4 ms·
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 requi
by 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".