The Meaning of "Ever Closer Union"
Scroll to see replies
Original post by anarchism101
I don't like the EU in its current form much at all, but I couldn't give a flying **** for "UK sovereignty", and a USE doesn't bother me much at all. Why should I care whether my MP goes to make laws in London, or Rome, or Brussels, or wherever? I just care about what laws they make.
How can you not give a ***** for UK sovereignty? Do you nor believe in a nation's right to autonomy over its own affairs and to self-governance?
If you care about what laws your MP makes then you must care about sovereignty because without sovereignty the laws he is able to make are dictated by external factors.
Original post by Howard
How can you not give a ***** for UK sovereignty? Do you nor believe in a nation's right to autonomy over its own affairs and to self-governance?
Define a 'nation'. To take just one obvious example, why is the reference point the UK, rather than England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland?
Original post by anarchism101
Define a 'nation'. To take just one obvious example, why is the reference point the UK, rather than England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland?
Curve ball. We're talking about State sovereignty, not national or regional interests.
Original post by Howard
Curve ball. We're talking about State sovereignty, not national or regional interests.
And if "ever closer union" means becoming one state, then the EU would become the sovereign state, and the UK a "national or regional interest".
Original post by anarchism101
And if "ever closer union" means becoming one state, then the EU would become the sovereign state, and the UK a "national or regional interest".
Yes, the UK would become a regional government and this would rapidly be decomposed into bits - see
https://camis.arcmanche.eu/inshort/context/InterregIVA.html
With a budget of 173.5 million Euros, the INTERREG IVA France (Channel) – England programme is a European programme which aims to "favour the emergence between the French and English parties of a common citizenship area, of a feeling of belonging to a cross-border area, of a specific identity, by supporting concrete and sustainable co-operation that are set in a triple focus involving innovation and competitiveness, social cohesion, and sustainable development”.
Original post by anarchism101
And if "ever closer union" means becoming one state, then the EU would become the sovereign state, and the UK a "national or regional interest".
Exactly. And that's surely what's a stake. Does the UK ultimately want to be a regional interest in the EU (as one might argue Wales is to the UK) or does it with to retain its own sovereign autonomy?
Original post by Howard
Exactly. And that's surely what's a stake. Does the UK ultimately want to be a regional interest in the EU (as one might argue Wales is to the UK) or does it with to retain its own sovereign autonomy?
Which I don't care for. Nor have you given me any reason why I should.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by anarchism101
That's your lookout. Personally I'd rather be governed by laws created in my own parliament without undue influence from external sources.
Original post by crypticlocker
Muh ever closer union.
Also, the "United States of Europe" was also alluded to by Winston Churchill himself after the Second World War.
Muh ever closer union.
Also, the "United States of Europe" was also alluded to by Winston Churchill himself after the Second World War.
Also supported by Oswald Mosley and Adolf Hitler.
Original post by anarchism101
You obviously haven't travelled much. England, in particular, is different from other countries in the EU. Once "Ever Closer Union" is achieved it will be homogenized into the rest. How is England different? It is:
A country that is open to the world - that believes in diversity. The EU believes in homogenizing Europe.
A country that is safe for ethnic minorities - it was ony 20 years ago that parts of the EU were murdering their neighbours because of fear of difference. Mass genocide in living memory but not in England.
A culture of "live and let live" :
"Among foreigners, English people are known for being very indifferent, or tolerant, to other people’s choices in life, be it how you are dressed or whether your partner is from a different ethnic origin. It is quite common to meet mixed race French couples in London: is it because the pressure of the society is less evident or is it just a coincidence? Nobody really speaks about it openly." http://www.britishfuture.org/blog/living-as-a-mixed-race-couple/
A post-christian society based on Church of England Christianity and so has an impulse to moral behaviour but embraces change
The Common Law - the wisdom of ages available in the UK but not in the EU. Germany has no jury trials, the State can just instruct the judges as it sees fit. Versions of this also occur across the EU except in a few countries that have tried to introduce British fairness.
A beautiful landscape preserved by people in their localities who have fought to keep beauty.
Most of all the English look outwards. Britain is an Island and the people are proud of their travels. Children think that joining the EU is looking outwards but it is actually joining a club of people who are afraid and huddling together in the illusion of mutual protection.
Original post by Howard
without undue influence from external sources.
Yeah good luck with that in a free market society.
In any case look at how much money Eurosceptic parties are getting from Russia! Sovereignty indeed!
Original post by Davij038
Yeah good luck with that in a free market society.
In any case look at how much money Eurosceptic parties are getting from Russia! Sovereignty indeed!
In any case look at how much money Eurosceptic parties are getting from Russia! Sovereignty indeed!
From previous debates with yourself it is clear that what you want is a global socialist government. Why don't you start all your posts with your intentions instead of trying to subvert people? If you genuinely believe then be open with your beliefs.
Original post by newpersonage
From previous debates with yourself it is clear that what you want is a global socialist government. Why don't you start all your posts with your intentions instead of trying to subvert people? If you genuinely believe then be open with your beliefs.
I cant start every post with a manifesto!
Baby steps.
I don't think a 'global socialist'* government is possible now, for obvious reasons but I think it can be achieved at a continental level and I think that this is happening with the African Union abroad too.
My belief is that Nation States and Capitalism is not the end point of human civilization and that with globalization being inevitable (And if managed right, a good thing) this can only be of benefit to humanity when states put aside their differences and work together.
*Not overly fond of the socialist label- I'd rather Social Democrat: Some areas for capitalism, a basic income, Secularism and Human Rights.
Original post by Davij038
I cant start every post with a manifesto!
Baby steps.
I don't think a 'global socialist'* government is possible now, for obvious reasons but I think it can be achieved at a continental level and I think that this is happening with the African Union abroad too.
My belief is that Nation States and Capitalism is not the end point of human civilization and that with globalization being inevitable (And if managed right, a good thing) this can only be of benefit to humanity when states put aside their differences and work together.
*Not overly fond of the socialist label- I'd rather Social Democrat: Some areas for capitalism, a basic income, Secularism and Human Rights.
Baby steps.
I don't think a 'global socialist'* government is possible now, for obvious reasons but I think it can be achieved at a continental level and I think that this is happening with the African Union abroad too.
My belief is that Nation States and Capitalism is not the end point of human civilization and that with globalization being inevitable (And if managed right, a good thing) this can only be of benefit to humanity when states put aside their differences and work together.
*Not overly fond of the socialist label- I'd rather Social Democrat: Some areas for capitalism, a basic income, Secularism and Human Rights.
I favour cooperation. Blair and Bush torpedoed the growing adherence to International Law in the 1990-2000 period but this is no reason to give up hope that the external relations between states can be governed by International Law.
If you look at the economics of the EU countries, they did better when they were in the EEC. Joint government was not an advantage, cooperation was.
There are two major problems with large scale political unions, the first is that they have a single economy and end up with a single law and single culture. Globalisation in the 1920s and noughties showed how crises could spread like wildfire if there are not adequate firewalls between states.
The second is that states tend to have constitutions and these are designed to be hard to change. At present we can look around the world and vote for our country to be run like the best out there. When there is one government there will be no choice and no examples. Human culture will be frozen as it was in the great imperiums of the past, except that in a global government there will be no "barbarians" outside to inject new ideas.
I foresee a global government as a decade of success followed by successive waves of collapse, ever increasing security and a crushed population living in misery for a millennium under a tyranny.
Original post by newpersonage
I favour cooperation. Blair and Bush torpedoed the growing adherence to International Law in the 1990-2000 period but this is no reason to give up hope that the external relations between states can be governed by International Law.
I favour cooperation. Blair and Bush torpedoed the growing adherence to International Law in the 1990-2000 period but this is no reason to give up hope that the external relations between states can be governed by International Law.
This presumes that states such as Iraq were freely chosen by their people and were justly representative - or that if they were that unjust a rebellion could have occurred under them. I do not believe that states such as North Korea or Saudia Arabia are legitimate.
If you look at the economics of the EU countries, they did better when they were in the EEC. Joint government was not an advantage, cooperation was.
I think this would be remedied by full fiscal union
There are two major problems with large scale political unions, the first is that they have a single economy and end up with a single law and single culture.
I don't think that is a bad thing. If laws against genocide are universally applicable why cant say, child brides or FGM also be universally applicable?
Globalisation in the 1920s and noughties showed how crises could spread like wildfire if there are not adequate firewalls between states.
So high Tarriffs then? Good luck with that.
In any case look at how the Crash of the Lehman brothers in the 'sovereign' US impacted upon us in the separate UK- 'sovereignty' is no protection in the global economy.
The second is that states tend to have constitutions and these are designed to be hard to change. At present we can look around the world and vote for our country to be run like the best out there.
When there is one government there will be no choice and no examples. Human culture will be frozen as it was in the great imperiums of the past, except that in a global government there will be no "barbarians" outside to inject new ideas.
I foresee a global government as a decade of success followed by successive waves of collapse, ever increasing security and a crushed population living in misery for a millennium under a tyranny.
Heh, what you say about vote for the best out there: if every country followed the best out there where would the diversity you cherish be?
There already exist plenty of examples of differing modes of government. I think in some ways you've stated the conundrum that is democracy in that democracy by its very nature has to have an undemocratic element- we are free to live in a liberal democratic society and to be free to choose within the confines of the overton window. I think humanity is quite imaginative and we can do much better than what we have now.
I think if we lived in your world we'd be taking a step back to states fooling themselves that they are free, inevitable warfare (Which, when coupled with advanced technology will surely be far worse than previous ages) a mass fight over remaining resources, rampant overpopulation and the return of nationalism all of course watched over by a corporate elite able to exploit humanity on a global level.
Original post by Davij038
This presumes that states such as Iraq were freely chosen by their people and were justly representative - or that if they were that unjust a rebellion could have occurred under them. I do not believe that states such as North Korea or Saudia Arabia are legitimate.
Who is to say? The Saudis would maintain that we are simply spawn of the devil! Before you say that that would prove they are crazy reflect on the fact that such a reply would indicate that you have special access to philosophical truth that the Saudis do not share.
The N.Koreans started out as a Chinese backed group of people who were spreading International Socialism. They thought that they were at the beginning of a move to global socialist government.
I think this would be remedied by full fiscal union
As the Eurozone progresses it is exaggerating the differences between north and south and is leading to very low growth. They are not far off fiscal union.
I don't think that is a bad thing. If laws against genocide are universally applicable why cant say, child brides or FGM also be universally applicable?
Whilst your agenda is dominant you are in favour of global domination but over the decades another agenda will arise - it always does - and the world will be crushed.
So high Tarriffs then? Good luck with that
Who said high tariffs? If the UK paid WTO level tariffs on all its trade it would only pay £7.4 billion.
In any case look at how the Crash of the Lehman brothers in the 'sovereign' US impacted upon us in the separate UK- 'sovereignty' is no protection in the global economy.
My point was that financial transactions had been globalized so that the USA was unable to exercise its sovereign power.
Heh, what you say about vote for the best out there: if every country followed the best out there where would the diversity you cherish be?
Countries and cultures have different conceptions of "best". Again you are suggesting access to perfect judgement.
There already exist plenty of examples of differing modes of government. I think in some ways you've stated the conundrum that is democracy in that democracy by its very nature has to have an undemocratic element- we are free to live in a liberal democratic society and to be free to choose within the confines of the overton window. I think humanity is quite imaginative and we can do much better than what we have now.
With global government even regional issues will be ignored, let alone national issues.
I think if we lived in your world we'd be taking a step back to states fooling themselves that they are free, inevitable warfare (Which, when coupled with advanced technology will surely be far worse than previous ages) a mass fight over remaining resources, rampant overpopulation and the return of nationalism all of course watched over by a corporate elite able to exploit humanity on a global level.
We largely live in "my" world. It is moving towards your world that is causing grief. You dont seem to understand that the 80 or so people that own much of the world are the ones who truly favour megastates such as the EU and global government.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
No, raising specific examples is anecdotal, pointing out that the Treaties allow a continuous expansion of EU sovereignty within the "shared competences" is just pointing out what the Treaties allow.
Well you have yet to demonstrate that the Treaties allow for continuous expansion so examples are still needed.
It's anecdotal to say ''It will happen!'' without anything to back it up. It would be equally anecdotal for me to say ''It won't happen!''.
Original post by newpersonage
The "encouragement" was found when I scanned the Treaties in response to your suggestion that the Treaties would limit the EU in some areas of shared competence. I found that the Treaties have more detail on encouraging the EU to promote Tourism and pan-European energy policy than they had limitations on EU powers.
Why are you denying the Treaty provisions for ever closer union if you are a pro-EU supporter, surely this is what you want? Surely you want the UK voters to make an informed vote and would not be in favour of hiding away from public view what a "Remain" vote really means?
Why are you denying the Treaty provisions for ever closer union if you are a pro-EU supporter, surely this is what you want? Surely you want the UK voters to make an informed vote and would not be in favour of hiding away from public view what a "Remain" vote really means?
This doesn't matter. Encouraging someone to do something is still not the same thing as giving them all the power in the world to do it or to simply do what they like.
I'm not denying anything I simply don't agree with you. I know what an ''Ever Closer Union'' means I just don't think it means what you think it means. I'm neither for or against it.
Original post by SHallowvale
Well you have yet to demonstrate that the Treaties allow for continuous expansion so examples are still needed.
All I have said is that here are the treaties, they have areas of government that are "shared competences" and the Treaties refer to the EU's sovereignty over these competences thus:
"2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with theMember States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence."
I'm not denying anything I simply don't agree with you. I know what an ''Ever Closer Union'' means I just don't think it means what you think it means. I'm neither for or against it.
No, you don't disagree with me, I have only pointed out what the Treaties say, you disagree with the Treaties.
You certainly want me to demonstrate that this encroachment of EU power is not happening. Do you think that EU sovereignty and active control of all of the shared competences would be a bad thing? Is that what you are saying?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
All I have said is that here are the treaties, they have areas of government that are "shared competences" and the Treaties refer to the EU's sovereignty over these competences thus:
"2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with theMember States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence."
"2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with theMember States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence."
Yes and, as I've explained before, while the EU may have power to legislate over these areas of government that does not mean that it has complete and unlimited control over everything within these areas.
That is what you are saying, or at least implying. If you think this is actually the case fine, but that's why I have asked you to give examples.
Original post by newpersonage
The rest of your post seems to be a belief that the EU is wonderful and that anything bad or unwelcome will never come to pass.
No, you don't disagree with me, I have only pointed out what the Treaties say, you disagree with the Treaties.
No, you don't disagree with me, I have only pointed out what the Treaties say, you disagree with the Treaties.
Where... did I say that? This seems to be your own doing, not mine.
I don't disagree with the treaties I just don't think you understand what they are actually saying.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Motivational Quotes - Let's Get Studying
- September 2024
- Any 40+ students at Coventry Uni?
- My year 11 journey
- i got 51% similarity in turnitin will i get expelled
- Bangor University GC
- OCR course work
- Re writing an essay close to graduation
- Similarity report
- Post Your Favourite Inspirational Quotes :)
- Going from a C to A in english lit A-level
- Appeals process
- Failed a unit with 39.90% out of 40%
- Entry requirements
- temporary traffic lights
- French as and a level tutor for aqa french
- Similarity score 36% turnitin
- alevel languages
- GCSE English Lit/Lang
- A Christmas Carol Quotes
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 1 minute ago
KPMG Audit Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of the West of England, Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1043
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
SQA Higher French - Reading and Directed Writing - 26th April 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 minutes ago
DWP EO Job Centre Work Coach - March 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 8 minutes ago
Can I switch to a placement year on the same course?Last reply 8 minutes ago
Schroders apprenticeship 2024Posted 8 minutes ago
Rejected from 4/5 unis, don’t want to attend the one I have an offer forLast reply 9 minutes ago
SQA Higher Physics - Paper 2 - 25th April 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official: Hull York Medical School A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2920
Last reply 10 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
