Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

When is a treaty not a treaty?.

When the EU wants to do something its citizens don't.

Could do with a better punch line, but it's worryingly true.

It could only happen with the support of the national governments and that is not going to happen.

 

[scaramanga]

It could only happen with the support of the national governments and that is not going to happen.

Some national governments. If they call it "not a treaty" then it only needs a majority right?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I don't think that's news. If you want to sell a product or service into a market then your product or service has to come ply with their standards.

If we were to sell widgets to New Zealand the widgets would have to pass the local conformity regulations there too.

Same with trade so remind me what sovereignty we get back.

Edit:
Sorry realised that is snarky but think the point stands very likely to have either no real impact or so much more than expected

 

[scaramanga]

Same with trade so remind me what sovereignty we get back.

Most of our non-EU trade would not involve such damaging restrictions and would be far easier. Neither would we have to conform for domestic sales (our largest market by far).

 

[AuroRaman]

I'll be honest. I read through this thread, stuff about 'markets', 'free movement', 'economics' etc blah blah blah. It's all a load of gonads really. The fact that we are tied to all this as a global community stinks. Shame on us.

 

[parklane1]

I'll be honest. I read through this thread, stuff about 'markets', 'free movement', 'economics' etc blah blah blah. It's all a load of cobblers really. The fact that we are tied to all this as a global community stinks. Shame on us.

As i have said before there is a lot of hot air but very little substance in the Tweets from those with ulterior motives.

 

[glorygloryeze]

A super-state cannot be done by stealth. It would require a new treaty which would require a referendum in many member states and all countries have a veto on.

There are five EU Presidents and they have nothing to do with a covert plan to form a super-state and everything to do with the running of the block.

The presidents are:

President of the European Parliament - runs the parliament, a similar role to speaker.
President of the European Council - chairs meetings of the European Council. Chosen by the national governments
President of the Council of European Union - chairs the Council of Ministers. Rotates between the member states.
President of the European Commissioners - chairs meetings of the European Commission. Commissioners are chosen by member states. Proposed by the European Council before a vote by the European Parliament.
President of the Courts of Justice - elected by the judges.
President of the European Central Bank - head of the central bank. Chosen by the European Council.

I think that the main problem here is the title president, if they were called head I doubt that there would be such suspicion of them.

Can i ask you the following:

1) if the EU is not a budding Superstate (or doesn't intend to go in that direction) why exactly is there a European Parliament? Is there any other entity that is NOT a state-like body that has a Parliement? When did the first European Parliament come into being and why? Did the electorates in all the constituent EU countries ask for the creation of such a body (remember the EU was initially a Trading organisation)?

2) If the Superstate cannot be done by stealth, then why do so many EU bigwigs proclaim that is what the EU project is ultimately about? Why are there so often project papers etc released where such a Political Union is constantly being proposed? If such a thing could only happen through a "treaty" and a referendum in many member countries then why do you think so many of the EU top brass continually bring it up as a proposal - if they do not want it to happen eventually?

3) European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Courts of Justice, European Central Bank: if the EU is NOT a budding Federal Superstate why is there a need for such organisations, if the EU is simply a "Trading organisation"?

 

[glorygloryeze]

I'll be honest. I read through this thread, stuff about 'markets', 'free movement', 'economics' etc blah blah blah. It's all a load of cobblers really. The fact that we are tied to all this as a global community stinks. Shame on us.

Not sure what you mean by this; could you elaborate further?

 

[milo]

This is interesting (if you are a geek)

https://theconversation.com/uk-is-h...pport-for-new-eu-patent-court-proves-it-69574

 

[milo]

Can i ask you the following:

1) if the EU is not a budding Superstate (or doesn't intend to go in that direction) why exactly is there a European Parliament? Is there any other entity that is NOT a state-like body that has a Parliement? When did the first European Parliament come into being and why? Did the electorates in all the constituent EU countries ask for the creation of such a body (remember the EU was initially a Trading organisation)?

2) If the Superstate cannot be done by stealth, then why do so many EU bigwigs proclaim that is what the EU project is ultimately about? Why are there so often project papers etc released where such a Political Union is constantly being proposed? If such a thing could only happen through a "treaty" and a referendum in many member countries then why do you think so many of the EU top brass continually bring it up as a proposal - if they do not want it to happen eventually?

3) European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Courts of Justice, European Central Bank: if the EU is NOT a budding Federal Superstate why is there a need for such organisations, if the EU is simply a "Trading organisation"?

1. There is a European Parliament to control the EU's budget. It does not have the power to propose legislation and in the UK, its laws need to be passed by out Westminster Parliament to take effect.

The EU (EC/EEC) has always been more than just a trading block. The Treaty of Rome establishes common agriculture and transport policies.

The European Parliament first met in 1952 when it was the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. It became the common assembly after the Great of Rome. It's members have been directly elected since 1979.

Like most of the EU's functions, it was never designed in its current form but has evolved as a result of compromise but some of the changes to it have come about through treaty change which have been ratified by the member countries (by referendum in some).

2. Some people would like to see it, there is a case for arguing that closer political union between the Eurozone countries would be desirable but not all European countries see Europe in the same way and there is more than enough opposition to it to stop something like that being forced through.

3. Because the EU is not just a trading block. It is a collection of countries that have chosen to work collectively.

 

[Robspur12]

Political Union has not happened...so far. But make no mistake the power players of the EU absolutely want it to happen and have said so many times. It may only be a matter of time before it does by stealth. Why have a role of EU President and an EU Parliament if that is not the plan? The people/electorates in Europe are indeed proud and Bexit is partly a reflection of that here. I bet if similar votes were to be held across the EU at this time many more would vote similarly (i would expect most towards the East would be pro, whilst the rest would be more mixed than we think).



Co-operation is always a good thing. It has been done in the past and can happen without an EU. This cooperation is different in that it is a form of superstate building by osmosis (i.e. through creation of deep Economic and Trading ties) as opposed to by conquering through war and subjugation. If the EU top dogs keep harping on about the desire for Economic AND Political Union how can member states keep their unique identities? It's not like all the nations that form the EU are all of the same tyoe of cultures and languages.
Also, what is this "common good" you speak of?



I think leaving the EU is nothing like doing without the major technological advancements of gthe last 30 years or so. The fact that Brexit is being compared in such a way says it all about the whole EU debate: when the case for staying in the EU cannot be made Politically, then the case is made Economically - the main vehicle of the project; when that doesn't 'win' then it comes down to anyone who doesn't want to be part of the EU project (in it's supersate-building guise) "wanting to live in the past."
One thing i have to admire about the architects of the EU is their marketing skills!

Huge amounts of speculation and cynicism and not enough evidence based argument here GG. I don't have time now to go through each point by point. I will just answer your point on the "common good." The EU has held us and other states to account on matters such as air quality, and the quality of our beaches standards that are enforced across the member states. Our food control and disease control systems are probably the best in the world. I was recently at an outbreaks conference in Rome with other member states. There were delegates from Saudi observing how well the system worked across the EU and complaining that the Arab states could not get their act together to put in place similar arrangements. It is easy to say these things would happen anyway. You only have to look at the WHO response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to know that is not the case.

The common good also includes research funding, sharing intelligence on terrorism, funding for deprived areas, dealing with tax evasion etc etc. I will say that it is far from perfect but we will end up coming out of these collaborations with a hard brexit.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Huge amounts of speculation and cynicism and not enough evidence based argument here GG. I don't have time now to go through each point by point. I will just answer your point on the "common good." The EU has held us and other states to account on matters such as air quality, and the quality of our beaches standards that are enforced across the member states. Our food control and disease control systems are probably the best in the world. I was recently at an outbreaks conference in Rome with other member states. There were delegates from Saudi observing how well the system worked across the EU and complaining that the Arab states could not get their act together to put in place similar arrangements. It is easy to say these things would happen anyway. You only have to look at the WHO response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to know that is not the case.

The common good also includes research funding, sharing intelligence on terrorism, funding for deprived areas, dealing with tax evasion etc etc. I will say that it is far from perfect but we will end up coming out of these collaborations with a hard brexit.

A union can only be as progressive as its weakest member.

In research we're often held back by the lowest common denominator. We get the biggest share of research funding because our universities are so much better, but we have to dilute the quality by bringing in and going through the hoops with weaker partners

The UK is the second most prosperous country in the EU and in terms of politics by far the most mature and stable democracy.

Basically we're always going to be net contributors to/held back by the project but, unlike Germany, we have no particular sense of obligation to make those sacrifices

 

[glorygloryeze]

1. There is a European Parliament to control the EU's budget. It does not have the power to propose legislation and in the UK, its laws need to be passed by out Westminster Parliament to take effect.

The EU (EC/EEC) has always been more than just a trading block. The Treaty of Rome establishes common agriculture and transport policies.

The European Parliament first met in 1952 when it was the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. It became the common assembly after the Great of Rome. It's members have been directly elected since 1979.

Like most of the EU's functions, it was never designed in its current form but has evolved as a result of compromise but some of the changes to it have come about through treaty change which have been ratified by the member countries (by referendum in some).

A Parliament that has no power to propose legislation in the UK but control's the EU budget? Firstly, in what EU countries does it have power to legislate, seeing as it does not have power to legislate in the UK?
Also, since when did the EU have a budget and was this before or after the treaty of Rome?
What is the purpose of the EU having a budget and what does it tend to do with such a budget?
When you say the members of the Parliament have been directly elected, do you mean the MEPs?

Also what purposes and jurisdiction do the various groups you listed have:
- The European Council
- The Council of Ministers
- The European Commission
- The European Courts of Justice

2. Some people would like to see it, there is a case for arguing that closer political union between the Eurozone countries would be desirable but not all European countries see Europe in the same way and there is more than enough opposition to it to stop something like that being forced through.

So we agree that the idea of a Political Union IS being argued for by some within the high circles of the EU. Indeed not all European citizens see Europe in the same way (in fact are there many citizens at all who would like to see a Political Union?).
What percentage of the EU hierarchy would you estimate would try to push for such a Union if they could face off opposition to it from the citizens?

3. Because the EU is not just a trading block. It is a collection of countries that have chosen to work collectively.

There is choosing to work collectively and there is choosing to create administrative institutions, central banking systems AND courts that usually only exist within what most people would call nation states. I would say that the fact that the EU has a central European Bank, a Council of Ministers, a Commission and a Courts of Justice it is indeed more than just a trading block it is a budding superstate in all but name.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Huge amounts of speculation and cynicism and not enough evidence based argument here GG. I don't have time now to go through each point by point. I will just answer your point on the "common good." The EU has held us and other states to account on matters such as air quality, and the quality of our beaches standards that are enforced across the member states. Our food control and disease control systems are probably the best in the world. I was recently at an outbreaks conference in Rome with other member states. There were delegates from Saudi observing how well the system worked across the EU and complaining that the Arab states could not get their act together to put in place similar arrangements. It is easy to say these things would happen anyway. You only have to look at the WHO response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to know that is not the case.

The common good also includes research funding, sharing intelligence on terrorism, funding for deprived areas, dealing with tax evasion etc etc. I will say that it is far from perfect but we will end up coming out of these collaborations with a hard brexit.

Happy for you to take your time and come back to my points at another time. Tbf It's not cynicism if there is some truth to it.

As i previously said i'm all for collaboration, and yes some very good things can come from it (hence the point of collaboration in the first place).
However that collaboration cannot expand into areas where national sovereignty should have primacy unless the citizens of that country have specifically requested that it should be the case: for example there should not in my mind be a situation whereby a court has passed a certain ruling in a country but somebody makes an appeal to the European Courts of Justice to overturn such a ruling. That is where you get into a situation where the "Superstate" is overruling a nation state and that nation state is effectively relegated to being a region within.

If the choice is given: give the various EU institutions primacy of jurisdiction in many areas aside from agreements on trade or recede from the EU and lose some of the benefits we have seen form the collaboration then i would always choose the former as democracy within a sovereign nation should always come first.

The EU is very 'left leaning' overall in terms of policy at the moment, but if in the future the power brokers become much more 'hard-right leaning' how do the citizens across the EU change that (if that is what is wanted by most citizens)?
Within a democratic nation if you don't like the people in power and their policies, you vote them out. That is not something that can be done on an EU level.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The EU is very 'left leaning' overall in terms of policy at the moment, but if in the future the power brokers become much more 'hard-right leaning' how do the citizens across the EU change that (if that is what is wanted by most citizens)?
Within a democratic nation if you don't like the people in power and their policies, you vote them out. That is not something that can be done on an EU level.

One of the founding principles of the EU was that it would be undemocratic, so it wouldn't be subject to the vagaries of the popular will.

At the time/with the post-war fragility, that was probably sensible. But now its the biggest exercise in disenfranchisement outside of China.

Although it's broadly left leaning, socialists are also generally opposed to it. Corbyn wasn't being ineffective in the campaign, he's ideologically a Leaver. These are quotes from him: "takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment" and "The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy."

 

[glorygloryeze]

One of the founding principles of the EU was that it would be undemocratic, so it wouldn't be subject to the vagaries of the popular will.

At the time/with the post-war fragility, that was probably sensible. But now its the biggest exercise in disenfranchisement outside of China.

Although it's broadly left leaning, socialists are also generally opposed to it. Corbyn wasn't being ineffective in the campaign, he's ideologically a Leaver. These are quotes from him: "takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment" and "The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy."

Agreed

 

[SpurMeUp]

Happy for you to take your time and come back to my points at another time. Tbf It's not cynicism if there is some truth to it.

As i previously said i'm all for collaboration, and yes some very good things can come from it (hence the point of collaboration in the first place).
However that collaboration cannot expand into areas where national sovereignty should have primacy unless the citizens of that country have specifically requested that it should be the case: for example there should not in my mind be a situation whereby a court has passed a certain ruling in a country but somebody makes an appeal to the European Courts of Justice to overturn such a ruling. That is where you get into a situation where the "Superstate" is overruling a nation state and that nation state is effectively relegated to being a region within.

If the choice is given: give the various EU institutions primacy of jurisdiction in many areas aside from agreements on trade or recede from the EU and lose some of the benefits we have seen form the collaboration then i would always choose the former as democracy within a sovereign nation should always come first.

The EU is very 'left leaning' overall in terms of policy at the moment, but if in the future the power brokers become much more 'hard-right leaning' how do the citizens across the EU change that (if that is what is wanted by most citizens)?
Within a democratic nation if you don't like the people in power and their policies, you vote them out. That is not something that can be done on an EU level.

Funny I noted you didn't manage to get back to my response to your post, think it was message #6399 on page 320

Can I ask, what Sovereignty do you notice you are missing now because of the EU? And what do you expect to see different, once we leave? What Sovereignty will you then experience and how will that impact on your life or others around you?

 

[Gutter Boy]

Funny I noted you didn't manage to get back to my response to your post, think it was message #6399 on page 320

Can I ask, what Sovereignty do you notice you are missing now because of the EU? And what do you expect to see different, once we leave? What Sovereignty will you then experience and how will that impact on your life or others around you?

For me it's about choice

Choice to be socialist, choice to be neo-liberal, choice to be progressive, choice to be isolationist.

What's important about Westminster being sovereign is that when they aren't doing a good job, we can kick them out and try something different.

I've never voted in an election before (despite being eligible since the late 90s and having a politics degree), because I viewed all options as emasculated. Maastricht had made voting pointless - we were stuck in faceless unaccountable technocrat hell. The EU referendum was the first time I've ever been to a polling station, because I felt there was something at stake, a once in a lifetime chance to reclaim power for the common people.

 

[r-u-s-x]

For me it's about choice

Choice to be socialist, choice to be neo-liberal, choice to be progressive, choice to be isolationist.

What's important about Westminster being sovereign is that when they aren't doing a good job, we can kick them out and try something different.

I've never voted in an election before (despite being eligible since the late 90s and having a politics degree), because I viewed all options as emasculated. Maastricht had made voting pointless - we were stuck in faceless unaccountable technocrat hell. The EU referendum was the first time I've ever been to a polling station, because I felt there was something at stake, a once in a lifetime chance to reclaim power for the common people.

Do you not see the difference between the last Labour Government and the current Tory one with regards to services? if so do you prefer one over the other, I certainly do and this is enough to get me to vote, I do not have to agree with everything being offered.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Do you not see the difference between the last Labour Government and the current Tory one with regards to services? if so do you prefer one over the other, I certainly do and this is enough to get me to vote, I do not have to agree with everything being offered.

Labour are a little bit more incompetent, whereas the Tories are a little bit more evil. But they are much of a muchness. They work within the same imposed parameters.

Nationalised infrastructure and utilities, immigration control. Not things I particularly agree with (although the electorate probably would) but examples of things that are just not allowed on the table.