EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

You're asking for evidence that the EU is going nowhere but you cannot provide any evidence that leaving it will be the disaster you constantly predict.

I've posted numerous links throughout this thread to articles that have outlined detrimental effects of leaving the EU.
But I have yet to see any evidence of a move towards a 'United States of Europe'.

 

[EM2]

The only way we can know anything is by precedent.

So you're guessing.

The EU is based on a notion that the nation state has passed its sell by date, except as a voting entity.

Evidence?

I think that's premature, and the ambitions of the main EU protagonists are not countered by the doubt and opposition that defines national government in the UK.

Doubt and opposition? There wasn't any from Government, until Cameron started running scared of idiots like UKIP that sowed doubt.

What is this thing Europe anyway? What is its philosophical premise and values? I have no idea, and I'm a regular traveller to European countries.

Why not ask them, then? Or do some research?
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb77/eb77_value_en.pdf

The only competition for the soul of the EU is Turkey, whose population has risen from 27m when its membership was first mooted, to 90m today. Will Turkey become "European"? I have no idea. I like Turkey and it's people but it isn't Europe by any stretch of the definition, and neither is much of the former Ottoman empire that is in the EU's sights. I'm certain the EU's expansionist agenda will see it biting off more than it can chew.

'Competition for the soul of the EU'? What does that even mean?
It won't be joining for a very, very long time. They applied to join the EEC (as was) in 1987, negotiations began in 2005, and of 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process, 16 have been opened and one has been closed.

 

[meridian2]

I've posted numerous links throughout this thread to articles that have outlined detrimental effects of leaving the EU.
But I have yet to see any evidence of a move towards a 'United States of Europe'.

In 2013 the president of the European commission said a federal Europe will be a reality in a few years. The commission is unelected and completely unelectable, but it's clear they are moving towards political as well as fiscal unity. The only question is whether one sees that as a good thing, not whether it's likely to happen.

 

[meridian2]

'Competition for the soul of the EU'? What does that even mean?

Numbers. Turkey is the only country that can give Germany numerical competition for population.

 

[meridian2]

Doubt and opposition? There wasn't any from Government, until Cameron started running scared of idiots like UKIP that sowed doubt.

That's nonsense, Euroscepticism has dogged every government for four decades, not least the Tories. The numbers who turned out to vote against EU membership were clear evidence that it wasn't the ambition of a minority of xenophobes. Tony Benn could hardly be described as a racist little Englander, yet he was staunchly anti-federal Europe.

 

[EM2]

In 2013 the president of the European commission said a federal Europe will be a reality in a few years. The commission is unelected and completely unelectable, but it's clear they are moving towards political as well as fiscal unity. The only question is whether one sees that as a good thing, not whether it's likely to happen.

Well, we're a few years further on from 2013, and nothing has happened.
The members of the Commission are proposed by their member state governments, so are indirectly voted for by the populace.
There has not been a mention of political unity in any of the EU treaties:
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

Exempting the UK from ever closer union is political rather than legal

As the phrase "ever closer union" is to be found in the EU treaties themselves, amending or deleting it would require every country to agree.

Instead, the UK could be formally exempted from the aspiration to “ever closer union,” which could be confirmed by treaty change down the line.

That’s just what the EU deal does:

“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

What’s actually achieved by this?

Given the fact that the phrase “ever closer union” doesn’t imply a move to a federal EU, and isn’t a legal basis for any increase of EU power, exonerating the UK from a commitment to achieving ever closer union will not change the UK’s relationship with the EU.

 

[meridian2]

Well, we're a few years further on from 2013, and nothing has happened.
The members of the Commission are proposed by their member state governments, so are indirectly voted for by the populace.
There has not been a mention of political unity in any of the EU treaties

Indirectly voted for? It isn't hard to think of a few European governments that were "indirectly voted for" in the C20th, and what the outcome was. "The commission president's argument is that as the eurozone adopts federalist structures on fiscal and economic policy, supported by Britain as necessary for financial stability, there will also be a need for political structures that will fundamentally change the way the EU works.
"Further economic integration would transcend the limits of the intergovernmental method of running the EU and the eurozone in particular," Mr Barroso said." (2013)

 

[najaB]

Leave Russia alone and it will leave us alone.

And **** the Ukrainians.

 

[meridian2]

And **** the Ukrainians.

On what mandate does a European country, individually or en masse, intervene in Ukraine?

 

[EM2]

You can quote Barroso until the cows come home, but:
i) it hasn't happened since he said it
ii) there's no signs of any movement towards it happening
iii) it would mean alterations to the EU treaties, which have to be agreed by all members
iv) even if it were proposed, Cameron's deal before the referendum meant that the UK were exempt anyway (see quote in post #5166) - It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.

 

[najaB]

On what mandate does a European country, individually or en masse, intervene in Ukraine?

The fact that they are associate members of NATO would do it. But nobody is talking about intervening. There is a difference between unilaterally intervening (which is what Russia did) and providing military assistance at the request of the democratically elected government.

Edit: The whole 'leave Russia alone and they'll leave us alone' argument also loses some of its strength when you consider the recent movement of nuclear capable* ballistic missiles into Kaliningrad.)

*Yes, 'capable' doesn't mean 'equipped' but Russia hasn't said either way.

 

[meridian2]

You can quote Barroso until the cows come home, but:
i) it hasn't happened since he said it
ii) there's no signs of any movement towards it happening
iii) it would mean alterations to the EU treaties, which have to be agreed by all members
iv) even if it were proposed, Cameron's deal before the referendum meant that the UK were exempt anyway (see quote in post #5166) - It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.

If the president of the EU commission wasn't on message, it's difficult to think of a higher authority to appeal to on the overall aims and direction of the union. If the Prime Minister of one of the largest member states having to cut a deal exempting it from further political integration doesn't show which way the wind is blowing, nothing will. The EU could have thrown Cameron a sop to wave at the British people, but chose not to do on the basis he was presumptuous enough to call a referendum.

If people believe a federal Europe is a good thing, one can have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of that scenario. For people to doubt federalisation was ever on the agenda, is constructive myopia or ignorance.

 

[meridian2]

The fact that they are associate members of NATO would do it. But nobody is talking about intervening. There is a difference between unilaterally intervening (which is what Russia did) and providing military assistance at the request of the democratically elected government.

The Head of the CIA, who never leaves the US in normal circumstances, shares your opinion. I don't believe the history of Europe in the last century has anything to offer the rest of the world regarding moral virtues.

 

[EM2]

For people to doubt federalisation was ever on the agenda, is constructive myopia or ignorance.

Once again, it is not in any of the EU treaties.

 

[EM2]

I don't believe the history of Europe in the last century has anything to offer the rest of the world regarding moral virtues.

Even when countries that were mortal enemies in horrendous bloody conflicts can work together?

 

[meridian2]

Once again, it is not in any of the EU treaties.

And that tells us what exactly about the aims of unelected officials?

 

[najaB]

And that tells us what exactly about the aims of unelected officials?

Nothing. But it doesn't matter what their aims are - if it's not in a treaty isn't not going to happen. Neither commission members nor the public can cast votes on an aim.

 

[EM2]

And that tells us what exactly about the aims of unelected officials?

What are you on about? There can be no change to EU treaties unless agreed by all member states. If the EU want to move to federalisation, it cannot be done just by the Commission.

 

[meridian2]

Even when countries that were mortal enemies in horrendous bloody conflicts can work together?

It depends what you mean by working together. The common market was a mutually advantageous trading entity that somehow grew into a monolithic Franco-German lead union with political ambitions. I'm not sure I want to work to those goals, and refuse to accept accusations of xenophobia and small-mindedness for what is a completely pragmatic decision regarding political self determination. People seems to have accepted a world of Orwellian megastates as inevitable. I don't believe they are.

 

[najaB]

People seems to have accepted a world of Orwellian megastates as inevitable. I don't believe they are.

Neither do I. Corporate megastates are much more likely.

 

[EM2]

refuse to accept accusations of xenophobia and small-mindedness for what is a completely pragmatic decision regarding political self determination. People seems to have accepted a world of Orwellian megastates as inevitable. I don't believe they are.

The UK Parliament has always been sovereign all the time the UK has been a member of the EU. This is stated in the Government's White Paper.
There is no evidence (and I don't mean quotes) of any movement towards a federalised EU.
Even if there were, the UK had an exemption from it.
You seem to be worrying things that were never going to happen.

 

[meridian2]

What are you on about? There can be no change to EU treaties unless agreed by all member states. If the EU want to move to federalisation, it cannot be done just by the Commission.

You've clearly never sat on committees. If a few suitably motivated individuals decide something will happen, the only brake on their ambition is public relations.

How could Britain belong to an EU where a political majority want further integration? It would be like being half married. We were already seen as a drag anchor on its ambitions, who wants that gig?

 

[najaB]

You've clearly never sat on committees. If a few suitably motivated individuals decide something will happen, the only brake on their ambition is public relations.

Sorry, but that is getting into tin-foil hat territory. Constitutional change of the nature you are proposing could not be effected in the Council chamber. It would require changes to the Treaties of Maastricht and/or Rome or a completely new treaty. Those changes/new treaty would then have to be ratified by the national governments of the EU states - likely necessitating referenda to get the approval of their citizens.

Nobody would be waking up one morning to find that they were suddenly citizens of the United States of Europe.

 

[meridian2]

Nothing. But it doesn't matter what their aims are - if it's not in a treaty isn't not going to happen. Neither commission members nor the public can cast votes on an aim.

Neither can it cast votes on those who do have aims. Increased integration has been an aim since the common market and the EEC, history is unequivocal on the matter. Do you seriously believe the commission would not prefer a more federal Europe in twenty years? They're biding their time, not changing their tune.

 

[EM2]

Neither can it cast votes on those who do have aims. Increased integration has been an aim since the common market and the EEC, history is unequivocal on the matter. Do you seriously believe the commission would not prefer a more federal Europe in twenty years? They're biding their time, not changing their tune.

Where is your evidence?

 

[najaB]

Neither can it cast votes on those who do have aims. Increased integration has been an aim since the common market and the EEC, history is unequivocal on the matter. Do you seriously believe the commission would not prefer a more federal Europe in twenty years? They're biding their time, not changing their tune.

See my previous post.

 

[meridian2]

Sorry, but that is getting into tin-foil hat territory. Constitutional change of the nature you are proposing could not be effected in the Council chamber. It would require changes to the Treaties of Maastricht and/or Rome or a completely new treaty. Those changes/new treaty would then have to be ratified by the national governments of the EU states - likely necessitating referenda to get the approval of their citizens.

Nobody would be waking up one morning to find that they were suddenly citizens of the United States of Europe.

I recall waking up one morning to find I was in the EU. I'll trade my tin hat for your rose tinted specs.

 

[EM2]

I recall waking up one morning to find I was in the EU. I'll trade my tin hat for your rose tinted specs.

After a referendum.

 

[burneside]

Once again, it is not in any of the EU treaties.

According to a report by Open Europe published today, it seems that Junker has a few tricks up his sleeve regarding future EU integration that would bypass the need for new treaties or referendums.

"Juncker has “four or five scenarios” in mind for EU integration after Brexit

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s ‘White Paper’ outlining his revamped plans for EU integration after Brexit has featured quite a lot in the continental media over the past week. Italian daily La Repubblica reported that Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had both urged Juncker to delay publication until after the celebrations for the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome on March 25 – the very event which the document was intended to mark.

Belgian daily Le Soir has obtained information about the broad thrust of the now famous White Paper. Interestingly, the article suggests Juncker only briefed his team of commissioners on the initiative last week and has summoned them for an extraordinary meeting later today to discuss the matter.

At today’s meeting, Juncker will reportedly put forward four or five concrete scenarios for structuring a post-Brexit EU which the 27 heads of state and government of the remaining member states would have to consider. Le Soir cites a “European source who has been closely following the preparation” of the White Paper, as saying that these scenarios are not “academic models” but instead “options based on real political experiences in the EU.” None of the options would entail treaty change, a move which is intended to circumvent politically-charged referendums and complicated parliamentary ratification in member states."

Full report here:

openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/juncker-has-four-or-five-scenarios-in-mind-for-eu-integration-after-brexit/

 

[najaB]

I recall waking up one morning to find I was in the EU. I'll trade my tin hat for your rose tinted specs.

I seem to recall the ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht being debated in Parliament and put to a vote by the people's elected representatives.