5 ms·

Sounds like we're going backwards! Soon we'll be collaborating with other nations about other things too!! /s

by lwhi 3y ago

gumballindie 3y ago
Maybe we'll make a trade deal with countries in our geographical proximity, so we can trade without barriers. Perhaps even allow people to go there and work, and people from there to come here. Who knows what the future brings.
- gadders 3y ago
  If only that was all that the EU was or intended to become.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Free trade without substantial political union is useless. Look at the Commonwealth for an example: broken, decaying, unpopular, a walking zombie of an institution.
    - tgv 3y ago
      The Commonwealth has a rather different history; I don't think it is a good analogy for the EU. Substantial political union isn't required per se, just enough common interest. That at least was the original thought behind the predecessor of the EU, and it seems to have worked through sharing economic interests.
      - toyg 3y ago
        The common economic interest was always seen as the best key to persuade countries to eventually federate. Read the arguments from early leaders of the ECSC and it's all very plain. The vision was always to reach a full political union, through the lever of an economic union that is necessary to remain competitive with the US and (the USSR back then, but today) China. Because in a superpower world, European countries alone are utterly irrelevant. You can take any trade bloc out there - none has the influence or the prospects of the EU, they are all fundamentally weak. You need shared political force to make a difference.
- hashtag-til 3y ago
  Like a "union" of European countries, you mean? Any suggestions of how we could name it? Let's try to come up with a simple name and a 2 letters acronym so that it is simple for people to refer to it? /s
  - cossray 3y ago
    This sounds great. You mean something like the African Union and its 2 letter acronym, AU?
    - hashtag-til 3y ago
      Sounds great. +2 from me.
    - layer8 3y ago
      Great Union or United Union sounds good.
- FiniteField 3y ago
  Yes, and maybe after that we can create a new supranational government that has fundamental authority over our own government, is free to write laws for us, can overrule our courts, removes all sovereignty over immigration, has a parliament with many degrees of democratic separation from the electorate, has an unelected commission that makes all the laws, has ever-expanding centralisation of power written into its constitution, forces us to accept fleets of bottom-trawling fishing boats to decimate our waters, forces us to spend huge amounts of money to literally incentivise farmers to destroy natural habitat- -wait why are you running away? This is exactly the same thing as a trade deal!
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > parliament with many degrees of democratic separation from the electorate The country with the entirely unelected unremovable upper house has no business complaining about this.
    - FiniteField 3y ago
      The house of lords had major reform at the start of Labour's last stint in government to remove hereditary peers. It's not impossible to go further, in fact I'd put it at about the same likelihood as reforming the EU structure in the medium to long term. Besides, short of violent revolution there's nothing the UK population can immediately do about the HoL. The Brexit vote was something that the people could directly do to at least de-abstract power and bring it closer to home. This was one of the most-advertised perks of the EU by the remain campaign: It's not the same as a nation superstate because you're able to voluntarily leave. Brexit was just the UK population exercising that right. The other point is that the Lords really doesn't have that much power when all's said and done. Yes, they can quibble and send bills back for review a few times, but they're nothing like the US senate for example, the commons have the final say over everyone else. Compare to the EU commission, who have much more power, and actually make the laws.
      - tgv 3y ago
        > actually make the laws But only in a few domains, and they always require approval. From wiki: "Most legislation needs to be proposed by the European Commission and approved by the Council of the European Union and European Parliament to become law." The former consists of the national governments, which usually has a popular mandate, the latter is chosen directly.

Sounds like we're going backwards! Soon we'll be collaborating with other nations about other things too!! /s

by lwhi 3y ago

Sounds like we're going backwards! Soon we'll be collaborating with other nations about other things too!! /s

Maybe we'll make a trade deal with countries in our geographical proximity, so we can trade without barriers. Perhaps even allow people to go there and work, and people from there to come here. Who knows what the future brings.

gadders 3y ago
If only that was all that the EU was or intended to become.
- toyg 3y ago
  Free trade without substantial political union is useless. Look at the Commonwealth for an example: broken, decaying, unpopular, a walking zombie of an institution.
  - tgv 3y ago
    The Commonwealth has a rather different history; I don't think it is a good analogy for the EU. Substantial political union isn't required per se, just enough common interest. That at least was the original thought behind the predecessor of the EU, and it seems to have worked through sharing economic interests.
    - toyg 3y ago
      The common economic interest was always seen as the best key to persuade countries to eventually federate. Read the arguments from early leaders of the ECSC and it's all very plain. The vision was always to reach a full political union, through the lever of an economic union that is necessary to remain competitive with the US and (the USSR back then, but today) China. Because in a superpower world, European countries alone are utterly irrelevant. You can take any trade bloc out there - none has the influence or the prospects of the EU, they are all fundamentally weak. You need shared political force to make a difference.
hashtag-til 3y ago
Like a "union" of European countries, you mean? Any suggestions of how we could name it? Let's try to come up with a simple name and a 2 letters acronym so that it is simple for people to refer to it? /s
- cossray 3y ago
  This sounds great. You mean something like the African Union and its 2 letter acronym, AU?
  - hashtag-til 3y ago
    Sounds great. +2 from me.
  - layer8 3y ago
    Great Union or United Union sounds good.
FiniteField 3y ago
Yes, and maybe after that we can create a new supranational government that has fundamental authority over our own government, is free to write laws for us, can overrule our courts, removes all sovereignty over immigration, has a parliament with many degrees of democratic separation from the electorate, has an unelected commission that makes all the laws, has ever-expanding centralisation of power written into its constitution, forces us to accept fleets of bottom-trawling fishing boats to decimate our waters, forces us to spend huge amounts of money to literally incentivise farmers to destroy natural habitat- -wait why are you running away? This is exactly the same thing as a trade deal!
- pjc50 3y ago
  > parliament with many degrees of democratic separation from the electorate The country with the entirely unelected unremovable upper house has no business complaining about this.
  - FiniteField 3y ago
    The house of lords had major reform at the start of Labour's last stint in government to remove hereditary peers. It's not impossible to go further, in fact I'd put it at about the same likelihood as reforming the EU structure in the medium to long term. Besides, short of violent revolution there's nothing the UK population can immediately do about the HoL. The Brexit vote was something that the people could directly do to at least de-abstract power and bring it closer to home. This was one of the most-advertised perks of the EU by the remain campaign: It's not the same as a nation superstate because you're able to voluntarily leave. Brexit was just the UK population exercising that right. The other point is that the Lords really doesn't have that much power when all's said and done. Yes, they can quibble and send bills back for review a few times, but they're nothing like the US senate for example, the commons have the final say over everyone else. Compare to the EU commission, who have much more power, and actually make the laws.
    - tgv 3y ago
      > actually make the laws But only in a few domains, and they always require approval. From wiki: "Most legislation needs to be proposed by the European Commission and approved by the Council of the European Union and European Parliament to become law." The former consists of the national governments, which usually has a popular mandate, the latter is chosen directly.