Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree. It seems like imperialism through the back door.

Define "imperialism". Are people looking for a united Ireland "Imperialists"?
How about Argentinians who would like the Falklands back?

As said, continued closer union is an ongoing goal of the EU project and has never been a secret.

Ultimately some of us would love to see the day when borders are little more than administrative divisors and the border between France and Germany given no more important than the border between Cork and Kerry.

seamus wrote: »

Define "imperialism". Are people looking for a united Ireland "Imperialists"?
How about Argentinians who would like the Falklands back?

As said, continued closer union is an ongoing goal of the EU project and has never been a secret.

Ultimately some of us would love to see the day when borders are little more than administrative divisors and the border between France and Germany given no more important than the border between Cork and Kerry.

Would you happen to include Turkey and Syria in that dream?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Would you happen to include Turkey and Syria in that dream?

Yeah, why not. If Europe can eventually come together and stop knocking seven shades of sh1te out of eachother, then anyone can.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, why not. If Europe can eventually come together and stop knocking seven shades of sh1te out of eachother, then anyone can.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes closer union ian't a bad thing.

Interesting. Even though Turkey at 75 million people would be the second most populous state in the EU.

What about Russia? At 140 million people they would be running the place.

You realise Ireland would have no voice in this Russian dominated superstate?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's not a back door.

The EEC/EU has always had a goal of closer integration, from the day we joined. It is not a secret.

True enough.
As I have argued hereabout recently, the raison d'etre of the ECSC/EEC/EU has always been to form ever closer ties between European countries and prevent the reoccurrence of the Europe of the 1930s/1940s.

Some of the founders such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Altiero Spinelli were often devout federalists and sometimes of the opinion that European voters could not be trusted to run their own countries and not elect the type of people that turned out to be dictators and the ones that plunged Europe in war and destruction.

The EEC/EU and Brussels has always had a whiff of arrogant superiority about it and the betters knowing what is best.
Yes the EU has done a lot of good, but has it turned into a bit of a bullyboy over the last decade or so.

Most people have either willfully turned a blind eye where it is going or probably more correctly couldn't be ar**ed as long as they are doing ok.
But the ever increasing globalisation and movement of people and resources that the likes of the EU laud and proffer isn't all it is cracked up to be for a lot of normal people.

Being told to upskill, educate yourself more, work harder or that you are lazy isn't exactly going to endear the lecturers from the top.

A great example is how the likes of Peter Sutherland comes out lecturing EU states and citizens about taking in economic migrants and refugees.
Everyone knows he and his cronies aren't ever going to be faced with the consequences of more bodies fighting for the same dwindling state resources.

But as with the USA, people are beginning to look at their so called political masters with not alone derision, but suspicion and utter disdain bordering on hatred.
Of course the media, the political classes and those who always think they know better look at these dissenters as being ungrateful, stupid, cranks, rightwingers, fascists, racists, imperialists, luddites, etc.
Look at the labels here being slammed on people who voted for Brexit or those who claim they will vote for Trump.

There are huge divisions opening up and one side looking down it's nose at the other will only cause the fissures to go deeper.

At the moment it is often inept right wing organisations and egotistical buffoons like Trump who are capitalising on it, but what happens when some really clued in well organised leaders and political groups start harnessing those that see themselves as disenfranchised and unrepresented ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually since membership requires unanimous consent we have every right to block any nation's membership for any reason we choose.

Germany is in the driving seat exactly because I has the largest population. Clearly the idea is not "nonsense"

Just because you say something is not nonsense it doesn't make it so.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the problem I have, is that no one has actually defined what closer union actually means.

Ireland has made it very clear that it objects to a common corporation tax regime across the region, so should that be on the table?

All european countires have been told to implement a minimum wage, should that be the same minimum wage across all countries?

is the vision of "Ever Closer Union" the same now as it was when the eu was created?

I plenty of countries would veto and ever closer union. Each country is in its power to do so.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the problem I have, is that no one has actually defined what closer union actually means

Maybe once we lose the UK anchor, we'll make some more progress.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not on everything.

If population means nothing do you want to tell me why Germany is more influential than the Netherlands?

Or how Wallonia was just as influential as Germany during the trade talks with Canada.

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully that's not how representative democracies work.

Dublin has one-quarter of the entire population of Ireland. Would you say that the entire country is dancing to Dublin's tune? No.

Would you say Germany as the largest state and biggest contributor has been laying down the law to firstly the PIIGS &C and then latterly to her Eastern neighbours ?

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately in any case, fretting about population sizes is nationalist jingoism.

It may be jingoism to you, but to some of us it is looking after our own interests.
When the sh** hit the fan too many of our brethren in Europe were very quick to put the boot in.
Was that a foretaste of what we can expect in the future and even more so in an ever bigger Europe.

No wonder it took us so long to get rid of our neighbour when we are so quick to take someone elses shilling.
At least some of the our fellow Eu members from the East aren't so quick to cowtow to Berlin or Brussels.

seamus wrote: »

The UK has the 3rd largest population in the EU, yet they feel like they're being dictated to. So clearly this notion that a big population puts you in the driving seat is nonsense.

So really we just imagined all those dictats by frau merkel.

I must have imagined how we are now meant to be taking 4,000 refugees she invited into Europe without consultation with her fellow member states.

Like any union the EU has it's problems. As said, it was always heading towards closer union. But until now it has been a beneficial union for Ireland.
We are not properly collecting CT anyway, so maybe we should fix that first locally before getting in a strop about EU directives on it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like any union the EU has it's problems. As said, it was always heading towards closer union. But until now it has been a beneficial union for Ireland.
We are not properly collecting CT anyway, so maybe we should fix that first locally before getting in a strop about EU directives on it.

Right, so the second it stops being beneficial for Ireland we should use our veto to stop it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wtf is airstrip one?

so all countries in the eu should be treated equal, but some more equal than others?

There will always be more powerful nations but there are enough checks and balances imo.
Isn't that why the UK are taking the ball home? Because they cannot be top 'control' dog.