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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.

A little correction:

We did not join a Superstate.

We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.

I know, I was writing from a mobile so I shortened my way of saying it and it didn't come across entirely correct.


As for why it doesn't work like the US? You've have 250 years to make that system work and it works reasonably well. You have a system in place to give each state a say without being based on population. Under the EU model it uses Population. Imagine the annoyance the middle of the US was have if it was basically controlled by the massive population centres at both coasts.

Also, the EU is a good place for politicians to get cushy jobs once they leave politics on a national level. It is beneficial to them to keep the EU around because it increases the job market. But at no point was joining any of the treaties ever put on a national level to the extent that they should have been. The Lisbon Treaty was huge, but I don't remember anyone taking about it here.

Thing is the EU doesn't work like that because (A) each country has a veto and (B) directives only get made into law at the national level.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.

Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).

No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.

Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z

Yes it does, because that's representative democracy in action. It's the whole point of our parliamentary system, otherwise we should have a referendum for everything not specifically on a manifesto, all the time.

 Ketara wrote:

 Optio wrote:
Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?

I sat down a month before the election, crunched a lot of figures, read a lot of history, and grudgingly drew an opinion. That opinion was that I wished the EU and our own government had done their own jobs well enough I wasn't sat there having to do those things. As a taxpayer, I pay them to take care of this stuff in a semi-competent fashion, y'know?

I mean really, all they had to do was go on lubricating trade and throwing each other expensive champagne diplomatic dinners like all Western governments do. Not that challenging.

Instead they decided to do a load of continual obfuscation and extension of powers to the point where it was obvious what they were driving at. And they didn't even have the decency to do it competently so it would look like things would turn out alright. So I voted out. I resent the feckers for putting me in that spot though, because I didn't want to.

So instead we get T Maygube and the 3 brexiteers installing a quasi-dictatorship and winding the clocks back a couple of hundred years.

So a better question is when did the avarage leaver sit down and think you know what I get way to much paid holiday, don't work enough hours in a week, get paid too much, don't need sick pay, or maternity/paternity leave. Also I really would like to see my children grow up with a poor education and little accesss to further education with only short term menial labour to look forward to.

The only silver cloud is at least suffrage was before [MOD EDIT - No expletive filter workarounds, please. - Alpharius] remit so at least women can still vote, there otherwise screwed though given all equality laws are about to vanish.

Honestly if the "great repeal bill" was rolled out in most 3rd world countries the terms coup and bananna republic would get used as it allows our new Furherr cate blanche to rewrite 40+ years worth of legislation however they like without having to do anything so crass as abide by our democracy and pass.through the commons or lords.

R Squared
Then why are you all complaining about how unfair and undemocratic Brexit is? The Tories won the last election fair and square, and according to you they have the prerogative as elected representatives to enact Article 50.

Hell, they even have direct consent with over 50% of the electorate (those who could be bothered to vote that is) voting for Leave.

Things being run by faceless bureaucrats and career politicians I didn't vote for in Brussels? Or things being run by faceless bureaucrats and career politicians I didn't vote for in London?

IMO part of the problem has always been the relative lack of attention given to the EU parliament by the media in this country. Combined with the general apathy for democracy its helped to make the EU parliament feel remote and unconnected to the real world.

SeanDrake wrote:
[Also I really would like to see my children grow up with a poor education and little accesss to further education with only short term menial labour to look forward to.

Been trying to persuade my son to apply for university in Denmark, but a lot depends on when they close off access to free education for UK students. It's free for EU and EEA students, but who knows how long we are going to be in either club....

@ Welshhoppo

You made a good point about the EU being an expensive dumping ground for failed politicians. Case in point, Neil Kinnock.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.

Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).

No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.

Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z

Yes it does, because that's representative democracy in action. It's the whole point of our parliamentary system, otherwise we should have a referendum for everything not specifically on a manifesto, all the time.

Even after the referendumb I have still yet to find a single brexiter that actually even knew what the EU was and how it worked. The fact that we had way to many Kippers as mep's shows that. The complaint about EU corruption and waste and the UK not having a voice was because we sent halfwits like idle nige and his kremlin kippers as our mep's, who turned up just enough to get paid and fiddle.there exspenses without actual doing anything to help the UK.

Aghhhh I give up with this my european employers have confirmed they will honour EU level employment laws no matter what the tories do so I am sorry for people without this protection. Unless they voted to leave innwhich case feth em I hope they enjoy working for foxconn 60hrs a week for less than the current minimum wage

Whats with the petty immature word play?

Brexs**t? Referendumb? Kremlin Kippers? Come on guys, you're better than that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.

Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).

No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.

Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z

I would counter that not everything government does needs to be or is a central campaign issue. Representatives are elected to act on behalf of the people in all matters, not just central campaign planks, those are simply central focuses but are not all encompassing of their duties, powers, responsibilities and issues. Governments make major changes, decisions and implementations all the time that arent direct central campaign issues.

The people of the UK elected the representatives that made these decisions and had elected representatives at the EU through the whole thing, with some rather large exceptions and carveouts to prove it.

Again, I can get the idea that one doesnt like the superstate concept, but to portray the EU/UK relationship as an undemocratic hoodwinking is false, unless one thinks that direct plebiscite is the only way to grant legitimacy to any government decision, which undermines the entire theory of *representative* democracy and is not held to in the overwhelmingly vast majority of government actions.

I regarded the EU as a pretty good addition to the checks and balances already in place in UK governmental structure. While we were still in the EU, although the Tories could feth over the poor in a variety of unpleasant ways, there were certain things they couldn't mess with, like how many hours we can work each week, and the fact that we get paid holiday and such. I really don't want to go to a more US, employer-centric system, which seems likely under May and her cronies.

I'm sorry but i believe there are certain issues that should ONLY be decided through direct plebiscites.

Particularly major constitutional changes like signing international treaties that commit the UK into a European political union that by definition undermines a country's national sovereignty and independence (I think we can all agree that Scotlands independence and sovereignty was undermined when it entered into a union with England, yes?).

Or Scottish independence from the UK.

Or the Establishment of a written constitution.

I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm sorry but i believe there are certain issues that should ONLY be decided through direct plebiscites.

Particularly major constitutional changes like signing international treaties that commit the UK into a European political union that by definition undermines a country's national sovereignty and independence (I think we can all agree that Scotlands independence and sovereignty was undermined when it entered into a union with England, yes?).

Or Scottish independence from the UK.

Or the Establishment of a written constitution.

To be fair, the political union of the EU is nowhere near as close as the UK and its constituent nations.

I get where you are coming from there, and to some degree I can sympathize, but, and this isnt specific to just you, more of a general observation with this stance, that had the EU treaties been ratified by referendum, it wouldnt have made much difference in the attitudes of either side, and the discussion of direct plebiscite vs representative action are incidental to the greater idea of what the EU represents to different people.

Future War Cultist wrote:I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.

The EU isnt perfect. No political entity is. There will always be issues. Some people lose sometimes. On the whole however, the EU does more good than harm, and having a common economic framework with shared political infrastructure does a lot to push growth and reduce conflict in the long run.

Can you imagine the US as a mix of 50 distinct nations? Can you imagine what kind of bloodshed we'd have seen or potentially be currently embroiled in were that so? Having to deal with all those borders, currencies, worldviews, transportation systems, governments, etx. Having a common framework of national government does tend to have its advantages.

Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.


The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.

The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.

well, most were dead of smallpox and such before we moved westward, otherwise we probably wouldnt have been able to

That said, in some ways sure, but there are also internal tensions and differences that could absolutely explode into conflict without an overarching authority. And have on many occasions (though none recently, but look at "Bloody Kansas" mid 18th century for example). If the US didnt have an overarching federal govt, how likely would it be that the states of the US in the current political climate wouldnt lash out at each other, even if just to distract from internal issues? Divisive kind of rhetoric is commonplace here as much as anywhere (e.g. NY Liberal, Commiefornia, the South being looked at as a giant cesspool, etc).

The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.

In many ways that is true, though I dont believe that changes the ultimate issue, if just makes it harder to sort everything out to get to the end point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.

hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.

I think the downfall starts and ends with the Euro monetary policies.

A common market is all well and good... but, foisting the Euro on those 26 European countries can only exacerbate the "haves" and "have-nots" in the whole grand scheme of things simply by virtue of how diverse these countries are regionally.

Also, not having an official/common language could be a barrier in achieving that ideal 'EU Superstate' imo.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels.

Yeah, Spain and Greece were so much better off before the EU, in the 1970s, under brutal fascist dictatorships, right?

If anything the UK (which backed the fascists in Greece at the end of WWII, and ignored the rise of fascism in Spain in the 1930s) is probably more to blame for the problems of both countries than the EU is.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.

hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.

Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.

Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)

The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.

@ Vaktathi

Unfortunately, war is part of the growth of nations. There's no escaping from it.

@ Ian Sturrock

I was wondering when it would turn out to be our fault.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.

Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to the Euro is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)
This about sums up the entire problem with the Referendum campaign, people were so busy pointing fingers at the EU they were too busy to find the actual causation of any one of the situations that was supposedly instigated by the EU.

Well, Churchill ordering his operatives in Greece to support the fascists in executing the communist ex-partisans at the end of WWII would definitely be "our" fault, particularly because the communists had been fighting alongside British commandos against the Nazis for some time at that point, whereas the fascists had been the enemy, as is right and proper.

Spanish Civil War is less clearcut -- you could make an argument that the UK should avoid interfering in foreign conflicts... It's not an argument I'd be comfortable with in this specific case, but I can see its philosophical validity.

Anyway. The point is that the EU, despite its flaws, has been a highly effective force for peace, and against extremism, for many decades. Without studying history it's easy to forget how messed up so much of Europe was until the 1970s.

 Optio wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.

Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to it is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)

Oh I don't deny that they brought upon themselves. But, the EU was happy to look the other way for political reasons. Look at us, growing everyday!

And now that the gak has hit the fan, they're incapable of doing anything about it because they're in the straight jacket of the Euro.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.

hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.

Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.

Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)

The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.

they are, but they are seen as integral parts of a single whole, rather than independent members of a voluntary association as they were seen in the early days.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Optio wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.

Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to it is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)

Oh I don't deny that they brought upon themselves. But, the EU was happy to look the other way for political reasons. Look at us, growing everyday!

And now that the gak has hit the fan, they're incapable of doing anything about it because they're in the straight jacket of the Euro.

Sigh... 3 Bailouts is totally looking the other way... You have followed the Greek elections right and seen the complete incompetency of the government they have managed to elect? There is an issue with the implementation of the Euro, it's not centralized properly and certain nations (Germany, France) are able to undercut. This was very much an historical issue, pre-dating the forming of the Euro. Even the economists will point their fingers in every direction. Check out this article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-08-10/greece-blame-crisis
Bottom line though, and I think this qoute sums it up nicely:
'Greece is only not responsible to the extent that an alcoholic is not responsible for drinking.'

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.

hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.

Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.

Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)

The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.

they are, but they are seen as integral parts of a single whole, rather than independent members of a voluntary association as they were seen in the early days.

The EU added a good chunk of those nations alot faster than the USA who took a good century to fully gain most of the states.
The EU has differ issues. USA has a federal over arching level. Europe has a similar combined currency but lets other nations exacute own policy in regards to tax. Debt and finances.

Same with diplomacy. If they take migrants or not. And many other things decided at a natinal level.

Now. However peaceful. This is not good for a curency.

@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.

 Optio wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.

That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.