Junker wants all EU countries to be in Eurozone and Schengen

Impetus · 13-09-2017 10:09pm #1

"President Jean-Claude Juncker wants only small reforms of the European Union, but closer cooperation. For example, all EU countries are to accept the euro and join the Schengen zone without border controls, as EU diplomats said before Juncker's principle speech in the European parliament on Wednesday. In addition, the EU should continue to grow: by 2025 it could have around 30 members." NZZ.ch

The majority of people travelling to/from Ireland are travelling to/from countries other than GB. The majority are being inconvenienced and treated as foreigners in many EU countries waiting for passport checking.

If NI wants an open border it must join the Schengen zone and freight traffic could be controlled by a single administrative document type system (online) and perhaps random checks in frontier areas.

Being in Schengen would make the country far more attractive as an airline hub for transatlantic and other flights and from a business and private travel perspective.

https://www.nzz.ch/international/wie-weiter-mit-der-eu-juncker-redet-zur-lage-der-union-ld.1315925

breatheme · 13-09-2017 10:15pm

I say yes, I'd love to see Ireland in Schengen.

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-09-2017 10:24pm

How would it effect our border with the UK?

recedite · 13-09-2017 10:30pm

The guy is in cloud cuckoo land.

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

So he wants more countries in it. There's already too many countries in the EU to allow us to continue operating by consensus. Its in danger of losing its democratic foundation.

The only way Junkers plan could succeed would be if a strong central authority took control, and everybody else was forced to toe the line.
And I'm guessing he thinks he is just the man for the job.
Heil Junker

LeinsterDub · 13-09-2017 10:35pm

recedite wrote: »

So he wants more countries in it. There's already too many countries in the EU to allow us to continue operating by consensus. Its in danger of losing its democratic foundation.

The European project has expanded from 6 to 27 without losing its democratic foundations. A few more countries aren't going to break it now.

MayoSalmon · 13-09-2017 10:38pm

LeinsterDub wrote:

The European project has expanded from 6 to 27 without losing its democratic foundations. A few more countries aren't going to break it now.

I will revisit this comment when Turkey joins..

Sam Russell · 13-09-2017 10:40pm

The only reason we are not in Schengen is because the UK refused to join and we share an open border and consequently have an near identical entry/visa system.

When the UK leaves the EU, we can join it as the UK will no longer have the same entry/visa regime.

Subzero3 · 13-09-2017 10:45pm

Add Ukraine, Turkey and Georgia. Open all borders. Start a war with Russia. Accept all Migrants. Accept a ton of cash from George soros. Nothing to see here.

oppenheimer1 · 13-09-2017 10:47pm

recedite wrote: »

The guy is in cloud cuckoo land.

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

So he wants more countries in it. There's already too many countries in the EU to allow us to continue operating by consensus. Its in danger of losing its democratic foundation.

The only way Junkers plan could succeed would be if a strong central authority took control, and everybody else was forced to toe the line.
And I'm guessing he thinks he is just the man for the job.
Heil Junker

Junckers view is just the commissions vision and it's vision has always been deeper integration and ever closer union. It therefore should not be a surprise that the head of the commission advocates such a view.

The reality is that in many of the member states, the kind of ideas that he has put forward, politically won't fly. That's ok - but if you don't have a bold vision to start with, you will never make any progress.

oscarBravo · 13-09-2017 10:47pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I will revisit this comment when Turkey joins..

If Turkey joins, it will be because it has implemented some pretty radical reforms.

Despite how much some people love drinking the right-wing UK press kool-aid, Turkey isn't joining the EU any time soon.

breatheme · 13-09-2017 10:48pm

Those countries are a long way away from joining the EU. How long has Turkey been a candidate already?

LeinsterDub · 13-09-2017 10:49pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I will revisit this comment when Turkey joins..

We'll be all in the cold cold ground before that happens. Turkey is further away than membership than ever

Subzero3 · 13-09-2017 11:15pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We'll be all in the cold cold ground before that happens. Turkey is further away than membership than ever

All it takes is a colour revolution to oust Erdogan. Que some folks with shiny EU flags appearing on telly saying we want western democracy. You could even have a women like Nuland giving out bread rolls to the people like she did in Ukraine.

recedite · 13-09-2017 11:42pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The European project has expanded from 6 to 27 without losing its democratic foundations. A few more countries aren't going to break it now.

Depends on your definition of "democratic foundations". It has already gone from making decisions "by consensus of all" to making them by "majority rule".

jm08 · 14-09-2017 12:09am

Impetus wrote: »

"President Jean-Claude Juncker wants only small reforms of the European Union, but closer cooperation. For example, all EU countries are to accept the euro and join the Schengen zone without border controls, as EU diplomats said before Juncker's principle speech in the European parliament on Wednesday. In addition, the EU should continue to grow: by 2025 it could have around 30 members."

https://www.nzz.ch/international/wie-weiter-mit-der-eu-juncker-redet-zur-lage-der-union-ld.1315925

What I understood what he said today is that it was highly unlikely that Turkey will join the EU.

As well as that, the condition exists already that any country that joins the EU since Maastricht (1992) has to join the Euro. Denmark & UK had an out option.

As for Schengen - its just Bulgaria & Romania he wants brought into it.

jm08 · 14-09-2017 12:15am

recedite wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "democratic foundations". It has already gone from making decisions "by consensus of all" to making them by "majority rule".

Majority rule is still democratic. And there are still plenty of items that require consensus by all still which is why Turkey will never join the EU. And to agree to majority rule would require consensus by all.

jacksie66 · 14-09-2017 12:18am

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton · 14-09-2017 12:34am

jacksie66 wrote: »

So he wants a United States of Europe. With Germany and France ruling the roost..

Mod note:

Serious posts only please. If you believe that this is an attempt at a move towards the ever closer union rather than being mooted on its own merits, please set out why you think so.

4068ac1elhodqr · 14-09-2017 1:49am

Couple of things:

i) Universal flat-rate Corporation Tax is one of his ambitions, surely this will make certain remote or island locations less attractive than is currently the case.

ii) The 'Barcelona Declaration'... is multilateral cooperation with the MNC's countries of the Mediterranean basin. This seeks to have closer ties with countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, the Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Perhaps this will eventually lead to an even more expanded European super state encompassing the entire Mediterranean.

LeinsterDub · 14-09-2017 7:00am

Subzero3 wrote: »

All it takes is a colour revolution to oust Erdogan. Que some folks with shiny EU flags appearing on telly saying we want western democracy. You could even have a women like Nuland giving out bread rolls to the people like she did in Ukraine.

Everyone has a veto. Cyprus aren't going to approve anytime soon

Samaris · 14-09-2017 8:18am

I'm a bit confused as to how this is being taken as Turkey joining where he pointed out that Turkey cannot join under its current set-up in the same speech.

Also not sure why the freaking out given, as pointed out above, every country has a veto.

El Tarangu · 14-09-2017 8:59am

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Deleted post

Ireland stopped the Nice & Lisbon treaties, Wallonia stopped CETA - so, yes they would.

If Turkey re-institute the death penalty, as they talking about doing at the minute, they will be ineligible to join the EU anyway, so the point will be moot.

MayoSalmon · 14-09-2017 9:10am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Ireland stopped the Nice & Lisbon treaties, Wallonia stopped CETA - so, yes they would.

If Turkey re-institute the death penalty, as they talking about doing at the minute, they will be ineligible to join the EU anyway, so the point will be moot.

Did they? Pretty sure we got asked to the same question twice until we gave them the right answer

murphthesmurf · 14-09-2017 9:14am

So with the majority vote, is it one country - one vote. Or the larger the population the more votes a country gets?
With majority vote, surely places like Cyprus will no longer be able to block anything?
Allowing the countries that border Russia to join would really piss Putin off, not sure the benefits of the extra members would be worth the worsening relations with Russia.
Also isn't one of the commissions plans to have a European Army? How would a neutral Ireland sit with this? At the moment they can veto, but with a more majority vote based system would they not just be made to do so if they lose the vote?

murphthesmurf · 14-09-2017 9:20am

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Did they? Pretty sure we got asked to the same question twice until we gave them the right answer

For the liberal left this is how democracy works. If they don't agree with the outcome, the vote should be taken again until they do. Look at the protests against the Brexit referendum. People protested and marched through the streets in an atrempt to overthrow it and have it taken again as it wasn't 'progressive' enough for them. Same with Trump, he was democratically elected by the U.S.A. voting system. There were protests even in Dublin, to overthrow the result of the U.S. electionand take it again. The self entitlement of the lefties is mind blowing.

HugoRune · 14-09-2017 9:35am

oscarBravo wrote: »

If Turkey joins, it will be because it has implemented some pretty radical reforms.

Despite how much some people love drinking the right-wing UK press kool-aid, Turkey isn't joining the EU any time soon.

Indeed. The main cheerleader for Turkey joining the EU has voted to leave the EU. Now that the UK won't be part of the EU, Turkey doesn't really have anyone within the EU pushing for their inclusion.

Although for some reason the UK foreign secretary still seems to be very keen on Turkey joining the union that he led a campaign to leave. This is just weird:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/boris-johnson-uk-support-turkey-ankara-bid-to-join-eu-despite-brexit-washing-machine-a7332651.html

Peregrinus · 14-09-2017 9:45am

murphthesmurf wrote: »

So with the majority vote, is it one country - one vote. Or the larger the population the more votes a country gets?
With majority vote, surely places like Cyprus will no longer be able to block anything?

It's qualified majority. To get a decision, you need the assent of 55% of the member states representing 65% of the population. This gives (in effect) disproportionate weight to member states with smaller populations.

Cyprus can't block a qualified majority. But, then, neither can Germany. No single member state can block a qualified majority.

On the other hand, not all subjects are decided by qualified majority; a range of subjects require decisions to be unanimous, and any member state can block a unanimous decision.

The admission of new member states requires unanimity so, yes, Cyprus could block the admission of Turkey.

recedite · 14-09-2017 9:58am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's qualified majority. To get a decision, you need the assent of 55% of the member states representing 65% of the population. This gives (in effect) disproportionate weight to member states with smaller populations.

The "65% of the population" clause was introduced to give extra clout to countries with large populations.

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, not all subjects are decided by qualified majority; a range of subjects require decisions to be unanimous, and any member state can block a unanimous decision.

But the list of decisions requiring consensus is shrinking fast, more or less in inverse proportion to the number of EU member states.

El Tarangu · 14-09-2017 10:00am

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Did they? Pretty sure we got asked to the same question twice until we gave them the right answer

No - when they were rejected, they had to change the treaties to address Ireland's concerns.

In each case we were asked to vote on the new, amended treaty.

ZeroThreat · 14-09-2017 10:10am

murphthesmurf wrote: »

So with the majority vote, is it one country - one vote. Or the larger the population the more votes a country gets?
With majority vote, surely places like Cyprus will no longer be able to block anything?
Allowing the countries that border Russia to join would really piss Putin off, not sure the benefits of the extra members would be worth the worsening relations with Russia.
Also isn't one of the commissions plans to have a European Army? How would a neutral Ireland sit with this? At the moment they can veto, but with a more majority vote based system would they not just be made to do so if they lose the vote?

which countries do you mean exactly?

There's already several countries in the EU bordering Russia afaik, the baltics, Finland and Poland (via Kaliningrad).

recedite · 14-09-2017 11:09am

El Tarangu wrote: »

In each case we were asked to vote on the new, amended treaty.

Presumably you can tell us what the difference was, then?

Jim2007 · 14-09-2017 11:17am

recedite wrote: »

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

The Schengen system is far better than the current UK system, where they are going on estimates of who left etc...

Every entry/exit is scanned - when you walk up to passport control, they know if you have over stayed

Every traffic stop - the police know if you over stayed

Random checks are carried out within the Schengen area

Unlike the UK, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they have the right to be there, not the other way around.

14-09-2017 11:26am

Jim2007 wrote: »

The Schengen system is far better than the current UK system, where they are going on estimates of who left etc...

Every entry/exit is scanned - when you walk up to passport control, they know if you have over stayed

Every traffic stop - the police know if you over stayed

Random checks are carried out within the Schengen area

Unlike the UK, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they have the right to be there, not the other way around.

I doubt if the RoI will ever join Schengen because of the border with NI. The government here will want the CTA to continue I think.

murphthesmurf · 14-09-2017 12:21pm

ZeroThreat wrote: »

which countries do you mean exactly?

There's already several countries in the EU bordering Russia afaik, the baltics, Finland and Poland (via Kaliningrad).

You're right, there is only the 2 biggest neighbours left, Belarus and Ukraine. With the Russian military drill due next week Belarus may become part of Russia

so no chance of them joining EU then. It is mostly Nato that angers Russia, but the prospect of a European army must not sit well wth them either.
I wonder, with a European army what effect this would have on NATO.

Fratton Fred · 14-09-2017 1:37pm

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You're right, there is only the 2 biggest neighbours left, Belarus and Ukraine. With the Russian military drill due next week Belarus may become part of Russia so no chance of them joining EU then. It is mostly Nato that angers Russia, but the prospect of a European army must not sit well wth them either.
I wonder, with a European army what effect this would have on NATO.

it would be a direct clash, unless the eu army became a member of NATO, which seems pointless because all the significant armies in europe already are,

murphaph · 14-09-2017 1:37pm

Juncker does not expect Ireland to join Schengen. The border makes that practically impossible, sadly.

jm08 · 14-09-2017 4:19pm

recedite wrote: »

Presumably you can tell us what the difference was, then?

In case you can't, the link has the full assurances given:

The one on Neutrality for example:

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.
It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation,
It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.
It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirement, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

It reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of D reann, in accordance with Irish law.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/lisbon-assurances-the-text-in-full-1.784991

Samaris · 14-09-2017 7:04pm

murphthesmurf wrote: »

For the liberal left this is how democracy works. If they don't agree with the outcome, the vote should be taken again until they do.

I think you'll find that an outcome being rejected, being renegotiated and presented again for a vote on is kinda how democracy works. What do the right wing want if democracy is a left-wing thing?

murphthesmurf · 14-09-2017 7:31pm

Samaris wrote: »

I think you'll find that an outcome being rejected, being renegotiated and presented again for a vote on is kinda how democracy works. What do the right wing want if democracy is a left-wing thing?

Not really, take Brexit. Its was a simple question 'in or out', people voted out. Protesters took to the streets immediately and wanted a fresh vote. What if that one gets the in vote, then the out protesters take to the streets for a new vote. That one is then out again. Where do you stop? When it gets to the outcome you want?
What was the aim of the protests in Dublin against the outcome of the US election? The protesters didn't like the outcome and wanted another vote. People from one country wanting the democratically elected leader of another to be thrown out and a new one elected who they like. I don't know what the right would like, but I suspect they'd like the left to respect the outcome of a democrat process.

Samaris · 14-09-2017 7:32pm

recedite wrote: »

Presumably you can tell us what the difference was, then?

There were differences.

The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty was the ratification of amendments to the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty of Rome - including placing explicit legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so into writing for the first time. It was a major reform treaty on updating the de facto constitutions of the EU.

The issues that were most raised by the Irish people were around taxation, neutrality, family, social and ethical issues. Cowen's government went back to the table and negotiated exemptions for Ireland on the following;

Regarding neutrality, Ireland (along with the UK) have an opt-out on committing troops to military agreements, Ireland's neutrality was guarenteed.
Written-in guarentees on various other issues - that nothing was going to change regarding taxation by this bill, that there would be no policy enacted that would affect the Irish constitution in terms of abortion (mostly) and a couple of other things, but those were the ones that really had people up in arms. The abortion thing had been a complete red herring, so that didn't change anything, but the neutrality point was important.

It was returned to the Irish people and we said yes to the amended treaty. The aggro on that is really misplaced.

recedite · 14-09-2017 8:11pm

Samaris wrote: »

The abortion thing had been a complete red herring, so that didn't change anything, but the neutrality point was important.

All the "assurances" were red herrings. There was nothing in the first version that committed Ireland to joining a European army. That was a rumour started by the far lefties.
The treaty was all about a gradual centralising of power.
In particular giving the larger countries the ability to ram through their proposals using population based majority voting, on a whole range of subjects, which had previously required a unanimous consensus.

Samaris · 15-09-2017 8:51am

Yeah there were a lot of red herrings about it. The abortion thing was a complete herring!

The majority voting thing was practical, but yes, it's worth keeping an eye on. the 65% of population isn't actually that awful, it slightly balances off the 55% of countries (which benefits the smaller countries), so you do need both. A decision that all the small countries object to but the big ones want (or that the big ones want and te smaller ones object to) is probably not a good idea for either set in the long run.

No, there are issues with how the EU is run, but I don't think that was one of them.

Do you agree, btw, that a vote, renegotiation and securing of concessions and changes where required, and then a second vote is pretty democractic?

MayoSalmon · 15-09-2017 9:03am

Samaris wrote: »

Do you agree, btw, that a vote, renegotiation and securing of concessions and changes where required, and then a second vote is pretty democractic?

Its about as democratic as asking the British to vote on Brexit again with some small renegotiations to the leave conditions..

Chips Lovell · 15-09-2017 9:07am

recedite wrote: »

All the "assurances" were red herrings. There was nothing in the first version that committed Ireland to joining a European army. That was a rumour started by the far lefties.

Exactly and a significant proportion of the electorate fell for it:

A total of 33 per cent of the electorate thought that the introduction of conscription into a European army was included in the Lisbon Treaty while 34 per cent believed that it would end Ireland’s control over the country’s abortion policy.

In the circumstances, clearing up those misconceptions made sense.

BlitzKrieg · 15-09-2017 12:05pm

There is one aspect of Juncker's speech that would have me cautious to see how things proceed.
Thankfully it is something that will go directly to a referendum as it will require a change to both the the EU treaty but also the Irish constitution in multiple areas:

Irish neutrality is specifically protected by 2 parts

the first in the Irish constitution is this (Added via 2nd Nice Referendum):

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.

Article 42:

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Juncker has stated he wants to change the bolded part to QMV. Which is something, I'd be against if it was just simply that. I'd want the constitution and treaty to be updated to protect Ireland from that change.
Saying that I understand why the current system might be unappealing to some other EU members as it makes the article mostly useless as any attempt to do any form of Common Union defence policy, even excluding Ireland in the current form will still need the Irish government to approve it, which i imagine no Taoiseach will be comfortable doing as it could lead to quite a political pickle domestically.
I dont think it's something that will fly beyond the lip service in the speech. It's been reported that most politics in the EU treat the 'EU army' as a sort of ever present political football to kick around with no genuine will to seriously push it beyond what currently exists. Especially with the EPP (Juncker's party) but it's still the only part that raised an eyebrow from me related to Ireland.

murphthesmurf · 15-09-2017 1:22pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There is one aspect of Juncker's speech that would have me cautious to see how things proceed.
Thankfully it is something that will go directly to a referendum as it will require a change to both the the EU treaty but also the Irish constitution in multiple areas:

Irish neutrality is specifically protected by 2 parts

the first in the Irish constitution is this (Added via 2nd Nice Referendum):

Article 42:

Juncker has stated he wants to change the bolded part to QMV. Which is something, I'd be against if it was just simply that. I'd want the constitution and treaty to be updated to protect Ireland from that change.
Saying that I understand why the current system might be unappealing to some other EU members as it makes the article mostly useless as any attempt to do any form of Common Union defence policy, even excluding Ireland in the current form will still need the Irish government to approve it, which i imagine no Taoiseach will be comfortable doing as it could lead to quite a political pickle domestically.
I dont think it's something that will fly beyond the lip service in the speech. It's been reported that most politics in the EU treat the 'EU army' as a sort of ever present political football to kick around with no genuine will to seriously push it beyond what currently exists. Especially with the EPP (Juncker's party) but it's still the only part that raised an eyebrow from me related to Ireland.

A European army would be pointless, it would work in much the same way as the UN. The UN always reminds me of the episode of Father Ted where they are protesting against the filum. The EU would be much the same thing, huge atrocities taking place with the EU army and UN standing at the side shouting 'down with that sort of thing'. Not that I want to see the EU start invading countries, just that it would be a toothless dog tied to a lamp post yapping away.

Impetus · 15-09-2017 1:55pm

recedite wrote: »

The guy is in cloud cuckoo land.

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

So he wants more countries in it. There's already too many countries in the EU to allow us to continue operating by consensus. Its in danger of losing its democratic foundation.

The only way Junkers plan could succeed would be if a strong central authority took control, and everybody else was forced to toe the line.
And I'm guessing he thinks he is just the man for the job.
Heil Junker

Schengen allows a country to pause its operation for up to six months where there are perceived local risks. These pauses can take place for example on the French-Italian frontier if there is concern over teams playing in a football match in Nice. Which is no big deal

Impetus · 15-09-2017 2:50pm

jacksie66 wrote: »

So he wants a United States of Europe. With Germany and France ruling the roost..

No I don't. While I am a federalist (the Swiss meaning of the word - eg every Canton (county) in Switzerland has a parliament and usually a senate, and is often a republic itself (eg Geneva), Switzerland (and Iceland) are in Schengen but not in the EU. This allows decision to be pushed down to the lowest level - eg city or comune level. There is no connection between federalism or "USE" and Schengen.

Schengen has massive resources (SIS2 communications system) to prevent people who do not meet certain criteria from entering the entire zone. It has a single Schengen visa - for third countries - eg Chinese when visiting Europe - meaning they just need one Schengen visa. Few Chinese tourists end up in Ireland compared with Schengen states.

Malta is in Schengen. It is close to the north African exodus problem - but there are few of these boat people in the country, despite Malta's modest naval system (it is a neutral country). The few that are learn Maltese and do street cleaning and trash collection jobs - which the Maltese (unemployment 4.5%) do not want to do.

If ID checking helped, you might as well have passport control on all the national roads in Ireland, controlling access to each county. And perhaps to be sure to be sure, each town's access roads should have immigration control points! With any luck you could drive from Dublin to Bantry in 10h, allowing for passport control delays.

When a Schengen country for some reason leaves Schengen for a few weeks/months, the checks are random and informal and focused on high risk flights.

There is no central control over the SIS2 system. It is simply a communications platform, allowing a member government frontier point to scan a passport (usually for arrivals from outside Schengen) and check the details of the aspiring entrant with the immigration/security computer systems of all other Schengen countries. Which provides a large intelligence database - unavailable to non-Schengen members.

Relying on the so called common travel area is very risky because Britain is full of (perhaps 7 million) ethnically potential 'terrorists' (to use the Thatcher word). Furthermore many of them are resentful of the treatment they receive, even if they hold British passports. Due to the racist behaviour of fellow passport holders.

I am not in favour of the EU adding a big layer of federal government a la the USA.

Today's Financial Times has a chart showing the number of civil servants working in GB (total 423'000). Of these over 50'000 ("defence") and 22'000 "home office". Both of these categories are security. Other services (like health) which is almost totally state dominated in GB, foreign office, education, treasury, trade etc have (on a bar chart) almost unread-ably small employment levels.

I do not want Europe to have to waste money on another layer of government or massive 'security' adventure like Anglo-Saxon countries, because they can't get on with their neighbours.

Impetus · 15-09-2017 2:55pm

Louise Mealy Teacup wrote: »

Couple of things:

i) Universal flat-rate Corporation Tax is one of his ambitions, surely this will make certain remote or island locations less attractive than is currently the case.

ii) The 'Barcelona Declaration'... is multilateral cooperation with the MNC's countries of the Mediterranean basin. This seeks to have closer ties with countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, the Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Perhaps this will eventually lead to an even more expanded European super state encompassing the entire Mediterranean.

It has noting to do with Corporate income taxes ("Corporation Tax" is a misnomer invented in GB and slavishly copied by IRL). It is a tax on corporate income, not on the corporation itself (like LPT).

If Algeria etc were to enter Schengen - a 1 in a zillion chance - it would have to clear not only politicians but also referenda in several European countries. Anyway these northern Africa countries don't have effective borders to their south. So what you are suggesting is that there is a risk that all of Africa would be admitted to Schengen. Get real.

blanch152 · 15-09-2017 5:51pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Did they? Pretty sure we got asked to the same question twice until we gave them the right answer

Don't remember ever being asked the same question a second time in any referendum, even the divorce and abortion referenda had different questions second time around. You must be confused.

Samaris · 16-09-2017 10:03am

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Its about as democratic as asking the British to vote on Brexit again with some small renegotiations to the leave conditions..

Can you specify? If everything that the Leavers wanted was solved through talks, you'd still insist on going through with Brexit because it had been voted on last year and thus must be enacted?

I don't quite get the similarities you indicate.

Junker wants all EU countries to be in Eurozone and Schengen

Comments