Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    The Eurozone is voting as a bloc right now before finance meetings of the EU Council! This is not speculation. When the Eurozone has political union all issues will be voted on in a bloc - that is what Political Union means.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    No, the OP says 2025, not 2017. That said, the existing Eurozone consists of enough members to control all EU Council meetings and Parliament.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The Eurozone is voting as a bloc right now before finance meetings of the EU Council!
    No, they don't. All the Eurozone countries are still their own, and vote any which way they choose.

    They are a bloc relating to finance meetings because they have a single currency. But they still have to agree that position beforehand.

    This is not speculation.
    It is. Some might say it's scaremongering.

    When the Eurozone has political union all issues will be voted on in a bloc - that is what Political Union means.
    This is not what political union means.

    It means that, in fields where they have agreed to integrate, those countries will have their own separate meetings to agree common ground between them. All other areas - where UK interests are concerned - the status quo will happen, whereby they vote any which way they choose.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No, they don't. All the Eurozone countries are still their own, and vote any which way they choose.

    They are a bloc relating to finance meetings because they have a single currency. But they still have to agree that position beforehand.

    This is not what political union means. It means that, in fields where they have agreed to integrate, those countries will have their own separate meetings to agree common ground between them. All other areas - where UK interests are concerned - the status quo will happen, whereby they vote any which way they choose.
    Yes, Eurozone votes as a bloc on finance:
    "They are a bloc relating to finance meetings because they have a single currency. But they still have to agree that position beforehand."

    Political Union affects all areas and:
    ".. in fields where they have agreed to integrate, those countries will have their own separate meetings to agree common ground between them."

    Yes, that is what I was saying, Eurozone currently votes as a bloc on finance and in future, after full political union, will vote as a bloc on almost everything. I would differ slightly, after 2025 the Eurozone will probably become like a single country and so will not require "member states" to confer - they will already be represented in the Eurozone government (ie: there will be a political union).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Yes, Eurozone votes as a bloc on finance:
    "They are a bloc relating to finance meetings because they have a single currency. But they still have to agree that position beforehand."

    Political Union affects all areas and:
    ".. in fields where they have agreed to integrate, those countries will have their own separate meetings to agree common ground between them."

    Yes, that is what I was saying, Eurozone currently votes as a bloc on finance and in future, after full political union, will vote as a bloc on almost everything. I would differ slightly, after 2025 the Eurozone will probably become like a single country and so will not require "member states" to confer - they will already be represented in the Eurozone government (ie: there will be a political union).
    And does the present situation whereby the Eurogroup agrees a position beforehand harm the UK? Doesn't seem so. Because they only work as a group when they are discussing fiscal policy relating to the Euro. Stands to reason.

    And no, I still disagree anyway. In those fields where the Eurogroup has decided to integrate, they will internally agree what they want. In fields where the UK's interests are concerned they will not be a single political bloc but will continue to vote however they wish. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No, they don't. All the Eurozone countries are still their own, and vote any which way they choose.

    They are a bloc relating to finance meetings because they have a single currency. But they still have to agree that position beforehand.
    So...you say the Eurozone don't vote as a bloc beforehand...and then! you say they do! on their own beforehand - sounds contradictory to me

    (Original post by gladders)
    It is. Some might say it's scaremongering.
    Have you read the 5 Presidents' Report. How can the official report by the European Commission be speculation, when it clearly states that the European Semester that decides the economic policy, will be divided as to concentrate on the 'euro' area first - which! as you've admitted yourself, are the Eurozone countries on their own - the difference by this report? is that what was finance meetings is now economic meetings...

    This report was approved by 5 Presidents of the EU (hence the namesake), one of them being Martin Schluz who opposed David Cameron on the recognition of multi-currency and said that the Euro is the currency of the EU - and now! the report clearly reinforces the Euro in the economic affairs - first; by revamping the European Semester (as discussed), second; more power to the Eurogroup 'in representing the interest of the single currency within the euro area and beyond' (as the influence of the euro area is expanding), third; setting up the Banking Union to be controlled by the ECB who has the existing duty to support the Euro already (that has an effect on all MS)

    (Original post by gladders)
    This is not what political union means.

    It means that, in fields where they have agreed to integrate, those countries will have their own separate meetings to agree common ground between them. All other areas - where UK interests are concerned - the status quo will happen, whereby they vote any which way they choose.
    I can agree with you so much, in that the objectives of the EU is cohesion (physical unity) and solidarity (political unity) in economic, social & territorial matters - though this currently discussion is towards the economic, with the Eurozone being physical, the changes/reforms being political

    However, the question is how much influence the euro-area has? Currently, you argue for 'the status quo' that they discuss the Euro in line with their monetary policy in order to function, and I totally get that! BUT this report reveals that the EU intends to strengthen its position within the EU to be more than just finance.

    Proof? As aforementioned, Martin Schluz said the Euro is the currency of the EU, yes? BUT it is more than that, as the report highlights: "The euro is more than just a currency. It is a political and economic project" AND the ECJ has confirmed that the Eurozone don't only affect monetary policy but economic policy as well - which the changes to the European Semester will increase/strengthen

    What else does the official report say? Well, first of all, "The process towards a deeper EMU is nonetheless open to all EU members" which suggests that the UK can still opt-out and keep the pound - so while it is a project, it is not forcing the European Union to be a Eurozone Union - the concern of the report is towards the influence/status of non-euro states, that post-deal, do not have a veto or opt-out and can only argue against a decision if one euro member agrees to prompt a debate to delay only 'where UK interests are concerned' or non-euro states' interests are concerned - wouldn't be such a provision if it didn't affect them XD - the point is, to dispute, they need a euro member to support, otherwise nothing O_o

    BUT what effect will a 'deeper EMU have', just finance and economic?
    Quote: "It should be transparent and preserve the integrity of the Single Market in all its aspects. In fact, completing and fully exploiting the Single Market in goods and services, digital, energy and capital markets should be part of a stronger boost towards economic union".
    Q: What has a 'deeper EMU' got to do with the Single Market? IF the Eurozone is purely financial? in a 'political and economic project' - I'll leave that open for you, res ipsa loquitur I say

    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Eurozone currently votes as a bloc on finance and in future, after full political union, will vote as a bloc on almost everything. I would differ slightly, after 2025 the Eurozone will probably become like a single country and so will not require "member states" to confer - they will already be represented in the Eurozone government (ie: there will be a political union).
    I differ here and agree with gladders to the extent that they will always vote as a bloc, but! I am concerned, in light of the report, with the expanding influence of the Euro in deciding the economic policies of the Union and how deeper EMU will preserve and complete the Single Market in a 'political and economic project' that it means more to be a euro state than a non-euro state - clearly demonstrated in the deal, where opposition requires one euro-state to question, meaning it doesn't matter if all non-euro states rallied together against a measure - that! is the concern, with the changes to the European Semester set to be completed by 2017 and is set in motion, b/c the report clearly says it is, before reporting back in 2017 to prepare for Stage 2

    (Original post by gladders)
    And does the present situation whereby the Eurogroup agrees a position beforehand harm the UK? Doesn't seem so. Because they only work as a group when they are discussing fiscal policy relating to the Euro. Stands to reason.

    And no, I still disagree anyway. In those fields where the Eurogroup has decided to integrate, they will internally agree what they want. In fields where the UK's interests are concerned they will not be a single political bloc but will continue to vote however they wish. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
    You are looking at 'the present situation' and that mind-boggles me, while ignoring the official report that I am referencing from XD However, I do agree with you, that they will not be a single political bloc, that non-euro states will still vote alongside - but! my problem and concern from the report, is that the status/influence of euro states is prevailing, having more say in the economic policies of the EU with the 'euro area' set as priority, having the Eurogroup involved 'beyond' finance and the Banking Union controlled by a body that already supports the Euro

    You argue that no harm has come about towards the UK, that finance we are safe because EU finance is separate because of the Euro. Can you explain to me then, in line with the facts, why the UK was unable to challenge a financial regulation given by EU financial authorities, for short-selling? The UK disputed this as it went beyond their competence when finance relates to currency, but! the ECJ ruled against.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by animus01)
    So...you say the Eurozone don't vote as a bloc beforehand...and then! you say they do! on their own beforehand - sounds contradictory to me
    It's pretty clear, isn't it? They bloc-vote on areas which are exclusively to do with the single currency (which is what this 'political union' is designed to address), after agreeing a position beforehand, but all other things, not to do with fiscal matters and the single currency, they do not (and will not) bloc vote.

    Have you read the 5 Presidents' Report. How can the official report by the European Commission be speculation, when it clearly states that the European Semester that decides the economic policy, will be divided as to concentrate on the 'euro' area first - which! as you've admitted yourself, are the Eurozone countries on their own - the difference by this report? is that what was finance meetings is now economic meetings...

    This report was approved by 5 Presidents of the EU (hence the namesake), one of them being Martin Schluz who opposed David Cameron on the recognition of multi-currency and said that the Euro is the currency of the EU - and now! the report clearly reinforces the Euro in the economic affairs - first; by revamping the European Semester (as discussed), second; more power to the Eurogroup 'in representing the interest of the single currency within the euro area and beyond' (as the influence of the euro area is expanding), third; setting up the Banking Union to be controlled by the ECB who has the existing duty to support the Euro already (that has an effect on all MS)

    I can agree with you so much, in that the objectives of the EU is cohesion (physical unity) and solidarity (political unity) in economic, social & territorial matters - though this currently discussion is towards the economic, with the Eurozone being physical, the changes/reforms being political

    However, the question is how much influence the euro-area has? Currently, you argue for 'the status quo' that they discuss the Euro in line with their monetary policy in order to function, and I totally get that! BUT this report reveals that the EU intends to strengthen its position within the EU to be more than just finance

    Proof? As aforementioned, Martin Schluz said the Euro is the currency of the EU, yes? BUT it is more than that, as the report highlights: "The euro is more than just a currency. It is a political and economic project" AND the ECJ has confirmed that the Eurozone don't only affect monetary policy but economic policy as well - which the changes to the European Semester will increase/strengthen

    What else does the official report say? Well, first of all, "The process towards a deeper EMU is nonetheless open to all EU members" which suggests that the UK can still opt-out and keep the pound - so while it is a project, it is not forcing the European Union to be a Eurozone Union - the concern of the report is towards the influence/status of non-euro states, that post-deal, do not have a veto or opt-out and can only argue against a decision if one euro member agrees to prompt a debate to delay only 'where UK interests are concerned' or non-euro states' interests are concerned - wouldn't be such a provision if it didn't affect them XD - the point is, to dispute, they need a euro member to support, otherwise nothing O_o

    BUT what effect will a 'deeper EMU have', just finance and economic?
    Quote: "It should be transparent and preserve the integrity of the Single Market in all its aspects. In fact, completing and fully exploiting the Single Market in goods and services, digital, energy and capital markets should be part of a stronger boost towards economic union".
    Q: What has a 'deeper EMU' got to do with the Single Market? IF the Eurozone is purely financial? in a 'political and economic project' - I'll leave that open for you, res ipsa loquitur I say
    And that's the end of the discussion, is it? There's no chance of the report being rejected, or heavily amended, in the years and years between now and when they are projecting these changes?

    The main motivation is to iron out cohesion problems about currency and fiscal union. Perhaps there will be mission-creep. Perhaps there will not. Either way, I have zero interest in alarmist speculation and am entirely at ease with having a second referendum in a decade's time if the situation changes.

    You are looking at 'the present situation' and that mind-boggles me, while ignoring the official report that I am referencing from XD However, I do agree with you, that they will not be a single political bloc, that non-euro states will still vote alongside - but! my problem and concern from the report, is that the status/influence of euro states is prevailing, having more say in the economic policies of the EU with the 'euro area' set as priority, having the Eurogroup involved 'beyond' finance and the Banking Union controlled by a body that already supports the Euro

    You argue that no harm has come about towards the UK, that finance we are safe because EU finance is separate because of the Euro. Can you explain to me then, in line with the facts, why the UK was unable to challenge a financial regulation given by EU financial authorities, for short-selling? The UK disputed this as it went beyond their competence when finance relates to currency, but! the ECJ ruled against.
    If the ECJ ruled against, then I trust the ECJ to make a better ruling on it than a politically-motivated British Government.

    At the end of the day, we can have another referendum whenever we like, much in the same way as the SNP threaten a second referendum if present conditions change. Why is it so objectionable for us to hold to a similar position?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And does the present situation whereby the Eurogroup agrees a position beforehand harm the UK? Doesn't seem so. Because they only work as a group when they are discussing fiscal policy relating to the Euro. Stands to reason.

    And no, I still disagree anyway. In those fields where the Eurogroup has decided to integrate, they will internally agree what they want. In fields where the UK's interests are concerned they will not be a single political bloc but will continue to vote however they wish. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
    Its not that hard to get:

    The Eurogroup, when politically and economically united is a single country. Political and economic union defines a country.

    The EU then becomes, by 2025, effectively the Eurogroup + the UK.

    On all issues that affect the UK + the Eurogroup the Eurogroup has the majority vote - always.

    On all issues that affect the UK the Eurogroup has the majority vote always.

    What you are suggesting is a regional opt out for the UK where issues that definitely only affect the UK are decided by the UK. Such a definite opt out does not exist at present. A new Treaty will be needed. But who on earth would want the UK to be reduced to a relatively independent region of the EU with the Eurogroup taking all of the national level of decisions? Also, with free movement of labour and capital it is difficult to define matters that would only affect the UK. The EU already imposes a vast raft of social, employment and trading standards legislation that has been agreed to be pan-European. Any opt out for the UK would serve no other function than to lie to the people about the extent of their independence and self-government.

    Leave now.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, the OP says 2025, not 2017. That said, the existing Eurozone consists of enough members to control all EU Council meetings and Parliament.
    The OP says stage 2 by 2025 which is also what the article says. The article however says stage 1 (adoption of the Euro by all but the UK and Denmark) by 2017.

    The non-Euro countries have agreements that caucusing amongst the Eurozone members won't take place.

    It is obvious why the Eurozone have agreed to that. If they start caucusing, their power is diminished. The countries outside the caucus would not stand for being permanently outvoted so the Eurozone members would have to concede special rights to the non-Eurozone members. As a result it is better for the Eurozone not to caucus.

    You can see the same effect with the Russell Group. Power in British higher education rested with what is now called Universities UK but only until the Russell Group caucused it . The other universities acquiesced in financial power passing to a body under the control of government (HEFCE) in preference to one under the control of the RG.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.