ChatterBank4 mins ago
Assuming He Gets His Referendum Of Exit From Brexit
How likely is remain to win considering all the rhetoric from the EU being about 'ever closer ties' etc.
There will always be die hard Remainers that will not accept that out will ever be right but for the others I wonder if they actually listen and understand?
There will always be die hard Remainers that will not accept that out will ever be right but for the others I wonder if they actually listen and understand?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim; It is you who are in error. As I said 10:17 Sun.
"It appears that an accepted prospective member has only to satisfy the list of requirements and their entry is automatic."
This as far as Turkey and the other potential members are concerned is a done-deed.
'The Ankara Agreement sought to integrate Turkey into a customs union with the EEC whilst acknowledging the final goal of membership. ... Moreover, the Helsinki European Council of 1999 proved a milestone as the EU recognised Turkey as a candidate on equal footing with other potential candidates.'
"It appears that an accepted prospective member has only to satisfy the list of requirements and their entry is automatic."
This as far as Turkey and the other potential members are concerned is a done-deed.
'The Ankara Agreement sought to integrate Turkey into a customs union with the EEC whilst acknowledging the final goal of membership. ... Moreover, the Helsinki European Council of 1999 proved a milestone as the EU recognised Turkey as a candidate on equal footing with other potential candidates.'
Apparently Junkers 'State of the Nation' speech didn't go down to well with all the other EU biggies. But that is what he wants and I see it coming to pass at some point if they throw enough of other people's money at all the propaganda and inducements at the poorer nations and such like.
Vote, revote and vote again just to make sure you finally give us the result you should. I suspect they are secretly hoping that is what we will do.
However, given the aims of the EU it is clear that if we were to suddenly decide to stay we would be swallowed up and used as nothing more than a cash cow with no power, no say and no point in having a parliament at all. We might have an MEP but Westminster would be redundant. In fact Westminster would be nothing more than a provincial local council fulfilling the whims of Brussels.
Vote, revote and vote again just to make sure you finally give us the result you should. I suspect they are secretly hoping that is what we will do.
However, given the aims of the EU it is clear that if we were to suddenly decide to stay we would be swallowed up and used as nothing more than a cash cow with no power, no say and no point in having a parliament at all. We might have an MEP but Westminster would be redundant. In fact Westminster would be nothing more than a provincial local council fulfilling the whims of Brussels.
I'm running out of ways to quote the actual text from EU positions, and Article 49 of the Lisbon treaty, that specify the requirement for unanimity among EU members in order for a new member to be accepted. But against that we have Khandro's unsourced insistence that Turkey could be an EU member tomorrow.
It's quite simple, really. Entrance to the EU requires a treaty that must be ratified by all EU members in order to be valid. In the case of any non-EU member wishing to join, one of the following two points is necessarily true:
1. That treaty doesn't exist yet, in which case we could refuse to sign it.
2. That treaty does exist, in which case we *could* have refused to sign it, but in the end didn't exercise that right.
There are at least three different points in the link I gave that specify the requirement for a unanimous decision. Which bit of "unanimous" don't you understand?
It's quite simple, really. Entrance to the EU requires a treaty that must be ratified by all EU members in order to be valid. In the case of any non-EU member wishing to join, one of the following two points is necessarily true:
1. That treaty doesn't exist yet, in which case we could refuse to sign it.
2. That treaty does exist, in which case we *could* have refused to sign it, but in the end didn't exercise that right.
There are at least three different points in the link I gave that specify the requirement for a unanimous decision. Which bit of "unanimous" don't you understand?
But it won't be though Jim. Those rules you are quoting is what should happen now.
The rule book as it is now will be fire lighter of the future because the EU want a super federal state so that the member countries become impotent.
I understand (to my small brain ability) what the rules are at present. We along with other countries have a veto on some things. We can say no, no, no as much as we like. However they will get around that. They will find some technical "crime" with which to take that away. Oh look at Poland and how they are looking at ways to punish them for not towing the line!
The UK could not even negotiate a reasonable deal on migration because you HAVE to tow the line. So there is no way we can keep control of anything really while we are in.
So forget what the rule book says now because in a few years it won't look like anything you recognise now. Look at what it means in the future and if you can't then read the words in Junkers state of the nation speak and the rhetoric that constantly falls from his mouth.
The rule book as it is now will be fire lighter of the future because the EU want a super federal state so that the member countries become impotent.
I understand (to my small brain ability) what the rules are at present. We along with other countries have a veto on some things. We can say no, no, no as much as we like. However they will get around that. They will find some technical "crime" with which to take that away. Oh look at Poland and how they are looking at ways to punish them for not towing the line!
The UK could not even negotiate a reasonable deal on migration because you HAVE to tow the line. So there is no way we can keep control of anything really while we are in.
So forget what the rule book says now because in a few years it won't look like anything you recognise now. Look at what it means in the future and if you can't then read the words in Junkers state of the nation speak and the rhetoric that constantly falls from his mouth.
jim;
'Conditions for membership
The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
Complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
Having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.
......... '
n.b. it carefully doesn't say ALL member states or whether a majority vote would suffice. There is no veto because it would be unlikely for all 27 members to agree on a new member.
Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro will be accepted, vetos will not apply.
You really ought to try to understand how the EU bureaucratic dictatorship works.
'Conditions for membership
The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
Complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
Having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.
......... '
n.b. it carefully doesn't say ALL member states or whether a majority vote would suffice. There is no veto because it would be unlikely for all 27 members to agree on a new member.
Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro will be accepted, vetos will not apply.
You really ought to try to understand how the EU bureaucratic dictatorship works.
If "the EU" as a whole want a super-federal state, then there's no dissent in the EU27 to stop it, so of course it would happen and all the rules would change accordingly. Only none of that is true, yet. If we were still a member in about ten years it would probably be even less true -- and in fact the UK's exercised its veto a number of times both to stop things happening to it that it didn't want (Schengen extending to the UK, adoption of the Euro, a totally random rebate for no *** reason).
Granted it's in the EU's long-term aims to become effectively a United States of Europe. But what may happen in the future doesn't change what is true now; and right now, the speech Juncker gave is more of a personal aspiration of his than an achievable short-term change in the make-up of the EU.
What's so awful about a USE anyway? It doesn't necessarily work that badly in the USA, with the states all having individual legislatures that have a great deal of autonomy, with a federal legislature overseeing nationwide plans and foreign interactions. I'm not for a second portraying the US system as perfect, but it's functional and doesn't end up leading to citizens becoming slaves of a superstate. You just have to set it up correctly, ensure that there are sufficiently clear rules that determine what states can do and what the federal legislature can't, and -- perhaps the biggest problem the EU faces -- all member states would need to be invested in the project for its own sake, as a genuine collaborative effort.
But the UK is out of it now, and that changes the dynamics greatly, for whatever you think of the EU you have to allow that the UK had a good deal of influence in it -- more than Leavers give it credit for.
Granted it's in the EU's long-term aims to become effectively a United States of Europe. But what may happen in the future doesn't change what is true now; and right now, the speech Juncker gave is more of a personal aspiration of his than an achievable short-term change in the make-up of the EU.
What's so awful about a USE anyway? It doesn't necessarily work that badly in the USA, with the states all having individual legislatures that have a great deal of autonomy, with a federal legislature overseeing nationwide plans and foreign interactions. I'm not for a second portraying the US system as perfect, but it's functional and doesn't end up leading to citizens becoming slaves of a superstate. You just have to set it up correctly, ensure that there are sufficiently clear rules that determine what states can do and what the federal legislature can't, and -- perhaps the biggest problem the EU faces -- all member states would need to be invested in the project for its own sake, as a genuine collaborative effort.
But the UK is out of it now, and that changes the dynamics greatly, for whatever you think of the EU you have to allow that the UK had a good deal of influence in it -- more than Leavers give it credit for.
jim; //and in fact the UK's exercised its veto a number of times both to stop things happening to it that it didn't want (Schengen extending to the UK, adoption of the Euro,//
Those were not vetos, - veto (Latin for “I forbid”), Britain did not forbid others from adoption of Schengen or the Euro, they opted out, which is a different matter.
Really 'end of'.
Those were not vetos, - veto (Latin for “I forbid”), Britain did not forbid others from adoption of Schengen or the Euro, they opted out, which is a different matter.
Really 'end of'.
"What's so awful about a USE anyway? It doesn't necessarily work that badly in the USA, with the states all having individual legislatures that have a great deal of autonomy, with a federal legislature overseeing nationwide plans and foreign interactions."
There is absolutely no comparison between the USA and a USE of the type envisaged by Mr Juncker. To attempt such a comparison is specious. The USA is formed of states which, by and large, have a single language, a single culture, a single monetary system and similar aims and goals. The 28 individual nations of the EU have none of these. The USA has a single democratically elected president held to account by democratically elected Senators and Representatives. The only democratically elected representatives in the EU are the MEPs and the European Parliament is not worthy of the soubriquet.
The principle fault with a United States of Europe would be the principle fault that currently exists with the EU – it is democratically deficient to an enormous and alarming degree. That deficiency is set to worsen as more powers are secured from individual nations by the Euromaniacs. Its unelected politicians demonstrate utter contempt for its for its electorate. Not something, I think, that can be levelled at the USA.
There is absolutely no comparison between the USA and a USE of the type envisaged by Mr Juncker. To attempt such a comparison is specious. The USA is formed of states which, by and large, have a single language, a single culture, a single monetary system and similar aims and goals. The 28 individual nations of the EU have none of these. The USA has a single democratically elected president held to account by democratically elected Senators and Representatives. The only democratically elected representatives in the EU are the MEPs and the European Parliament is not worthy of the soubriquet.
The principle fault with a United States of Europe would be the principle fault that currently exists with the EU – it is democratically deficient to an enormous and alarming degree. That deficiency is set to worsen as more powers are secured from individual nations by the Euromaniacs. Its unelected politicians demonstrate utter contempt for its for its electorate. Not something, I think, that can be levelled at the USA.
"Its unelected politicians demonstrate utter contempt for its for its electorate. Not something, I think, that can be levelled at the USA."
Oh, I'm fairly sure that the political elite in the Senate are about as disengaged from the people they represent as the EU are.
Also, I think you're taking the comparison a little too literally, in one sense: it's fundamentally obvious that, from a political point of view, a USE and a USA could share many features in common; how much in common would be largely a matter for the EU to decide, but in theory you could almost draw a one-to-one correspondence between various institutions. The EU Parliament and the House of Representatives, for example, could well largely have the same functions in future, while some merging of the EU Council and EU Commission would turn into the Senate; the countries' individual legislatures would map to State Congresses, and so on. It's not a specious comparison at all, if it were to be designed that way.
To be sure, I'm happy to accept that there are many differences as well -- although I think some States would grumble if you said that they were all basically the same, it's clear that the differences between French and Polish culture, say, dwarf those between North Carolina and South Dakota. But a comparison doesn't have to be perfect to be valid.
Oh, I'm fairly sure that the political elite in the Senate are about as disengaged from the people they represent as the EU are.
Also, I think you're taking the comparison a little too literally, in one sense: it's fundamentally obvious that, from a political point of view, a USE and a USA could share many features in common; how much in common would be largely a matter for the EU to decide, but in theory you could almost draw a one-to-one correspondence between various institutions. The EU Parliament and the House of Representatives, for example, could well largely have the same functions in future, while some merging of the EU Council and EU Commission would turn into the Senate; the countries' individual legislatures would map to State Congresses, and so on. It's not a specious comparison at all, if it were to be designed that way.
To be sure, I'm happy to accept that there are many differences as well -- although I think some States would grumble if you said that they were all basically the same, it's clear that the differences between French and Polish culture, say, dwarf those between North Carolina and South Dakota. But a comparison doesn't have to be perfect to be valid.
Well gee, when you put it like that it sounds so negative!
I don't think it's sinister or nefarious to desire more cooperation between nations, and fewer essentially arbitrary divisions. I'm saddened, for example, by the rise of Scottish Nationalism (and even Welsh) at the same time that Brexit became a thing. I just think that it moves things in the wrong direction. Describing that as "wanting the demise of the UK" is the straw-manniest straw man.
I don't think it's sinister or nefarious to desire more cooperation between nations, and fewer essentially arbitrary divisions. I'm saddened, for example, by the rise of Scottish Nationalism (and even Welsh) at the same time that Brexit became a thing. I just think that it moves things in the wrong direction. Describing that as "wanting the demise of the UK" is the straw-manniest straw man.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.