3 ms·

>It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it

by La1n 6y ago

>It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon. edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"

aksss 6y ago
Right, the EU has only gotten more powerful since ‘85 and consolidated more power across the continent. On that we agree. I’m not sure how that dynamic reduces their interest in the failure of the JD, if that’s the argument you’re trying to advance. Even they would (at least officially) seem to disagree given their statements of late. To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their regional interests have only increased. The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.