3 ms·

It's tricky. The EU of 1975 is very different from the EU of 2018 (indeed, the "EU" didn't exist then, just the EEC). Does joining a customs union even require

It's tricky. The EU of 1975 is very different from the EU of 2018 (indeed, the "EU" didn't exist then, just the EEC). Does joining a customs union even require a referendum? My initial strong gut response to this is that it shouldn't, but it's also abundantly clear now that a customs union can easily lead to much greater integration over decades. Boiling a frog. Note that all the increased integration was accepted by the elected governments of the UK, so you can't write this off as some authoritarian, anti-democratic power creep by the EU bureaucracy. And now the immediate implications of leaving the EU are much greater than the immediate implications in 1975 of joining a customs union, so even if a 50%+ referendum was enough for a customs union, a strong argument can be made that leaving the EU should be held to a higher standard. I think the main takeaway of this experience should be this: the EU should never accept new members unless there's durable majority support in the member country for being a part of the EU. One plausible version of this is 60%+ support in two consecutive elections.

makomk 8y ago
You're technically right, but I'm not sure it helps here; every step that took us from the EEC of 1972 to the modern EU was done with no UK referendum and required at most an ordinary majority in Parliament as far as I know. (Also, EU supporters rely quite heavily on the argument that the modern EU is basically the same as the original EEC, just refined, and that all of the subsequent changes were part of the original intention.) Now, other member states did hold referendums on these changes, of course - and in some cases, their voting public ended up rejecting those changes. They went ahead anyway, usually with some tweaks to the language used to describe them but very few substantiative differences.
- toyg 8y ago
  > They went ahead anyway, usually with some tweaks to the language used to describe them but very few substantiative differences. That's utterly false. Ireland (twice) got legal guarantees that the scary scenarios evoked by the rejectors, would never happen. Denmark obtained opt-outs, again listening to concerns and guaranteeing that they would never happen. France (and basically the Dutch) literally re-negotiated the whole treaty. Those are substantive changes. I don't know how more substantive you can get than "if we make a law you don't like, you're free to ignore it" and "ok, we'll do it again from scratch".
toyg 8y ago
That's an unrealistic ask. 40 years have passed since 1975, almost two generations. People die, the will of the country changes, and you cannot run elections on a single issue. Even europhile countries like France and Italy have periodic bouts of euro-skepticism, and places like Texas, Quebec or the Balkans demonstrate that tribalism is always lurking anyway. I think the EU should simply improve its outreach programs. Some of them were very successful (Erasmus), some weren't (the EU flag on buildings is almost imperialistic). The truth is that getting 511m+ people to agree on things, when they won't even speak the same language, will always be a huge challenge. Unfortunately, there is no alternative: this planet has to learn to resolve its problems by talking and agreeing a common course of action, so might as well start with your immediate neighbours.

makomk 8y ago

You're technically right, but I'm not sure it helps here; every step that took us from the EEC of 1972 to the modern EU was done with no UK referendum and required at most an ordinary majority in Parliament as far as I know. (Also, EU supporters rely quite heavily on the argument that the modern EU is basically the same as the original EEC, just refined, and that all of the subsequent changes were part of the original intention.) Now, other member states did hold referendums on these changes, of course - and in some cases, their voting public ended up rejecting those changes. They went ahead anyway, usually with some tweaks to the language used to describe them but very few substantiative differences.

toyg 8y ago
> They went ahead anyway, usually with some tweaks to the language used to describe them but very few substantiative differences. That's utterly false. Ireland (twice) got legal guarantees that the scary scenarios evoked by the rejectors, would never happen. Denmark obtained opt-outs, again listening to concerns and guaranteeing that they would never happen. France (and basically the Dutch) literally re-negotiated the whole treaty. Those are substantive changes. I don't know how more substantive you can get than "if we make a law you don't like, you're free to ignore it" and "ok, we'll do it again from scratch".

toyg 8y ago

That's an unrealistic ask. 40 years have passed since 1975, almost two generations. People die, the will of the country changes, and you cannot run elections on a single issue. Even europhile countries like France and Italy have periodic bouts of euro-skepticism, and places like Texas, Quebec or the Balkans demonstrate that tribalism is always lurking anyway. I think the EU should simply improve its outreach programs. Some of them were very successful (Erasmus), some weren't (the EU flag on buildings is almost imperialistic). The truth is that getting 511m+ people to agree on things, when they won't even speak the same language, will always be a huge challenge. Unfortunately, there is no alternative: this planet has to learn to resolve its problems by talking and agreeing a common course of action, so might as well start with your immediate neighbours.