[Deleted User] wrote: » If anything, that's an argument in favor of Euroscepticism.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well yes there were reservations in the EU over it as you point out but it was also not liked by hard Brexiteers in the UK. But from Ireland's point of view it did trap the UK in a favourable trading relationship whereas Brexiteers might have favoured something more akin to a Canada style arrangement and this could still happen under the current WA and a Tory government.
fash wrote: » Actually it merely describes how the world works and how it has always worked- the small get bullied. Ireland's history is an illustration of that: bullied by its bigger neighbour- until the EU came around - a club of small nations with equal rights. Of course equality is anathema to a certain type of particularly English Brit - hence brexit. The UK is now a very small fish which will be forced into orbit of one of the great powers - most likely the EU -. or maybe the US. The UK has yet to come to terms with its lack of agency - the belief in exceptionalism remains - hence the repeated humiliations of the brexit process. To stick with the US however would cost the UK a fortune but maybe the humiliation of brexit requires it for psychological reasons.
Deleted User wrote: » Precisely because I don't want a European Parliament. I don't identify as "European"; it is not a national identity. Whilst I am "European" by virtue of geography, my nationality is Irish and I want Irish affairs, as much as possible, managed by an Irish Government directly elected by the people. I don't want European institutions, parliaments and presidents making decisions on a Europe-wide basis. I don't want 2 sets of elections, Irish and EU. I want Irish elections and governments throughout Europe working together.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing. Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.
briany wrote: » Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?
prawnsambo wrote: » Only if you're of an hysterical disposition.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Ignore if you wish. It's only going to take a spark. What will it be? Taxation? Defence?... People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor? There seems to be an underlying assumption with the federalists that people across Europe don't value their own country's sovereignty and right of self determination. This is a big mistake.
Bit cynical wrote: » However in the event that the Assembly votes against continuation, and I agree this is not a likely outcome, of the arrangement there is nothing obliging the UK to prevent a hard border. This is the problem. Then we are in a situation the previous backstop was supposed to insure against.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Anyone who is familiar with European history will know that nearly every single 'country'* is, in reality, the result of smaller states being united (in various ways both violent and non-violent) to form larger political/military/economic units. Ireland included. Some of these larger units are federal. So, as a student of history you will know that the trend is towards forming larger blocs not fracturing back to small states -where would that end? Can we 'hope' to see Mercia, Wessex, Saxony, Burgundy, Lombardy, Aragon etc return? Will the people of Northumbria decide they are nothing more than an ignored region in a larger union whose Prime Minister sits in far off London caring nothing for them? They would have justification to think that way. What happens then? *Not all which explains Liechtenstein, Andorra etc.
CelticRambler wrote: » But you're saying that that's what the EU is aiming to become, and you wish for its downfall. The States of the US used not to be a nation until the individual states ceded part of their sovereignty to the bloc. Apart from the fact that the USA is not one nation - in most respects, Europe has more sensible pan-national rules, e.g. mutual recognition of professional qualifications - what's the difference? Why is what's OK for the US not OK for Europe?
prawnsambo wrote: » The USA is a federation of states. Did you not know this?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The USA is a nation. The states are not countries. Did you not know that?
Imreoir2 wrote: » I would somewhat disagree with you there, compare the map of Europe in 1910 to the map of Europe today. The trend over the last few hundred years is for greater slef determination and the break-up of large empires.
CelticRambler wrote: » You're looking at it too short-termly! Bannasidhe was referring to a longer historic pattern - something I came face-to-face with in the last fortnight, stomping through the territories of Savoie and Dauphiné, with a gaze cast towards Piedmont in the distance bouncing off the enclave of Orange (as in house of King Billy). Eventually they all decided to row in behind the King of France ... except for Piedmont which was left for the Italians ... but then the lads from Savoie borrowed a bit of Italy as a kind of retail therapy, which is why they still speak French there on the wrong side of the Alps in the north of that country.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Yes, there is. It's called the GFA and the peace process. The same thing that has obliged the British government to make commitments to an open border as part of the Brexit process over the last three years and obliged the British government to accept a deal that includes provisions to keep the border open. These issues will not have gone away in four years time.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving. Europe has very little of this. Economically what has Ireland in common with France? Socially what has Ireland in common with Slovakia? Culturally what has Ireland in common with Greece? ... I'm all for co-operation. We don't need an EU anthem, a parliament and the myriad of other developing symbols of statehood to do trade deals. I stand by my prediction that if things continue evolving as they are we will see nationalist movements rise across Europe and I see trouble ahead. There is no need to be creating some sort of EU superstate.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving. Europe has very little of this.
