed up by the text from the Declaration of Independence* that reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Well, you can imagine which one I choose.

*Of course, I do not claim that these are uniquely American ideas- I simply find that passage from the Declaration a very compelling and succinct way of summarizing them, although I personally would substitute "all people" for "all men" and remove "Creator", or at least the capital C, to respect the equality of those who do not practice monotheistic faiths.

Edit: I will acknowledge that it may not be necessary to completely abolish the nation state to preserve democracy. However, the notion of the absolutely sovereign, isolated nation state is a dangerous and obsolete delusion.

[Thanas]

You guys really should read up on the histories of the various East India and Indies companies, back then people were saying the same thing about how it is impossible to control the excesses of corporations, how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc. The situation now is way less worse than back then and there is no reason to asssume states will not manage to control them again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Might be an interesting read. Can you recommend any particular books/authors on the subject, if its not too off-topic?

[TithonusSyndrome]

I'm not actually sure you can have left-wing nationalism, at least not without radically altering the definition of one or both terms.

Of course you can. North Korea is the ultimate expression of left-wing nationalism.

Juche/songun is, by definition, not a left-wing ideology. Most state capitalist nations garbed in communist trappings aren't, for that matter.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

You guys really should read up on the histories of the various East India and Indies companies, back then people were saying the same thing about how it is impossible to control the excesses of corporations, how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc. The situation now is way less worse than back then and there is no reason to asssume states will not manage to control them again.

I'm inclined to agree.

As I understand it, the British East India Company became so powerful for two main reasons; firstly, because of the resources available in India, and secondly because repeated British governments simply allowed them to. So long as they delivered the goods and didn't rock the boat too badly, Parliament was inclined to let them act as they pleased. But they started having trouble as far back as the 1770s (the Bengal Famine, the American Revolution, etc), and their relationship with the British government was at times quite complicated. The East India Company Act of 1813 and the Government of India Acts of 1833 and 1853 actually stripped the company of its monopolies in return for renewing its charter to administrate India, effectively turning the BEIC into an arm of the British state. What ultimately ruined it for the company was the Indian Mutiny of 1857; a foul-up on that scale could not be overlooked.

This example shows two means by which governments can regain control over BEIC-style megacorporations. One is in return for something the corporation desperately needs; the BEIC accepted the 1813 act because it was near-bankrupt due to financing all those wars in India. A more recent example is the 2008 Credit Crunch; several governments (the US included) subjected banks and other financial institutions to substantial new regulations in return for bailouts. The other means is government fiat, though this may require pretty serious wrongdoing in order to give the government the political momentum and moral authority needed to defeat the lobbyists.

The problem, as I think The Romulan Republic has pointed out, is that this is not so easy under modern conditions. Big countries like the US, China, India, and arguably Russia, can handle this to some extent because of their sheer size; they are arguably regional economies unto themselves. Smaller countries like the European states just don't have that kind of clout. In fact, their small size makes it even easier for companies to pack up and leave; since they don't have to go far to find an alternative business environment. Institutions like the EU are a potential counterweight; by establishing standards on taxation and regulation, business have to go much further (and at greater expense) in order to escape.

[K. A. Pital]

You guys really should read up on the histories of the various East India and Indies companies, back then people were saying the same thing about how it is impossible to control the excesses of corporations, how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc. The situation now is way less worse than back then and there is no reason to asssume states will not manage to control them again.

Yes, actually, that was the situation. But rebels rose up and kicked British and European asses out of the colonized nations and back to where they came from.

That's what put an end to " how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc". Even if sometimes violent and messy, and fraught with typical nationalist excesses.

But only for a limited time. We are entering a new era of corporate domination, and it looks ugly.

However, the notion of the absolutely sovereign, isolated nation state is a dangerous and obsolete delusion.

The notion of a non-sovereign "world" is also a dangerous and imperialistic delusion. In the end, First World megacorps will laugh all the way at the useful idiots who pave the way for their future conquests.

[Thanas]

You guys really should read up on the histories of the various East India and Indies companies, back then people were saying the same thing about how it is impossible to control the excesses of corporations, how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc. The situation now is way less worse than back then and there is no reason to asssume states will not manage to control them again.

Yes, actually, that was the situation. But rebels rose up and kicked British and European asses out of the colonized nations and back to where they came from.

That's what put an end to " how the corps essentially controlled whole nations or were states within states etc". Even if sometimes violent and messy, and fraught with typical nationalist excesses.

But only for a limited time. We are entering a new era of corporate domination, and it looks ugly.

Well, first of all in the two biggest cases (VIC and EIC) the state asssumed direct control even though the rebellions failed to stop colonial rule - sooner or later corporationss will have so much excess that the state will step in.

Second, I see no reason to assume that the cycles of history do not apply here as well, meaning that the switch between market regulation and deregulation is always swinging in one direction or the other. Though again I will note that we are still a very long step removed from the era of the EIC or the "gilded age" in the USA.