Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ireland to leave EU should Britain exit ?
Options
Comments
-
Ireland is also currently experiencing negative inflation:Right now, we are one of the fastest growing economies in EU while the rest stave off deflation.
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/cpi/consumerpriceindexapril2015/#.VV5lMk9Viko0 -
Steady there; you'll fall off that soapbox.Peter Anthony wrote: »We should leave the EU now before it disintegrates into rubble in the coming years. The fact we now are bowing our head like the good little Irish dogs we are and taking in the Mediterranean migrants in their thousands is just the beginning.
I've no wish to be part of Europes "progressive" version of the Soviet Union and feel its about time a political party offered the Irish electorate a Eurosceptic option. The citizens of the EU have no power in the direction its going, and the fat cats in Brussels are completely unaccountable for their decisions and actions.
The day I let some Swedish feminist "progressive" muppet speak for me and this country, will be my last.
I live outside of the EU and it makes practically no difference to difference to how borders are kept.MathDebater wrote: »Have you ever travelled outside of the EU? Queuing up for a few minutes or applying for a tourist visa online is a small price to pay to regain control of our borders.
Movement of EU nationals here in Switzerland is is much the same as the EU, with the referendum on the subject, a few years back, having made bugger-all difference. Ultimately the Swiss have signed agreements with the EU that they must abide by if they still want 55% of their trade to continue with the bloc. And asylum policy is governed by international law - treaties that everyone has signed and must abide by. Where it comes to non-EU nationals, Switzerland is probably more liberal that Ireland.
So with due respects, you don't appear to have a clue.
Fiscal policy.If loose monetary policy continues for the medium term in Europe, which I think it will, what's to stop foreign banks coming in to the Irish market and overheating it again with cheap credit, because they're searching for better returns than what's available in the rest of Europe right now?
The Swiss cantons all have very different economies running at very different speeds. Wallis and Jura are disasters, while Zurich or Zug are doing well. They seem to manage fine without monitory policy. Come to think of it, so does the US, or did you think that Mississippi and California are economically on a par?
Indeed, one of the problems with the property bubble is not that we had no monitory control, but that when we did use fiscal policy, we actually did so by making things worse - dropping stamp duty? Winner of a policy in an already overheated market.
Actually, the principle failure has always been that they talk a load of crap.KingBrian2 wrote: »One of the failures of the Eurosceptics here in Ireland is their failure to distinguish German creditors investing in this country during the boom with Europe as a whole.
The OP made a series of claims, none of which turned out to be true in reality. Gallag came out with a few whoppers too, and then we got the three stooges here, of which the first came out with nothing other than a vacuous diatribe. At least gallag responded, the OP and these three will likely never be heard of again here, following the usual patter of 'fling some crap at the debate, then run, hoping some will stick'. The pure ignorance is breathtaking.
So, it's not so much that the failure of Eurosceptics here in Ireland is their failure to distinguish German creditors investing in this country during the boom with Europe as a whole, but a simple case of failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality.0 -
I think everyone takes the benefits of being a member of the EU for granted.
It would also make free movement of people coming into and leaving Ireland for work much more difficult.0 -
Peter Anthony wrote: »We should leave the EU now before it disintegrates into rubble in the coming years.
The fact is that when the chips were down during the recession the EU did not fold, the stronger partners solidly behind the weaker ones and even today after all the crap Greece have dumped on them, they still have not walked a way - that is a pretty strong union, so I would not hold out much home of it disintegrating any time soon. No matter how much you wish it!Peter Anthony wrote: »The fact we now are bowing our head like the good little Irish dogs we are and taking in the Mediterranean migrants in their thousands is just the beginning.
First of all we're taking in thousands as you seem to imagine and secondly as decent human beings it is the right thing to do.Peter Anthony wrote: »I've no wish to be part of Europes "progressive" version of the Soviet Union and feel its about time a political party offered the Irish electorate a Eurosceptic option. The citizens of the EU have no power in the direction its going, and the fat cats in Brussels are completely unaccountable for their decisions and actions.
Well when are you starting your own party then? Mind you given that the majority of voters across the EU voted for parties that support more integration, I'm not sure you you'll get far. Especially since you don't seem to under stand how the EU is governed!Peter Anthony wrote: »The day I let some Swedish feminist "progressive" muppet speak for me and this country, will be my last.
I was not aware that there are any Swedish women in the Dail, the government or elected as Irish MEPs.....0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Steady there; you'll fall off that soapbox.
I live outside of the EU and it makes practically no difference to difference to how borders are kept.
Movement of EU nationals here in Switzerland is is much the same as the EU, with the referendum on the subject, a few years back, having made bugger-all difference. Ultimately the Swiss have signed agreements with the EU that they must abide by if they still want 55% of their trade to continue with the bloc. And asylum policy is governed by international law - treaties that everyone has signed and must abide by. Where it comes to non-EU nationals, Switzerland is probably more liberal that Ireland.
So with due respects, you don't appear to have a clue.
Fiscal policy.
The Swiss cantons all have very different economies running at very different speeds. Wallis and Jura are disasters, while Zurich or Zug are doing well. They seem to manage fine without monitory policy. Come to think of it, so does the US, or did you think that Mississippi and California are economically on a par?
Indeed, one of the problems with the property bubble is not that we had no monitory control, but that when we did use fiscal policy, we actually did so by making things worse - dropping stamp duty? Winner of a policy in an already overheated market.
Actually, the principle failure has always been that they talk a load of crap.
The OP made a series of claims, none of which turned out to be true in reality. Gallag came out with a few whoppers too, and then we got the three stooges here, of which the first came out with nothing other than a vacuous diatribe. At least gallag responded, the OP and these three will likely never be heard of again here, following the usual patter of 'fling some crap at the debate, then run, hoping some will stick'. The pure ignorance is breathtaking.
So, it's not so much that the failure of Eurosceptics here in Ireland is their failure to distinguish German creditors investing in this country during the boom with Europe as a whole, but a simple case of failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
I will admit a fair view of them are bonkers but among a few their are some Eurosceptics that deeply distrust Brussels and Frankfurt. The waste in the bureaucracy and they way negotiations are handled. More has to be streamlined and a great many people want a less bulging Union with members being allowed in for the sake of making up the numbers.0 -
Advertisement
-
How would they lose the market. Germany is the world's leading manufacturer of top-end cars and those people who buy such cars would likely continue buying them, even if there were new tariffs.Or we could just push for free trade deals without political trappings, like we signed up for originally, we have a very strong case for this, for example if Germany decided against a simple free trade arrangement they would lose one of their biggest markets for exporting Mercedes, BMW and VW group cars plunging them into recession and causing a lot of unemployment.
Magically, overnight. Just like that. When such things are usually multi-lateral and take years to agree?Also, if the EU decided to cut of its nose, the UK would overnight be able to negotiate trade arrangements
Clutching at straws?her benefits would be a boom in the fishing industry
Wrong. The UK would potentially lose 5 million jobs, as it lost exports and manufacturers.less unemployment in the host workforce
In contributions to the EU budget? But it would also lose in receipts from the EU budget.a direct saving of over £50 million sterling per day.
The EU doesn't have much of a military - it's mostly a series of coordinating offices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Western_European_UnionAm not saying it will be a cake walk but there is no point pretending the EU holds all the cards, another thing would be the EU would lose half it's military might overnight forcing all EU countries to up their military budgets.
You seem to not appreciate that there is a huge overlap between the EU and NATO, which makes me thing you haven't actually studied the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#/media/File:EU_and_NATO.svg0 -
What waste?KingBrian2 wrote: »The waste in the bureaucracy...
What's wrong with it?...and they way negotiations are handled.
That would be the Union with a population of half a billion people and a total civil service smaller than individual government departments in most member states?More has to be streamlined and a great many people want a less bulging Union...
[citation needed]...with members being allowed in for the sake of making up the numbers.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »KingBrian2 wrote: »The waste in the bureaucracy...What waste? What's wrong with it? That would be the Union with a population of half a billion people and a total civil service smaller than individual government departments in most member states? [citation needed]
The arrival of new countries from the east and south means a lot more languages and adding an even larger population to the EU. Ukraine and Turkey as cases in point. Serbia has not yet joined yet. Brussels does not need to direct all these matters. On some areas a common approach is necessary but on others member states can be much better at dealing with these issues.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »The arrival of new countries from the east and south means a lot more languages and adding an even larger population to the EU. Ukraine and Turkey as cases in point. Serbia has not yet joined yet.
Your evidence for the bloated EU is three countries that aren't members.
...okay...
Yes. That's called the subsidiarity principle. It's enshrined in the treaties.Brussels does not need to direct all these matters. On some areas a common approach is necessary but on others member states can be much better at dealing with these issues.0 -
How would they lose the market. Germany is the world's leading manufacturer of top-end cars and those people who buy such cars would likely continue buying them, even if there were new tariffs.
Magically, overnight. Just like that. When such things are usually multi-lateral and take years to agree?
Clutching at straws?
Wrong. The UK would potentially lose 5 million jobs, as it lost exports and manufacturers.
In contributions to the EU budget? But it would also lose in receipts from the EU budget.
The EU doesn't have much of a military - it's mostly a series of coordinating offices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Western_European_Union
You seem to not appreciate that there is a huge overlap between the EU and NATO, which makes me thing you haven't actually studied the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#/media/File:EU_and_NATO.svg
For a start there would be closer to 400 million people in the EU without the UK, or if you will about a third of the population of China, yes people will still buy german cars and no doubt the exchequer will do nicely out of it, there will definitely be a change on the roads, more American cars etc.
Yes trade deals take time, but the next day we would be able to start, but your the guy that thinks the EU deals with things like this quickly and efficiently lol
£50 million net per day! And how will we lose 5 million jobs when we will literally have billions of people to trade with? All those new markets with fast growing economy's while the EU will come out of quantitative easing and probably go in recession again, How does the EU figures look without the UK? Yep, the UK pretty much keeps the EU out of recession while creating more jobs than the EU put together! Sick man Europe, with anti EU sentiment growing fast.
Also I would support pulling out of any defence pacts with the EU, the EU wants everyone to protect it while wanting to be insular and not trade with the same. I can imagine as Russia knocks Polands door yous will be wanting a "relationship" with the UK.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why would multinationals move FROM an EU country to the UK? What possible advantage could that offer them?
Our votes actually count more per individual than "the big boys". The larger the electorate, the more difficult it is for extremist views to take hold. In my view this adds greatly to stability. Compared to almost any other people on earth, Europeans live comfortable and safe lives - This is worth maintaining.
Do we? What parts and why is that a disadvantage in any way? In the UK, where immigration is a bigger factor than here, immigrants actually add more to an economy than they take. There is no limited number of jobs or the like. The more people, the more services are required, the more jobs there are. Can you explain why "we need to control our borders"?
What does this mean? We are part of a collective and we have a voice in that collective. I understand that the workings of the EU can be frustrating, but if we suffer any disadvantages because of our membership, I am convinced the advantages far outweigh them.
Actually, the EU (excluding the UK) is our largest trading partner, followed by the US, followed by the UK.[/quote
I would love to hear the OPs answer to this dissection. after an abrupt order to "discuss" the OP buggered off.0 -
¨KingBrian2 wrote: »I will admit a fair view of them are bonkers but among a few their are some Eurosceptics that deeply distrust Brussels and Frankfurt. The waste in the bureaucracy and they way negotiations are handled. More has to be streamlined and a great many people want a less bulging Union with members being allowed in for the sake of making up the numbers.
Look, no one is suggesting that the EU is perfect. Personally I believe that the massive land-grab we did after the fall of communism was, if not a mistake, too much too quickly. I also think that the EU is not in everyone's interests - the Swiss are better off out than in for the foreseeable future.
But if you look at the 'Eurosceptics' who have posted here, their contributions have been little more than throwing crap at the wall and hoping it'll stick. Then vanishing again. Presuming half of them are not really sock-puppets for the same deranged and disturbed poster who has made it his life mission to bring down the lizard-men of Brussels.
Even those, like gallag, who try to engage, rather than soapbox and run, come out with the most appalling tripe, which as a testament to their unrivaled ignorance of history, politics and economics. For example:
I mean seriously? How would the EU employment have looked without the UK two or three years ago? Better - or are we only allowed to consider the UK when it's out of and not the years it's in recession?Yep, the UK pretty much keeps the EU out of recession while creating more jobs than the EU put together! Sick man Europe, with anti EU sentiment growing fast.
Even now (well March), unemployment in Germany is still lower than the UK, which given it's a more populous country doesn't take much to do the math and figure out who's creating more jobs.
Makes one wonder why some persist in spewing out things that are simply false to support their arguments?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: Ȭ
Look, no one is suggesting that the EU is perfect. Personally I believe that the massive land-grab we did after the fall of communism was, if not a mistake, too much too quickly. I also think that the EU is not in everyone's interests - the Swiss are better off out than in for the foreseeable future.
But if you look at the 'Eurosceptics' who have posted here, their contributions have been little more than throwing crap at the wall and hoping it'll stick. Then vanishing again. Presuming half of them are not really sock-puppets for the same deranged and disturbed poster who has made it his life mission to bring down the lizard-men of Brussels.
Even those, like gallag, who try to engage, rather than soapbox and run, come out with the most appalling tripe, which as a testament to their unrivaled ignorance of history, politics and economics. For example:
I mean seriously? How would the EU employment have looked without the UK two or three years ago? Better - or are we only allowed to consider the UK when it's out of and not the years it's in recession?
Even now (well March), unemployment in Germany is still lower than the UK, which given it's a more populous country doesn't take much to do the math and figure out who's creating more jobs.
Makes one wonder why some persist in spewing out things that are simply false to support their arguments?
You seem really angry, and rude! Germany does indeed have a lower unemployment rate than the UK, I never said otherwise, but the gap is only about half a percent now and shrinking fast because the UK is creating jobs faster than Germany! If it helps you can look at the difference 5 years ago and that should paint the picture of who is creating more jobs! How about instead of being so ignorant and calming I am "spewing out things that are simply false to support their arguments?" You post some evidence that discredits my points.
You said...."Even now (well March), unemployment in Germany is still lower than the UK, which given it's a more populous country doesn't take much to do the math and figure out who's creating more jobs."
To be clear I never once mentioned unemployment rates, but it's comical that you believe Germany has a higher employment growth rate because it has a lower unemployment rate and a larger population, that's not how growth is calculated. Apparently it does take much to do the math and figure it out lol
You said...."I mean seriously? How would the EU employment have looked without the UK two or three years ago? Better - or are we only allowed to consider the UK when it's out of and not the years it's in recession?"
Yes, Better, but are we not best to look at recent results? Even projected figures are more important than historic figures to this discussion.
You said....."Even those, like gallag, who try to engage, rather than soapbox and run, come out with the most appalling tripe, which as a testament to their unrivaled ignorance of history, politics and economics. "
Man that's just rude, i said the UK is creating more jobs than the EU put together, Factually true, The UK creating more jobs than Germany, factually true! Remove the UK growth figures from the EU average would show the EU in recession, Factually true. How about you debate like an adult now? You should be setting a better example.0 -
You do understand this is a temporary thing? That economies rise and fall, and that it was not so two years ago and may not be so again in another two?You seem really angry, and rude! Germany does indeed have a lower unemployment rate than the UK, I never said otherwise, but the gap is only about half a percent now and shrinking fast because the UK is creating jobs faster than Germany!
And ergo your claim that "UK pretty much keeps the EU out of recession", as if their economy underpins (and always has) the EU, was utter bull. A few years back it was Germany that helped to drag the overall EU average out of recession, not the UK. Or are we not talking about unemployment? Trade perhaps? If so Germany still dwarfs the UK. So how do you justify you daft claim? Tell us, what's the logic?
Have you already forgotten that whopper two pages ago on the EU should be "a simple common market that was the original idea and promise of the EU" - a claim that I demonstrated, citing unequivocal intentions otherwise, that you were telling a big fat porkie?calming I am "spewing out things that are simply false to support their arguments?" You post some evidence that discredits my points.
I noticed when this was pointed out to you, you went quiet on the subject. Have you blanked it out or do you remember it?
So you have told falsehoods. You've come out with crazy, unsubstantiated claims. I don't know if these falsehoods are intentional attempts to deceive, ignorance, or based upon some deluded preconceptions, but do you wonder why people might loose patience with you when you keep on coming out with them?
So please explain why you keep on coming out with these things, with such frequency?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »You do understand this is a temporary thing? That economies rise and fall, and that it was not so two years ago and may not be so again in another two?
And ergo your claim that "UK pretty much keeps the EU out of recession", as if their economy underpins (and always has) the EU, was utter bull. A few years back it was Germany that helped to drag the overall EU average out of recession, not the UK. Or are we not talking about unemployment? Trade perhaps? If so Germany still dwarfs the UK. So how do you justify you daft claim? Tell us, what's the logic?
Have you already forgotten that whopper two pages ago on the EU should be "a simple common market that was the original idea and promise of the EU" - a claim that I demonstrated, citing unequivocal intentions otherwise, that you were telling a big fat porkie?
I noticed when this was pointed out to you, you went quiet on the subject. Have you blanked it out or do you remember it?
So you have told falsehoods. You've come out with crazy, unsubstantiated claims. I don't know if these falsehoods are intentional attempts to deceive, ignorance, or based upon some deluded preconceptions, but do you wonder why people might loose patience with you when you keep on coming out with them?
So please explain why you keep on coming out with these things, with such frequency?
The original promise of the common market was free trade agreements, not a political union that we are moving closer to today, you never disproved that sir and your lack of evidence refuting my points says it all, you just seem to rant a lot!
What falsehoods, name them!0 -
The original promise of the common market was free trade agreements, not a political union that we are moving closer to today, you never disproved that sir and your lack of evidence refuting my points says it all, you just seem to rant a lot!
What falsehoods, name them!
If you are claiming that the EU is moving towards a "political union" then the onus on you is to prove that by citing where that is stated in the treaties and to prove what that "political union" is (since any organisation pursuing set of common political objectives can be characterised as a "political union" from the UN down, the "Common market" or even a joint local authorities body).0 -
The original promise of the common market was free trade agreements, not a political union that we are moving closer to today...
From the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome:
It was never just a free trade agreement, and was never intended to be.HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »From the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome: It was never just a free trade agreement, and was never intended to be.
Oh great, a preamble! Where does it say anything about free movement of people? A single currency? European Courts? Massively bloated European parliament?
To pretend that the EU has not evolved into a more political union than was envisaged at the start is crazy! Who are you ultra pro EU guys trying to fool?0 -
-
Those would be set out in various other treaties that the UK ratified, and is now trying to pretend it didn't mean to.Oh great, a preamble! Where does it say anything about free movement of people? A single currency? European Courts? Massively bloated European parliament?
Clearly the phrase "ever closer union" means something different in your dictionary than it does in mine.To pretend that the EU has not evolved into a more political union than was envisaged at the start is crazy! Who are you ultra pro EU guys trying to fool?0 -
Advertisement
-
That would be the "common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe"
That's pretty vague, i would take it to mean opening up trade between previously waring countries, it all started from a common market for coal and steel between Germany and France to help preserve peace, hard to see how you get unified currency out of it!0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Those would be set out in various other treaties that the UK ratified, and is now trying to pretend it didn't mean to. Clearly the phrase "ever closer union" means something different in your dictionary than it does in mine.
So you agree it was later treaties that has steered the EU from the original goal of a common market! I haven't seen a single shred of literature saying the UK are pretending they didn't sign the later agreements that, as you now seem to agree are shifting the EU more towards a federal Europe, more like many in the UK are now saying it was a mistake and we would like out.
And yes, our dictionarys must be different because "ever closer union" to me seemed a good hope for a common market to build relationships between countries that were not far removed from slaughtering millions of each other! You seem to believe it meant political union, currency union etc.0 -
That's a deeply dishonest characterisation. I've already pointed out that it was never just a common market, and never intended to be.So you agree it was later treaties that has steered the EU from the original goal of a common market!
I have no problem with anybody saying that they disagree with the aims set out in the preambles to the treaties. My issue is with anyone who claims that the EU somehow magically by stealth became something other than the entity defined by the treaties to which its members willingly signed up.I haven't seen a single shred of literature saying the UK are pretending they didn't sign the later agreements that, as you now seem to agree are shifting the EU more towards a federal Europe, more like many in the UK are now saying it was a mistake and we would like out.
I think it takes an impressive effort of doublethink to argue that "ever-closer union" can only mean "a common market on terms that suit the UK".And yes, our dictionarys must be different because "ever closer union" to me seemed a good hope for a common market to build relationships between countries that were not far removed from slaughtering millions of each other! You seem to believe it meant political union, currency union etc.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »From the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome: It was never just a free trade agreement, and was never intended to be.
An "ever closer union" means an ever closer union in those areas that the member states have agreed they will work on together.
It does NOT mean an "ever closer union" in those areas the member states have not agreed to work together.
Claims that it means a commitment to an undefined "political union" - as are frequently made by Eurosceptics - are nonsense.
If gallag wants to prove that it does he is welcome to quote the relevant parts of the treaties (every single comma and dot of which have been approved by the UK).0 -
I haven't seen a single shred of literature saying the UK are pretending they didn't sign the later agreements that, as you now seem to agree are shifting the EU more towards a federal Europe,.
There is no shift within the EU to a more federal Europe. It is - at best - a Confederation of Sovereign Nations (and that is liberally stretching the term "confederation").
Were the EU operating as a Federation there would be NO UK (or other) opt-outs in areas such as the Euro, Schengen etc - indeed the UK would probably need permission to even contemplate holding a referendum on membership.0 -
I did so already and you ignored it - you didn't even try to reject it.The original promise of the common market was free trade agreements, not a political union that we are moving closer to today, you never disproved that sir and your lack of evidence refuting my points says it all, you just seem to rant a lot!
Now oscarBravo has added to this evidence, giving us a clear intention, stated from the onset, that the EEC and the European Coal and Steel Community that it grew out of were never meant simply to be simple trading blocks but the start of a closer union between European states, contrary to your claim that it was.
It's there, in black and white and changing the goalposts to question if monetary union or freedom of movement were planned from the start isn't going to change the fact that that it was always the intention to move in that direction.
It really would require serious double-think to interpret stated aims, such as "ever-closer union" and "a first step in the federation of Europe" as a call for only a trading block.
Anyway, it's an example of the falsehoods that regularly underpin your arguments. As requested.0 -
So you agree it was later treaties that has steered the EU from the original goal of a common market!
Yes which is why each and every other member state had to agree to it in the manner prescribed to national law - in Ireland, Denmark and France this now requires a referendum.I haven't seen a single shred of literature saying the UK are pretending they didn't sign the later agreements that, as you now seem to agree are shifting the EU more towards a federal Europe, more like many in the UK are now saying it was a mistake and we would like out.
Well there certainly are plenty of people in the UK saying they did not sign up for this and want out, but here is the thing - they did sign up for it! Because their nation law allows their government to commit them to EU Treaties without consulting them. That is their problem, if they want to change it, it is entirely up to them to change their law and require a referendum or whatever.
But part of their problem is that they do not have a modern constitutional democracy and in deed many of their rights are now drawn from the EU charter of fundamental rights as opposed to national law.0 -
-
So you agree it was later treaties that has steered the EU from the original goal of a common market! I haven't seen a single shred of literature saying the UK are pretending they didn't sign the later agreements that, as you now seem to agree are shifting the EU more towards a federal Europe, more like many in the UK are now saying it was a mistake and we would like out.
And yes, our dictionarys must be different because "ever closer union" to me seemed a good hope for a common market to build relationships between countries that were not far removed from slaughtering millions of each other! You seem to believe it meant political union, currency union etc.
I think it's quite clear that "ever closer union" means ever closer union, not a free trade agreement and nothing else. NAFTA contains no commitment to ever closer union, because it's a free trade agreement (same for CETA, TPP, TTIP, etc etc).
It's also clear the UK knows what it means, given it's one of the opt-outs Cameron is seeking, and to which the UK originally signed up.
As such, you're very much on a hiding to nothing here. The EU wasn't ever intended to be nothing but a free trade area.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it's quite clear that "ever closer union" means ever closer union, not a free trade agreement and nothing else. NAFTA contains no commitment to ever closer union, because it's a free trade agreement (same for CETA, TPP, TTIP, etc etc).
It's also clear the UK knows what it means, given it's one of the opt-outs Cameron is seeking, and to which the UK originally signed up.
As such, you're very much on a hiding to nothing here. The EU wasn't ever intended to be nothing but a free trade area.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Well, I disagree, why use such an open to interpretation phrase as "ever closer union" instead of just saying "push towards a united Europe" or "look to achieve a federal Europe"
Anyway, that aside, I am intrested in what you consider to be the end game? If you believe the phrase "ever closer union" to be all encompassing how do you see it playing out? Do you envisage a single united Europe with one government or does "ever closer union" fall short of that and stop at some arbitrary point? Mabey just stop at a common tax/currency/law/military arrangement?0
Advertisement