Eurozone Union will cause another referendum in 9 yrs if Remain wins Watch

newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
The Eurozone completes stage 2 of union - political union - in 2025. The EU will then consist of a single Eurozone bloc, Britain and Denmark. Vetoes are no longer permitted on most decisions so the Eurozone will have absolute control over the EU Council.

"Clearly without a Treaty change the Eurozone would be able to dictate a wide range of measures that would then have to be applied by the British and Danish who would be unable to oppose them. Alternatively the British and Danish could join the Eurozone and also enjoy central government with the rest of the EU. If Denmark or Britain fail to join the Eurozone their EU membership would almost certainly need to be reduced to something similar to the European Economic Area status of Norway." https://ieuweb.wordpress.com/2016/04...ion-in-the-eu/

If you vote Remain in the June referendum you will be voting again within 10 years.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
*shrug*

Okay. I'm cool with that.
2
reply
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by gladders)
*shrug*

Okay. I'm cool with that.
People who do not want full political union but are contemplating "Remain" should vote "Leave" rather than giving pro-EU people a few years of false hope.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by newpersonage)
People who do not want full political union but are contemplating "Remain" should vote "Leave" rather than giving pro-EU people a few years of false hope.
Why? They'll get another vote in X however many years. They can decide on that issue then and there.

In the meantime they'll remain in something that is not and won't be a full political union.
2
reply
M14B
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by newpersonage)
The Eurozone completes stage 2 of union - political union - in 2025. The EU will then consist of a single Eurozone bloc, Britain and Denmark. Vetoes are no longer permitted on most decisions so the Eurozone will have absolute control over the EU Council.

"Clearly without a Treaty change the Eurozone would be able to dictate a wide range of measures that would then have to be applied by the British and Danish who would be unable to oppose them. Alternatively the British and Danish could join the Eurozone and also enjoy central government with the rest of the EU. If Denmark or Britain fail to join the Eurozone their EU membership would almost certainly need to be reduced to something similar to the European Economic Area status of Norway." https://ieuweb.wordpress.com/2016/04...ion-in-the-eu/

If you vote Remain in the June referendum you will be voting again within 10 years.
I do not quite follow the logic of this.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Cool, maybe the Out Campaign will have a plausible argument then. Until that time, vote IN.
3
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by newpersonage)
People who do not want full political union but are contemplating "Remain" should vote "Leave" rather than giving pro-EU people a few years of false hope.
...If we'd get another referendum before a full political union, why would I vote leave now? Why wouldn't I just vote leave in 10 years? What???
2
reply
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I doubt the EU will last 9 years in its current form any ways.
1
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
What about the Swedes who voted against joining the Euro?

I've just read that they deliberately leave the prerequisites for joining unfulfilled so they aren't obliged to join.
0
reply
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why? They'll get another vote in X however many years. They can decide on that issue then and there.

In the meantime they'll remain in something that is not and won't be a full political union.
I know that you believe in full union. Why are you trying to entrap people into the EU when you know full well that the final destination is government from Brussels? I believe that you should lay your cards on the table when debating politics rather than slyly making out that your beliefs will never happen in an attempt at lulling people into making mistakes that are against their interests.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by newpersonage)
I know that you believe in full union. Why are you trying to entrap people into the EU when you know full well that the final destination is government from Brussels? I believe that you should lay your cards on the table when debating politics rather than slyly making out that your beliefs will never happen in an attempt at lulling people into making mistakes that are against their interests.
I don't believe in a full union.
0
reply
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I don't believe in a full union.
Well, you are either going to get it in the long run or will have to vote Leave at some stage. Leaving earlier is better than later - there is less to disentangle.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor said:

"we need a political union first and foremost" (BBC News).

Francois Hollande, the French president said:

"Political union is the step that follows fiscal union, banking union, and social union. It will provide a democratic framework for successful integration." (Le Monde)

President Sergio Mattarella of Italy's inaugural speech Feb 2015:

"The EU is now once again a perspective of hope andtrue political union to be relaunched without delay."

Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spanish prime minister:

"We need to fix these objectives - fiscal union, banking union, political union...And we must set a time scale. We are giving a message that we really want greater European integration. We can't say something is this first, then something else, without saying where we're going," Rajoy said at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. (Reuters report).

What the European Commission says:

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission said:

"This is why the Economic and Monetary Union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it."...

.."A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve." (State of the Union 2012 Address to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012).

The EU's Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union (and political union) states that:

"This Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU describes the necessary
elements and the steps towards a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union."

What the European Central Bank says:

1999 paper by the European Central Bank: Europe: Common Money - Political Union? In this paper it says that:

"The monetary order established by the Maastricht Treaty with the detailed statute of the European System of Central Banks by itself represents an important building block for the development of a European statehood."

The importance of the connection between monetary union and the establishment of a single state was well understood at the new European Central Bank in 1999:

"So what does the future hold? Anyone who believes in the role of a single currency as a pace-setter in achieving political unity (Europe will be created by means of a single currency or not at all (Jacques Rueff 1950)) will regard the decisive step as has having already been taken. This does not provide an answer as to how the "rest" of the journey should be approached. "

How does the European Central Bank see the current Euro crisis evolving? Here is an extract from an ECB approved presentation on the subject, Short Term Crisis Management and Long Term Vision, describing the 4 steps to a solution, the last step, ahead of us now, is Political Union
1
reply
animus01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
I cannot help but find this thread particularly interesting, for those who want to 'remain' in the European Union wouldn't want to 'remain' in the 'Eurozone Union' and yet wouldn't mind another referendum when the time comes XD

However, if you read the official Five Presidents' Report (by the European Commission that leads/directs the EU) as opposed to the article (https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/site...-report_en.pdf),it clearly states that during Stage 1 (by 2017 - by way of clarification):

1. The European Semester (that decides the economic policy of the EU, involved in which is the assessment of each MS, before commonly agreed policies are implemented across MS' will be revamped as to devote the first stage entirely to the euro-area(euro-members) before addressing country specific issues in the second stage for 'stronger coordination of economic policies' - before the commonly agreed policy is introduced all over

HOWEVER should the euro-area be given more power to decide economic policies? The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Pringle v Ireland was asked how to define the EU monetary policy (to which the euro operates and to which the UK has no say as outside the euro, rightfully so) and ruled it refers to the goal of price stability and that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) for the Eurozone is not solely concerned with price stability but also influences economic policy which affects all MS, recognising MS retain competence over their economic policy - so! Is it wrong for the UK to speak out against a economic policy that it has been affected by? NO

NOTE: The Eurozone comprises of 19/28 MS at present - the article from the OP reinforces the fact,that the members of the Eurozone currently qualify a Qualified Majority

2. The establishment of the Banking Union that sets up a bridge financing mechanism for the Single Resolution Fund that applies to all MS, while ensuring it will make the ESM effective in the overall aim to promote/strengthen the Euro throughout the Union- to be supported by integration into EU law (and reinforced by 2025 by integrating the ESM into EU law) to which the ECJ will enforce

HOWEVER a European Banking Union has been found to be of direct effect to the UK, as it integrates the Eurozone into the EU, whilst being directly applicable to all MS that would affect the UK financial services market more substantially - the ultimate concern is that the ECB will become the main supervisory actor and ultimate regulator of the Banking Union - the effect of which, would have the ECB responsible for the stability of the Euro and! Banking regulations which! combined = benefit euro MS and adversely affect the UK as a non-euro MS (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/...ance_FINAL.pdf)

Does the EU control UK finance? Appears to somewhat in UK v EP and Council EU where the UK challenged the regulation of short-selling for EU financial authorities going beyond their powers/competences, the ECJ refused .

3. Economic Union + Finance Union + Fiscal Union + Political Union are all required and inter-dependent to achieve the targets, set for 2025

What is the EU heading for? Well, it is in the objectives of the EU (http://europa.eu/scadplus/constituti...ectives_en.htM) within the Treaties, which is for 'the promotion of economic, social andterritorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States' - where 'solidarity' refers to 'unity or agreement of feeling or action' and 'cohesion' refers to 'the action or fact of forming a united whole' - and in law, unless a term is defined in the document, the dictionary definition applies, which is applicable to UK and EU law, as taught to me in Public law for UK law and in EU law for EU law

What this means? To be politically and physically united in our economies, in our social policies and in our territories - the report clearly shows that in order to be joined economically, being physically united is not enough (Eurozone), but need to be politically united as well - which! The UK is part of (generally speaking), until the UK opts out of political union...

Does the UK not geta Treaty too to opt out? In theory, it should from the 'deal', but there is a Q if we will after Martin Schluz, President of the European Parliament, appeared to reject the notion of implementing the UK 'deal' into a Treaty - and as yet,the 'deal' as a whole remains to be seen

This extends also to the 'emergency brake' as Graf Lambsdorff MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, said the measures need to be put before Parliament first and has expressed that it will come under significant changes, particularly for the 'emergency brake' which he and the ALDE group will oppose for the protection of the basic fundamental freedom, a feeling shared in the EPP and S&D groups. (http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-e...t-concessions/)- IF he is correct, rejection requires only a simple majority at first instance, absolute majority after (376/751) when considering amendments/watering down.

NOTE: ALDE + EPP + S&D = 474/751

So! Where does the UK stand post-deal?
Cameron argued for multi-currencies to be recognised throughout the Union (rejected), to ensure countries outside eurozone are not materially disadvantaged (to an extent for mutual respect b/w MS, but! the report suggests non-euro members potentially will be disadvantaged and affected), wanted safeguards to protect non-euro members (to an extent IF one euro member agrees, however this power is only to delay and provoke debate - no opt-out)

IF anything, the'deal' goes to reinforce that the euro takes priority. As Mr Schulz says, 'the currency of the EU is the euro' and so the report, agreed by all 5 EU institutions (hence namesake of 5 Presidents' Report) moves the EU closer towards that. It doesn't matter if all non-euro members collaborate and say they don't like a measure, it is enough if one euro-member is unsatisfied...will this be likely?

What I wish to highlight, is that Stage 1 is already in operation and I shall reinforce this,by quoting directly from the report - "To prepare the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2, the Commission will present a White Paper in spring 2017 assessing progress made in Stage 1 and outlining the next steps needed"

If you didn't know this ^ was happening, just like we didn't know TTIP was happening before the leak, or even CETA before that - surely this calls for a greater need for thepeople of Europe to be aware of what is going on
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by newpersonage)
Well, you are either going to get it in the long run or will have to vote Leave at some stage. Leaving earlier is better than later - there is less to disentangle.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor said:

"we need a political union first and foremost" (BBC News).

Francois Hollande, the French president said:

"Political union is the step that follows fiscal union, banking union, and social union. It will provide a democratic framework for successful integration." (Le Monde)

President Sergio Mattarella of Italy's inaugural speech Feb 2015:

"The EU is now once again a perspective of hope andtrue political union to be relaunched without delay."

Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spanish prime minister:

"We need to fix these objectives - fiscal union, banking union, political union...And we must set a time scale. We are giving a message that we really want greater European integration. We can't say something is this first, then something else, without saying where we're going," Rajoy said at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. (Reuters report).

What the European Commission says:

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission said:

"This is why the Economic and Monetary Union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it."...

.."A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve." (State of the Union 2012 Address to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012).

The EU's Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union (and political union) states that:

"This Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU describes the necessary
elements and the steps towards a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union."

What the European Central Bank says:

1999 paper by the European Central Bank: Europe: Common Money - Political Union? In this paper it says that:

"The monetary order established by the Maastricht Treaty with the detailed statute of the European System of Central Banks by itself represents an important building block for the development of a European statehood."

The importance of the connection between monetary union and the establishment of a single state was well understood at the new European Central Bank in 1999:

"So what does the future hold? Anyone who believes in the role of a single currency as a pace-setter in achieving political unity (Europe will be created by means of a single currency or not at all (Jacques Rueff 1950)) will regard the decisive step as has having already been taken. This does not provide an answer as to how the "rest" of the journey should be approached. "

How does the European Central Bank see the current Euro crisis evolving? Here is an extract from an ECB approved presentation on the subject, Short Term Crisis Management and Long Term Vision, describing the 4 steps to a solution, the last step, ahead of us now, is Political Union
Cool story, but this isn't relevant to what I had said.

If your OP is true then I don't get what the issue is. We'll have a referendum on whether to join a full political union and the people will decide then.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
The federation is coming but 9 years is much too ambitious. Most will probably prefer to leave at the time rather than in advance.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by newpersonage)
People who do not want full political union but are contemplating "Remain" should vote "Leave" rather than giving pro-EU people a few years of false hope.
What on earth is "full political union" supposed to mean? The abolition of national and devolved legislatures in member-states and the abolition of local government right down to your parish council? The concept is complete nonsense.

The EU will always be an entity with a set of defined competences. Indeed, it has taken action to strengthen the limitations of these competences. Subsidiarity remains an important principle of the EU and will continue to be so.

Yes, a shared currency and monetary policy requires a certain harmonisation in fiscal decisions within the Eurozone. That is only sensible. To suggest the Council is somehow going to have a single Eurozone representation is, of course, invented nonsense.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by newpersonage)
The Eurozone completes stage 2 of union - political union - in 2025. The EU will then consist of a single Eurozone bloc, Britain and Denmark. Vetoes are no longer permitted on most decisions so the Eurozone will have absolute control over the EU Council.
So in your view and that of the author, Stage 1 which involves all EU members except the opt out countries Denmark and the EU adopting the Euro will be complete by 2017.

Sweden isn't a member of the ERM which is a precondition to adopting the Euro.

Hungary also isn't a member of the ERM and plans new Forint banknotes in 2018

Poland isn't a member of the ERM.


The author might as well be saying that the EU plans to end subsidies for unicorn farming.
1
reply
animus01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Cool story, but this isn't relevant to what I had said.

If your OP is true then I don't get what the issue is. We'll have a referendum on whether to join a full political union and the people will decide then.
(Original post by Rakas21)
The federation is coming but 9 years is much too ambitious. Most will probably prefer to leave at the time rather than in advance.
I am going to address both your points together as they appear to overlap, in that 'it's fine and dandy now, we'll deal with it then' BUT is everything fine and dandy now? The OP suggests that we have nothing to be concerned about until 2025. To an extent, it could be argued we could wait it out, but at what cost...

As I highlighted in my post from reading the official 5 Presidents' Report, 2017 will see the European Semester (where EU economic policy is discussed before commonly agreed policies are binding on all members) led by euro-members in the first part before considering country specific issues & the introduction of the Banking Union (which is reported to be a threat to the UK and non-euro members) that the ECB will operate, ontop of its existing duties to support the Euro XD - Why, not even our judges are allowed to judge cases if they are linked in any way to question their impartiality - same here

Is that all? NO as the European Court of Justice confirms in Pringle v Ireland that the Eurozone influences economic policy, to which all members are affected - and yet! it was decided by EU leaders, that the only way non-euro members can dispute decisions is if one euro-member agrees, which will only trigger debate and delay the decision, but no provision to opt-out

This is the issue in the 'here and now' - sure! it is not political union yet, and I can accept that point, but economic policies of the EU will be dominated by the euro, which is 'the currency of the EU' and so have priority - which post-2017, will be worked into EU law

We could wait until such a time, when it does get worked into EU law to ensure the UK is not part of it, but! as concerned as I was by Labour and Lib-Dem not wanting us to have a referendum until Treaty change, is as concerned as I am now if we wait until that point - as it has been shown, that when it comes to a referendum on ratifying a Treaty that impacts on the whole EU, that the electorate will be told to vote again if they get it wrong (See: Irish Referendum) with much more pressure to get it right

(Original post by L i b)
What on earth is "full political union" supposed to mean? The abolition of national and devolved legislatures in member-states and the abolition of local government right down to your parish council? The concept is complete nonsense.

The EU will always be an entity with a set of defined competences. Indeed, it has taken action to strengthen the limitations of these competences. Subsidiarity remains an important principle of the EU and will continue to be so.

Yes, a shared currency and monetary policy requires a certain harmonisation in fiscal decisions within the Eurozone. That is only sensible. To suggest the Council is somehow going to have a single Eurozone representation is, of course, invented nonsense.
I believe you are exaggerating point to suggest full political union is to usurp every ounce of power and control everything from Brussells, but that meaning is one I understand and accept. However, as I have identified and translated in my previous post, it is the aim of the EU to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion (to bring together physically) and solidarity (unified agreement - politically) - Economically speaking, economic cohesion is taking place through the Eurozone and the aim of the report is economic solidarity but! as the ECJ confirms, it does impact in areas that all members are affected by - that being the concern raised in the report

Therefore it is hardly 'complete nonsense' when the aforementioned aims have been agreed treaty-by-treaty, but I would not go as far as saying that Brussels will remove national/local governments, or it would not be 'cohesion' XD so I agree with you to that extent, as I would to the EU sharing competences and requiring harmonisation of the Euro - but! not to the extent of the Euro influences policies that affect non-euro states, as the ECJ confirms the Eurozone does (and that is before the reforms of the Five Presidents' Report)

As far as the Council becoming 'a single Eurozone representation' - again, I would not go that far and I do not believe that is what is being suggested - what the author is saying, is the fact that euro members (19/28) currently hold a Qualified Majority Vote, which is enough to outvote non-euro members - which can be used in the realms of economic policy making to have stronger clout than those outside the Euro - to suggest we'd be better off in a EFTA/EEA arrangement, as we'd at least have a right to refuse (unlike the conclusion of the deal, that removes non-euro members' ability to use a veto or opt-out)

(Original post by nulli tertius)
So in your view and that of the author, Stage 1 which involves all EU members except the opt out countries Denmark and the EU adopting the Euro will be complete by 2017.

Sweden isn't a member of the ERM which is a precondition to adopting the Euro.

Hungary also isn't a member of the ERM and plans new Forint banknotes in 2018

Poland isn't a member of the ERM.

The author might as well be saying that the EU plans to end subsidies for unicorn farming.
The whole entire report is to affect all members, regardless of whether the member is in the Euro or not, but serves to reinforce and strengthen the Euro. The concern for that, is the extent to which the reinforcement affects non-euro members, as euro-members will have more say over economic policy, while non-euro members have little, unless they get support from one euro-member. As far as the Treaties are concerned, as Martin Schluz (President of the European Parliament) highlights, the 'euro' IS the currency of the EU - which is why the EU did not accept Cameron's desire for the EU to recognise multi-currencies.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
This all assumes that the Eurozone members will become, and will consent to become, a monoform bloc which always votes the same way. The mood in Europe is the very opposite of this.

In areas where UK interests overlap with Eurozone interests, then the UK will remain one state among many and may be outvoted, but can also have a jolly good chance at being on the winning side, as now.
0
reply
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Cool story, but this isn't relevant to what I had said.

If your OP is true then I don't get what the issue is. We'll have a referendum on whether to join a full political union and the people will decide then.
Well, in 10 years time the issue will be whether or not we can extricate ourselves from the EU. Putting the vote to Leave off is just a slippery ploy by the disingenuous Leave campaign. We are too old to fall for "Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly."
".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (22)
24.44%
No (68)
75.56%

Watched Threads

View All