5 ms·

It's the EU that arguably needs to come back to earth, by returning to a trading bloc, rather than a halfway house pan-european state. The shared monetary syst

It's the EU that arguably needs to come back to earth, by returning to a trading bloc, rather than a halfway house pan-european state. The shared monetary system with no shared fiscal policy will come apart one day, as it nearly did with the Greek sovereign debt crisis.

kergonath 4y ago
> It's the EU that arguably needs to come back to earth, by returning to a trading bloc, rather than a halfway house pan-european state. This old chestnut. Go read the Rome treaty or the Schuman declaration. The “it’s only economic” is a lie you’ve been sold by your own governments. The aim has always been political Union, from the beginning. Besides, the EU being “a trading bloc” would not solve any of the issues facing the British government, which mostly result from the government having mutually exclusive demands and being unwilling to keep its word and following the agreements it signed. Including on imports and exports, which is the essence of a trading bloc and would not be improved one bit of the EU were only one of those.
- okeuro49 4y ago
  > This old chestnut. Go read the Rome treaty or the Schuman declaration. The “it’s only economic” is a lie you’ve been sold by your own governments. The aim has always been political Union, from the beginning. That's not true. The Schuman declaration refers to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was about making war between countries materially impossible ie. through economic, not political, integration. It doesn't refer to stopping war by creating a common European Parliament with the idea that French and Germans should be subsumed into a European citzenry, with freedom of movement. Similarly, the Rome treaty established the European Economic Community. The idea of European citzenship being only established with Maastricht as late as 1992. The history of the European Union has been that of economic integration, with political union coming afterwards. There are many who would have preferred it not come afterwards. To characterise the project soley in terms of those who wanted a pan-European political project is misleading. Political union has not really worked. The European Parliament is a weak institution, and the sovereign debt crisis showed how unpleasant the democratic deficit is, in this case for everyday Greek citizens, as the European Commission forced through austerity measures, triggering a humanitarian crisis. > Including on imports and exports, which is the essence of a trading bloc and would not be improved one bit of the EU were only one of those. The red line for the UK government is freedom of movement. If the EU remained someething akin to ASEAN, ie. prior to Maastricht, the UK would rejoin, and everyone would enjoy sensible trading amongst similarly economically developed countries again. The EU's dream of German and Greek citizens voting together as "EU citizens" in powerful European Parliament on fiscal issues such as a shared pension age and sharing taxes, will never happen, so we have to wait until that folly is over and peoples using the Euro will continue to find out that they have ceded their democracies to undemocratic institutions.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > The Schuman declaration refers to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was about making war between countries materially impossible ie. through economic, not political, integration. Right, I’ll quote it here for you: “The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war. Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.” The CECA was from the begining the first step towards “a United Europe”, however close that unification might be. They just realised that they needed gradual steps. You can disagree with the steps, their size, and their frequency, but the end goal was explicit from the beginning. > The red line for the UK government is freedom of movement. And the common agriculture policy. And the fisheries policy. And the customs union. And the human rights. And Ireland. The British government had a lot of incompatible red lines from the beginning. This was obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. > If the EU remained someething akin to ASEAN, ie. prior to Maastricht, the UK would rejoin, and everyone would enjoy sensible trading amongst similarly economically developed countries again. That was a position (participation in the EEA but not the EU) the UK did not want to take. Besides, it was not even realistic in the first time. We are not in the 1980s anymore and Europe has changed quite a bit since then. > The EU's dream of German and Greek citizens voting together as "EU citizens" in powerful European Parliament on fiscal issues such as a shared pension age and sharing taxes That is not going to happen, at least in the foreseeable future, for several reasons. The first one being that the member states consider that their national sovereignty and they are the one pulling strings in the council. The Parliament cannot do that on its own, it’s just a convenient straw man. > will never happen, so we have to wait until that folly is over and peoples using the Euro will continue to find out that they have ceded their democracies to undemocratic institutions. More undemocratic than the Parliament in Westminster? You must be joking. And how accountable is the Bank of England? But yeah, rule Britannia. Also, you forget that the British government pushed all the way along this drift towards a more neo-liberal, insulated from the whims of its populations, Europe.

kergonath 4y ago

> It's the EU that arguably needs to come back to earth, by returning to a trading bloc, rather than a halfway house pan-european state. This old chestnut. Go read the Rome treaty or the Schuman declaration. The “it’s only economic” is a lie you’ve been sold by your own governments. The aim has always been political Union, from the beginning. Besides, the EU being “a trading bloc” would not solve any of the issues facing the British government, which mostly result from the government having mutually exclusive demands and being unwilling to keep its word and following the agreements it signed. Including on imports and exports, which is the essence of a trading bloc and would not be improved one bit of the EU were only one of those.

okeuro49 4y ago
> This old chestnut. Go read the Rome treaty or the Schuman declaration. The “it’s only economic” is a lie you’ve been sold by your own governments. The aim has always been political Union, from the beginning. That's not true. The Schuman declaration refers to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was about making war between countries materially impossible ie. through economic, not political, integration. It doesn't refer to stopping war by creating a common European Parliament with the idea that French and Germans should be subsumed into a European citzenry, with freedom of movement. Similarly, the Rome treaty established the European Economic Community. The idea of European citzenship being only established with Maastricht as late as 1992. The history of the European Union has been that of economic integration, with political union coming afterwards. There are many who would have preferred it not come afterwards. To characterise the project soley in terms of those who wanted a pan-European political project is misleading. Political union has not really worked. The European Parliament is a weak institution, and the sovereign debt crisis showed how unpleasant the democratic deficit is, in this case for everyday Greek citizens, as the European Commission forced through austerity measures, triggering a humanitarian crisis. > Including on imports and exports, which is the essence of a trading bloc and would not be improved one bit of the EU were only one of those. The red line for the UK government is freedom of movement. If the EU remained someething akin to ASEAN, ie. prior to Maastricht, the UK would rejoin, and everyone would enjoy sensible trading amongst similarly economically developed countries again. The EU's dream of German and Greek citizens voting together as "EU citizens" in powerful European Parliament on fiscal issues such as a shared pension age and sharing taxes, will never happen, so we have to wait until that folly is over and peoples using the Euro will continue to find out that they have ceded their democracies to undemocratic institutions.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > The Schuman declaration refers to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was about making war between countries materially impossible ie. through economic, not political, integration. Right, I’ll quote it here for you: “The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war. Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.” The CECA was from the begining the first step towards “a United Europe”, however close that unification might be. They just realised that they needed gradual steps. You can disagree with the steps, their size, and their frequency, but the end goal was explicit from the beginning. > The red line for the UK government is freedom of movement. And the common agriculture policy. And the fisheries policy. And the customs union. And the human rights. And Ireland. The British government had a lot of incompatible red lines from the beginning. This was obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. > If the EU remained someething akin to ASEAN, ie. prior to Maastricht, the UK would rejoin, and everyone would enjoy sensible trading amongst similarly economically developed countries again. That was a position (participation in the EEA but not the EU) the UK did not want to take. Besides, it was not even realistic in the first time. We are not in the 1980s anymore and Europe has changed quite a bit since then. > The EU's dream of German and Greek citizens voting together as "EU citizens" in powerful European Parliament on fiscal issues such as a shared pension age and sharing taxes That is not going to happen, at least in the foreseeable future, for several reasons. The first one being that the member states consider that their national sovereignty and they are the one pulling strings in the council. The Parliament cannot do that on its own, it’s just a convenient straw man. > will never happen, so we have to wait until that folly is over and peoples using the Euro will continue to find out that they have ceded their democracies to undemocratic institutions. More undemocratic than the Parliament in Westminster? You must be joking. And how accountable is the Bank of England? But yeah, rule Britannia. Also, you forget that the British government pushed all the way along this drift towards a more neo-liberal, insulated from the whims of its populations, Europe.