Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Baragash wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
And this is so blindingly similar to people's views on the EU in England that I find the total inability to see it in those terms, weaseling around definitions of nationhood and so on, completely hilarious.

It only becomes similar to this discussion if we demand another referendum in a couple of years time over a new (and probably mis-reported) major policy decision by the EU.

Which is exactly what will happen. Should the UK vote to stay in, the 'kippers aren't going to get back in their box either. Nor are the Eurosceptic Tories. They will always, always be looking for another reason to hold another referendum.

And if they put that on their manifesto, and get voted in on that basis, why SHOULDN'T they? Debates like this don't have some arbitrary cut off point beyond which you're never allowed to discuss things again, or change your opinion.

 Graphite wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
And this is so blindingly similar to people's views on the EU in England that I find the total inability to see it in those terms, weaseling around definitions of nationhood and so on, completely hilarious.

It only becomes similar to this discussion if we demand another referendum in a couple of years time over a new (and probably mis-reported) major policy decision by the EU.

Which is exactly what will happen. Should the UK vote to stay in, the 'kippers aren't going to get back in their box either. Nor are the Eurosceptic Tories. They will always, always be looking for another reason to hold another referendum.

And if they put that on their manifesto, and get voted in on that basis, why SHOULDN'T they? Debates like this don't have some arbitrary cut off point beyond which you're never allowed to discuss things again, or change your opinion.

Sure, probably (maybe even almost certainly). None of which changes the fact that Da Boss' comparison, and therefore his criticism, isn't valid now because it relies on some nebulous future event to become so.

It would be quite amusing if it comes to pass because people will start comparing the SNP with UKIP on a regular basis.

I did some research into the Child Benefit tapering scenario, mainly by reading articles on the BBC.

There are about 2.4 million EU citizens living in the UK. Less than 1% of them are claiming Child Benefit for children residing abroad, and this amounts to a spend of £30 million year. (Child benefit is a flat rate benefit of £20.70 per week per first child. I don't remember the rate for second and subsequent children as I don't have any.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35490877
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35486520

While most of this goes to Polish children, there are also French and other countries. If the CB were to be tapered according to living standard in the country of residence, Romanians would get only £3.50, while for Luxembourgians, it would have to be increased.

It's not clear if the DWP will be able to calculate and apply 28 different rates of CB, but others have said the Inland Revenue manage to calculate millions of tax returns every year so it can be done.

Against that, the IR isn't the DWP, and the IR managed to make a massively expensive balls-up of the Tax Credits scheme introduced by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor. This has now been changed to Universal Benefits, which again have proved to be a considerable balls-up.

Let's just say that the UK government's record of introducing huge computer schemes is piss-poor.

Anyway, it's estimated that if the changes can be successfully implemented, out of every £350 spent on CB, about 99p would be saved.

Finally, researchers say that reductions in benefits would make little difference to immigration because most immigrants are looking for jobs not welfare.

My view is that the policy is a soundbite designed to appeal to people worried about the EU, benefits and immigration. In pragmatic terms it will be costly to implement. If it works it will do almost nothing, and if it doesn't work in the worst case it might waste hundreds of millions of pounds.

Thanks Dave!

I believe that most proposals to 'treat people according to their own status' in tax / benefit terms tend to lose money, not gain them. For example, uh, here in Scotland we get free prescription drugs. Not so in England. There was some noise from the Tory party in Holyrood about ending that; the answer was 'how much money would actually be saved?' Same also with the child benefits thing. Easier to just let everyone have the same, than dick about trying to assess and judge and measure and separately pay a variety of different categories. After all, each complication requires more civil servants to work out the numbers at the end of the day...

Moving off the Scotland thing (fun though it is to talk about), what are people's opinions on the pledges and whatnot? The impression that I had was that most of it is fairly empty noise - the EU will promise to cut red tape, etc, etc - and much of it was the sort of thing that everyone wants in theory anyway. I got the impression that several clauses were vague enough that it is unlikely we'll see anything interesting happen with them. However, the bit about benefits seems to be the sticking point, as it comes down to the EU not accepting discrimination/differentiation between the classes of 'native' and 'EU native'. Do you think that this will scupper the deal?

Also, June 2016 seems very close for the date.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
I believe that most proposals to 'treat people according to their own status' in tax / benefit terms tend to lose money, not gain them. For example, uh, here in Scotland we get free prescription drugs. Not so in England. There was some noise from the Tory party in Holyrood about ending that; the answer was 'how much money would actually be saved?' Same also with the child benefits thing. Easier to just let everyone have the same, than dick about trying to assess and judge and measure and separately pay a variety of different categories. After all, each complication requires more civil servants to work out the numbers at the end of the day...

Moving off the Scotland thing (fun though it is to talk about), what are people's opinions on the pledges and whatnot? The impression that I had was that most of it is fairly empty noise - the EU will promise to cut red tape, etc, etc - and much of it was the sort of thing that everyone wants in theory anyway. I got the impression that several clauses were vague enough that it is unlikely we'll see anything interesting happen with them. However, the bit about benefits seems to be the sticking point, as it comes down to the EU not accepting discrimination/differentiation between the classes of 'native' and 'EU native'. Do you think that this will scupper the deal?

Also, June 2016 seems very close for the date.

Yup. You may recall the Bedroom tax being ruled illegal in a number of aspects a week or two ago. Well, the DWP is appealing the ruling. It is going to cost more to appeal the ruling than complying will. It will cost about £200,000 to comply with the ruling, due to the number of people it applies to, but it'll cost more than that for just a single sitting of the supreme court.

Happy days. Though governments are never happy when the courts do their job.

 zedmeister wrote:


The whole EU project is like a ratchet democracy. We edge ever closer in a single direction, no deviation and no way to revert any changes. Sure, a few delays and grumbling happens, but that wheel marked "The European Project" cranks ever onwards, unaffected by elections, MEPs or member states wishes.

This is what bothers me about Europe, and I know it bothers other people too. Da Boss has made it plain that he feels Britain is IN Europe, but we just hang around at the edges, grumbling and obstructing. And he's right. But I don't think that's entirely our fault necessarily, and is more a direct result of the way the EU integration project has happened.

In a nutshell, we signed up for a trade agreement. That entailed setting common trade standards and measurements, an easing of visa application process, etc. But it was basically a trade agreement. As time has rolled on though, the EU integrationists have gradually pushed EU law and responsibility into more and more places where it never had anything to do with anything. Because they have feared a public backlash if they ever stood up and announced the 'United States of Europe', they've always done it subtly. If a country gives an inch, take another, and then don't give it back. Ever. The result has been people feeling, more and more uneasily, that the EU is taking over, and so they've protest voted nobs like Farage into Europe, to try and delay it.

The result has been that the EU bureaucracy has deliberately evolved in such a way as to be unaccountable. To be obscure. To be obfuscatory. In the same way you can't cancel a phone contract if you don't know who to talk to. Nobody ever stands up and says 'I propose the United States of Europe', instead you get some quangocrat proposing that an extension of this law into such another area is a logical proposal, the EUP signs off on it (because nobody pays attention to them when there are national politcs to watch), and gradually gradually, the EU is extended. So now we have an EU President and Foreign Affairs Minister. Then we'll have intelligence co-operation. Next thing is, it'll be a joint border force. Then a multi-national police squad. Which becomes an agency. etcetc. All very slowly slowly, nice and subtle.

The issue as I see it, is that such methods are counter-intuitive to democracy. If a 'United States of Europe' arises by such methods over the next fifty years, what kind of institution will it be? I suspect it will be a highly unaccountable, and somewhat facist one. No regime that comes about from methods like these could be a good one, I think.

What is needed in Europe, is real leadership. Someone with a vision. Someone who stands up and says, 'THIS is what Europe should be'. Be it a two tier trade agreement, a federal power bloc, or a completely integrated unit. Someone who lays it all out, gives it in nice digestible form to voters everywhere, and lets people decide if they're in favour or not.

And you know? It quite possibly should be us at this stage. We've shown little leadership or anything to do with anything right here. We just go, 'change it to something slightly more palatable for the electorate, or we're gone'. We sit and wait, and expect somebody else who represents 'Europe' to cut a deal. When sadly, nobody else in the EU is willing to be forthright, and nobody in the national governments cares enough. If Cameron had the balls, he should be standing up, as one of the G8, the second strongest economy in the EU, one of the world military powers, and saying, 'This is the EU Britain wants to work for. The structure that we want to create, the plan that will determine the future of this organisation. These are the reforms that we need to talk over, the big issues that need to be decided. And soon! Are you in for it, or are we out?' Instead we get, 'Can somebody sign off on a few treaty changes please? Or we might have to pootle off and do our own thing.'

But instead, he's like the rest. No vision. So nobody in Europe does anything.The result is that the EU continues to swell gradually, imperceptibly, like a tumour, gathering power to itself for no other purpose than the acquisition of power.

So! As the voter sitting here now, I'm asking myself. Would I rather be a part of what the EU looks like it will become? Or do I accept that we should probably take a slight hit to our economy and prosperity, but retain our democratic institutions? I had hoped that something clear would emerge from these negotiations, some positive sign of the EU's future that would make it clear to me that we should stay. Instead, I've seen nothing but obfuscation from the European side, and inept leadership all around. The result is that I am beginning to lean slightly towards leaving. We shall see how things proceed....

I see the same thing you do, and it does trouble me somewhat, but I am a European Federalist and I have been ever since I understood what the EU is.

I do agree, and I desperately want, a better and more honest way of going about it. I despair at the fact that the governments across Europe are turning insular, mostly right wing, self interested, with no vision.

So we do agree about a lot. However the thought of Cameron, like, David fething Cameron standing up and trying to reform Europe fundamentally? Christ, that terrifies and sickens me. I see what the Tories are doing to the UK and I think it is disgusting. I want no part of their neoliberal privatising agenda in Europe. We have too much of that already thanks to the Centre-Right wing, and the terrible lethargy of the European Left. I want to see a regeneration, a challenging of neoliberalism and a return to democratic principles in Europe. But I do not see that coming from a British Conservative government, who to me, are a prime example of the sort of politicians that are destroying the social fabric of Europe with inequitable and divisive policy.

Corbyn though, his vision for the EU, I can get behind. I was so happy when he was elected in the face of such vitriol, because I see the UK as one of the more naturally Right countries in the EU and that ye could elect Corbyn really gave me hope for the Left across Europe.

I have some optimism left in me (battered as hell from the way the financial crash fallout played out, with Trichet the unelected twatbag running roughshod over national parliaments and throwing threats at governments) that we are seeing the beginning of a leftwing fight back against the Centre Right and Soft Left establishment, but it's a time of great instability and the nascent resurgence could die off so easily.

From that perspective, unfortunately, I feel that the UK leaving Europe could pull the centre of gravity of the Parliament further to the Left, because the UK tends to send Right wing MEPs and is currently and for the forseeable future controlled by (in my view) a government that verges on Far Right.

Edit: I'd also like to just give a mea culpa to people I might have pissed off upthread by being abrasive. I'm very passionate about this issue and I tend to be a grumpy sod when I get home from work in the evening.

The Tories are far Right?

I guess you can call anything far right if you redefine the centre ground and shift it far enough to the left.

In my view, yes, they are (as I said) verging on being far Right.

Compared to the CDU in Germany for example, or Fine Gael in Ireland (the other two countries in Europe I am familiar with) they're definitely further Right than either of them on a multitude of issues from Defense to the role of the Public Sector.

*shrug* I mean, particularly if we're defining Corbyn as Far Left I think it's fair to define the Tories as verging on Far Right.

It's frustrating to always have a throwaway line at the end of my post be the only part of my argument engaged with, but the lesson for me is, delete the last line of my post because I have a habit of saying something controversial there that invites a snarky response!

 Da Boss wrote:
I see the same thing you do, and it does trouble me somewhat, but I am a European Federalist and I have been ever since I understood what the EU is.

I do agree, and I desperately want, a better and more honest way of going about it. I despair at the fact that the governments across Europe are turning insular, mostly right wing, self interested, with no vision.

So we do agree about a lot.

Aren't you concerned though, that Europe could mutate into the opposite of what you (and indeed, I to an extent) hope for? Rather than a democratic federal United Europe, we end up with an Orwellian unaccountable rogue superstate that gradually usurps all the power from national Governments? Because I worry this is where it's heading. Indeed, looking at the logical progression of this softly softly approach, I see something more akin to the Imperium of Man than the Interex evolving (to put it in 40K terms).

Whoever proposes the future of Europe, in my book, needs to be looking at the basic structure. We need to decide exactly what Europe should be. A trade system? A federal government? A two tier system? Then, with that decided, the whole thing should be reformed to meet that purpose in the most efficient fashion, with suitable balances and checks installed appropriately. At that stage? Frankly, right/left wing politics are irrelevant. You can't decide policies until you decide purpose. In that regard, Cameron could serve just as well as any. But nobody from that 'any' is proposing anything. There is no vision in Europe that anyone is willing to honestly spell out.

And it is that, which to me, may well spell me voting to exit. I have no interest or time for a sneaking international organisation that gathers power for powers sake. Either tell me what you need/want it for, structure accordingly, and let me decide, or let me out.

A lot of the EU stuff about a president and so on was in the Maastricht treaty that the UK signed up to without a referendum a few years ago.

A number of other EU countries including Denmark and Eire were balky about Maastricht. Eire had to run their referendum twice to get the correct result, if I recall things correctly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of the EU stuff about a president and so on was in the Maastricht treaty that the UK signed up to without a referendum a few years ago.

A number of other EU countries including Denmark and Eire were balky about Maastricht. Eire had to run their referendum twice to get the correct result, if I recall things correctly.

And I have no doubt they'll ask us to run our referendum twice as well if they don't get the answer they want from us.

 Ketara wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:


The whole EU project is like a ratchet democracy. We edge ever closer in a single direction, no deviation and no way to revert any changes. Sure, a few delays and grumbling happens, but that wheel marked "The European Project" cranks ever onwards, unaffected by elections, MEPs or member states wishes.

This is what bothers me about Europe, and I know it bothers other people too. Da Boss has made it plain that he feels Britain is IN Europe, but we just hang around at the edges, grumbling and obstructing. And he's right. But I don't think that's entirely our fault necessarily, and is more a direct result of the way the EU integration project has happened.

In a nutshell, we signed up for a trade agreement. That entailed setting common trade standards and measurements, an easing of visa application process, etc. But it was basically a trade agreement. As time has rolled on though, the EU integrationists have gradually pushed EU law and responsibility into more and more places where it never had anything to do with anything. Because they have feared a public backlash if they ever stood up and announced the 'United States of Europe', they've always done it subtly. If a country gives an inch, take another, and then don't give it back. Ever. The result has been people feeling, more and more uneasily, that the EU is taking over, and so they've protest voted nobs like Farage into Europe, to try and delay it.

The result has been that the EU bureaucracy has deliberately evolved in such a way as to be unaccountable. To be obscure. To be obfuscatory. In the same way you can't cancel a phone contract if you don't know who to talk to. Nobody ever stands up and says 'I propose the United States of Europe', instead you get some quangocrat proposing that an extension of this law into such another area is a logical proposal, the EUP signs off on it (because nobody pays attention to them when there are national politcs to watch), and gradually gradually, the EU is extended. So now we have an EU President and Foreign Affairs Minister. Then we'll have intelligence co-operation. Next thing is, it'll be a joint border force. Then a multi-national police squad. Which becomes an agency. etcetc. All very slowly slowly, nice and subtle.

The issue as I see it, is that such methods are counter-intuitive to democracy. If a 'United States of Europe' arises by such methods over the next fifty years, what kind of institution will it be? I suspect it will be a highly unaccountable, and somewhat facist one. No regime that comes about from methods like these could be a good one, I think.

Um, the goal of ever increasing union is in the first sentence of the treaty of Rome in 1957 that founded the EEC, how did your government manage to slip that one by the people?

Ultimately it's the member states, not the bureaucracy, that have created the democratic deficit of the EU by rendering the parliament fairly toothless. Bilateral deals through the European Council (the heads of government of the member states) are just too tempting. They can just lay the blame on the EU for unpopular legislation.

Personally I'm more worried about the libertarian influence and the free trade agreements than any loss of sovereignty. Worker conditions are deteriorating and tax avoidance is allowing companies to shift the burden to the taxpayer.

 Antario wrote:
... ...

Um, the goal of ever increasing union is in the first sentence of the treaty of Rome in 1957 that founded the EEC, how did your government manage to slip that one by the people?

Ultimately it's the member states, not the bureaucracy, that have created the democratic deficit of the EU by rendering the parliament fairly toothless. Bilateral deals through the European Council (the heads of government of the member states) are just too tempting. They can just lay the blame on the EU for unpopular legislation.

Personally I'm more worried about the libertarian influence and the free trade agreements than any loss of sovereignty. Worker conditions are deteriorating and tax avoidance is allowing companies to shift the burden to the taxpayer.

That phrase is there, but clearly it is merely a poetical flourish that essentially is meaningless. Anyway, whatever treaty any government signs has to gain the support of the population, and the EU treaties have not convincingly done so for various reasons like the democratic deficit.

That said, there is much good in the EU. I believe it's better to sort out the problems than just throw the whole thing out of the window.

 Antario wrote:


Um, the goal of ever increasing union is in the first sentence of the treaty of Rome in 1957 that founded the EEC, how did your government manage to slip that one by the people?

Close, but no cigar. From the EU's website:-

The EEC Treaty, signed in Rome in 1957, brings together France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries in a community whose aim is to achieve integration via trade with a view to economic expansion.

So not quite.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230

The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of laying the foundations of an “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

This aim has remained in the EU Treaties ever since, surviving several Treaty amendments and one attempt to remove it and another to replace it with the phrase “federal union”.

The Treaty text refers to a union of peoples, not of Member States, but there is disagreement among experts as to the effect of the phrase in the framing of EU law and the rulings of the EU Court of Justice.....

It was the unvoted upon Lisbon Treaty that:-

131)
Article 158 shall be amended as follows:
(a)
in the first paragraph, the words ‘economic and social cohesion’ shall be replaced by ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion’;

The original phrasing was meant to bring the involved countries together as a economic, and potentially cultural force. Not as a territorial one. That entered with the Lisbon Treaty, which that moron Blair signed through because he saw it as a way of making himself a new seat as 'European President' ten years later.

 Da Boss wrote:
In my view, yes, they are (as I said) verging on being far Right.

Compared to the CDU in Germany for example, or Fine Gael in Ireland (the other two countries in Europe I am familiar with) they're definitely further Right than either of them on a multitude of issues from Defense to the role of the Public Sector.

*shrug* I mean, particularly if we're defining Corbyn as Far Left I think it's fair to define the Tories as verging on Far Right.

It's frustrating to always have a throwaway line at the end of my post be the only part of my argument engaged with, but the lesson for me is, delete the last line of my post because I have a habit of saying something controversial there that invites a snarky response!

Thats not what Far Right means, you can get very unleft with regards to economic issues and not head into Far Right territory until you cross certain moral boundaries.
The Far Right and Communism are also very close as the left right divide is a circle. and the Tories are not Communists, or even close to Communists.

As you come from Germany you should already know this.

 Da Boss wrote:
In my view, yes, they are (as I said) verging on being far Right.

Compared to the CDU in Germany for example, or Fine Gael in Ireland (the other two countries in Europe I am familiar with) they're definitely further Right than either of them on a multitude of issues from Defense to the role of the Public Sector.

*shrug* I mean, particularly if we're defining Corbyn as Far Left I think it's fair to define the Tories as verging on Far Right.

It's frustrating to always have a throwaway line at the end of my post be the only part of my argument engaged with, but the lesson for me is, delete the last line of my post because I have a habit of saying something controversial there that invites a snarky response!

The German CDU is right at the middle of the road, not right. Die Linke is on the extreme left, then comes the SPD at moderate left, Grüne at a moderate left, moving slightly left and right depending on their voters, then there's the CDU and FDP both rather hovering at the middle of politics, then there's the AfD covering the right side of politics and the NPD on the extreme right.

The political system in Germany isn't really comparable to international ones as most of the system already is heavily biased towards the left side of politics. Internationally, when speaking of the political "right" you will most often think of Republicans and there currently is no party covering their positions, only parts of the AfD are comparable to the Tea Party. Germany currently has no bigger conservative party.

 Orlanth wrote:


Thats not what Far Right means, you can get very unleft with regards to economic issues and not head into Far Right territory until you cross certain moral boundaries.
The Far Right and Communism are also very close as the left right divide is a circle. and the Tories are not Communists, or even close to Communists.

As you come from Germany you should already know this.

Right and left are all largely a matter of perspective, being social constructs. If you're extremely far right, right wing can appear left wing. And so forth.

Also, why would you expect a German specifically to agree/know something you believe about politics?

Not to mention the fact he's actually Irish.

 Ketara wrote:

 Antario wrote:


Um, the goal of ever increasing union is in the first sentence of the treaty of Rome in 1957 that founded the EEC, how did your government manage to slip that one by the people?

Close, but no cigar. From the EU's website:-

The EEC Treaty, signed in Rome in 1957, brings together France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries in a community whose aim is to achieve integration via trade with a view to economic expansion.

So not quite.

On the contrary, economics have been a secondary concern from the start. The whole project started off as a security initiative by placing the (potential) war industry of France and Germany under joined supervision and to limit protectionist policies as not to provoke another war.

 Antario wrote:

On the contrary, economics have been a secondary concern from the start. The whole project started off as a security initiative by placing the (potential) war industry of France and Germany under joined supervision and to limit protectionist policies as not to provoke another war.

That's quite a shuffling of the goalposts. We've gone from you claiming ever closer territorial union was intended at the start to just saying that economics was secondary to future security concerns.

To put it bluntly, yes, preventing future conflicts was a factor. That's why there's the bit about 'social cohesion' and 'union between peoples' (it's in my last post if you go back). But it's in there with economics. It wasn't the overriding concern above all else by any stretch of the imagination.

God only knows that if the EEC had any overt intent in the federalist direction when it was established in 1957, French Premier Charles De Gaulle ripped it out shortly after he was elected in 1958 with the Luxembourg Compromise.

 Ketara wrote:

 Antario wrote:

On the contrary, economics have been a secondary concern from the start. The whole project started off as a security initiative by placing the (potential) war industry of France and Germany under joined supervision and to limit protectionist policies as not to provoke another war.

That's quite a shuffling of the goalposts. We've gone from you claiming ever closer territorial union was intended at the start to just saying that economics was secondary to future security concerns.

To put it bluntly, yes, preventing future conflicts was a factor. That's why there's the bit about 'social cohesion' and 'union between peoples' (it's in my last post if you go back). But it's in there with economics. It wasn't the overriding concern above all else by any stretch of the imagination.

God only knows that if the EEC had any overt intent in the federalist direction when it was established in 1957, French Premier Charles De Gaulle ripped it out shortly after he was elected in 1958 with the Luxembourg Compromise.

That's quite a strawman you've constructed. I pointed out that the EU and it's forerunner always have been open about the ideal of ever closer integration and that from the start it was more than just about economics. The argument of opponents of the EU in the UK that the country only ever signed up for an economic cooperation program is strange. Either these opponents are misinformed/misrepresenting the past, or the government wasn't fully honest what they signed the country up for.

 Antario wrote:


That's quite a strawman you've constructed. I pointed out that the EU and it's forerunner always have been open about the ideal of ever closer integration

Okay. Just to make sure no hairs are being crossed here. By 'integration' are you referring to just generally 'bringing people closer together' in a cultural/social sense? Or in a federal/territorial sense?

Because if it's the former, I never said anything against that. I've acknowledged that aspect of the EU ever since you raised the original Treaty of Rome every step of the way.

What I've been talking about since the beginning as having evolved is the concept of the EU heading towards 'integration' in the federal/territorial sense. Which was NOT in the original Treaty of Rome. To back that up, I have provided links and information on the intent and interpretation of the relevant original treaty. I have also pointed out the section of the Lisbon Treaty which was deliberately altered to make provision for that type of integration. Which, frankly, is the strongest possible argument that it wasn't intended in the original 1957 agreement (otherwise they wouldn't have needed to amend it, eh wot?) If you are challenging my assertion on this, then you need to prove it beyond 'Nu-uh!'

 Ketara wrote:

 Antario wrote:


That's quite a strawman you've constructed. I pointed out that the EU and it's forerunner always have been open about the ideal of ever closer integration

Okay. Just to make sure no hairs are being crossed here. By 'integration' are you referring to just generally 'bringing people closer together' in a cultural/social sense? Or in a federal/territorial sense?

Because if it's the former, I never said anything against that. I've acknowledged that aspect of the EU ever since you raised the original Treaty of Rome every step of the way.

What I've been talking about since the beginning as having evolved is the concept of the EU heading towards 'integration' in the federal/territorial sense. Which was NOT in the original Treaty of Rome. To back that up, I have provided links and information on the intent and interpretation of the relevant original treaty. I have also pointed out the section of the Lisbon Treaty which was deliberately altered to make provision for that type of integration. Which, frankly, is the strongest possible argument that it wasn't intended in the original 1957 agreement (otherwise they wouldn't have needed to amend it, eh wot?) If you are challenging my assertion on this, then you need to prove it beyond 'Nu-uh!'

I don't think we're on the same frequency. What shape the integration of countries in the EU will take will be determined by time and circumstance, nor might it be irreversible. I don't find speculation on its final form particularly interesting. I simply opposed the notion that the EEC was merely a trade agreement,like for example NAFTA, at the time when the UK joined. It's been driven by political motives, not economic, from the start.

In regard to this push for a Federal Europe, I can't see it. Some want to delegate more responsibilities to the European level others want less. The European Council and the Council of ministers (made up of the leaders of the member states) are the defacto heads of the EU, and the Commission as the top level of the executive branch is there to follow their guidelines. So the highest level of EU bureaucracy is still subservient to the national governments.

 Antario wrote:

I don't think we're on the same frequency. What shape the integration of countries in the EU will take will be determined by time and circumstance, nor might it be irreversible. I don't find speculation on its final form particularly interesting. I simply opposed the notion that the EEC was merely a trade agreement,like for example NAFTA, at the time when the UK joined. It's been driven by political motives, not economic, from the start.

In regard to this push for a Federal Europe, I can't see it. Some want to delegate more responsibilities to the European level others want less. The European Council and the Council of ministers (made up of the leaders of the member states) are the defacto heads of the EU, and the Commission as the top level of the executive branch is there to follow their guidelines. So the highest level of EU bureaucracy is still subservient to the national governments.

You are correct, in part I feel. When Britain joined, it was primarily because our own attempted trade organisation had failed, we were in the economic doldrums, and we saw the economic prosperity the EU was in and wanted a piece. The French denied us access a few times, but when we finally got in, make no mistake about it, our motivation was trade. Some vague twenty year old comment about pushing European cultural integration really did not register particularly highly on our radar, and the extent to which the EU's tentacles now reach into every level of governmental process was completely unforeseen (by the public at least, and by the government as well I suspect).

Since that time, we've had the vast push eastwards to incoporate as many members as possible. We've had the introduction of the Euro. The Schengen zone. Both of the latter we've managed to stay out of, but it was a narrow thing. There's been a very deliberate drive within the EU to create law on more and more things, and set up cross-border organisations for more and more things. Inter-European arrest warrants would be a good example there. We've got a European President and Foreign Policy now. And I don't believe these things were envisioned back in 1955, nor in the '72 when we joined. So where does it all stop?

The problem with sharing a currency with 26 countries and no real central fiscal control has become apparent. The logical thing to do is to centralise fiscal policy. There's a massive immigration problem across the EU right now. The logical thing to do is to create a joint border patrol force. The terrorism issues? Create a European police/intelligence agency to deal with the matter.

These issues are the ones causing the problems right now, because the obvious solutions mark what I deem to be the final steps towards guaranteeing the creation a Federal Institution in effect if not name (that'll follow on later). Once fiscal policy and currency are centralised, taxation will fall easily. Once the borders and intelligence agencies are merged, the army and police will be shortly behind. And every step of the way, it will be logical, because having a shared currency/borders without those controls and steps just breeds more problems than it solves (as we have seen).

The EU is not willing to make an obvious power grab for these things. Nationalist sentiment is at it's highest ever, and they're not powerful enough. As you noted, they are still technically subservient. Anything too obvious, and they'll face a horrible backlash. But they are aware that, none of the national political leaders of Europe are willing to take a step back and say, 'Schengen/the Euro is clearly not working on this level, let's scrap them', and nobody has the vision to reform the EU structurally. Instead, we get much dithering and hole patching, and temporary solutions. As long as we're not going backwards, we're going forwards, and as said, once any kind of authority/power is ceded to the EU, it never comes back.

The EU superstate is not a done thing yet. Yet. But it's not far off now, and not much more integration is required to make it inevitable, I believe. If nobody puts forward a clear structural vision of where we want Europe to go in the next decade or two, it will ponder along much the way it has done so far, and will become a federal state. Slowly. Painfully. It'll probably take the next forty/fifty years before we finally have a common flag (so to speak). But I believe (you are free to disagree), that the crunch point at which it becomes inevitable is rapidly approaching.

To me, that means I need to decide if we need to pull out now, or if there's still hope. Because as stated, I don't think the institution that will evolve from the current process will be a particularly democratic or good one. YMMV.