Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[The Don]

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

Well that's certainly the anti-EU propaganda that's been put out by Eurosceptics since the UK joined back in the 1970's.

Of course the EU wants greater cooperation between the members of the European Union for economic, political, security and diplomatic reasons but so far there's no indication that there will be a single state from mainstream politicians.

Even contentious things like an "EU army" turn out to be something completely different to the claims of the Eurosceptics. Instead of the threatened continent-wide martial force in which individual countries lose their own sovereignty and armed forces, it's an agreement between two countries (France and Germany) to invest some money in improving interoperability between there forces.

 

[McHrozni]

Well that's certainly the anti-EU propaganda that's been put out by Eurosceptics since the UK joined back in the 1970's.

Of course the EU wants greater cooperation between the members of the European Union for economic, political, security and diplomatic reasons but so far there's no indication that there will be a single state from mainstream politicians.

No, I disagree. A unified, single pan-European state is the main goal of the EU. The current crop knows this is unachievable in the present generation, but they know that to be the end goal - and agree with it.

What those against it do is claim the EU is doing that and leaving at it, as if it were an argument against the EU in on itself. Why would it be? That's how UK came into existence. So did France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Sweden and I could go on (Greece anyone?). Has anyone checked the American national motto and wondered why does it say "out of many, one"? USA won independence in 1783 but the first president was inaugurated in 1789, how come?
Because for the first six years after independence, there was no USA. There was a collection of 13 loosely connected but independent colonies. I don't see many calls in USA to go back to that organization. They seem fine with their pan-American superstate.

A few wannabe separatists aside in Catalonia and elsewhere few consider being part of a superstate an inherenly bad thing - and said separatists do so based on in no small part on bad blood in the past.

Why would a pan-European state be a bad thing? I have yet to find an Euroskeptic who manages to answer that question with something that would make remote sense.

McHrozni

 

[Nessie]

I am concerned that by leaving the EU, where the UK has a vote/veto/controls and being dependent on WTO rules, which the UK has no vote/veto/controls, we are losing Sovereignty.

 

[The Don]

I am concerned that by leaving the EU, where the UK has a vote/veto/controls and being dependent on WTO rules, which the UK has no vote/veto/controls, we are losing Sovereignty.

That's an interesting point of view and one which I'm sure isn't shared by Brexiteers.

Remember that signing up to a series of standards, the overwhelming majority of which we have helped define and have agreed to (and those which we haven't, we likely have an opt-out or veto), is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty but committing to a trade deal with the US where they have the whip-hand is the UK celebrating its sovereignty post-Brexit.

 

[McHrozni]

I am concerned that by leaving the EU, where the UK has a vote/veto/controls and being dependent on WTO rules, which the UK has no vote/veto/controls, we are losing Sovereignty.

There is one, and only one, country that puts Soverignty over all. It has no international treaties to speak of, it follows no standards other than those of their own.

It's called North Korea (and sometimes Best Korea).

The practical upshot of this is they're the pawns of their much bigger neighbor, China, that keeps them alive and the ruling dynasty in power for their own ends.

Absolute soverignty always was a myth. EU does more to improve soverignty than it costs - whatever soverignty the voter loses in his or her own country they also gain by having soverignty over a much larger swath of countries.

It works exactly the same in a household, village, town, county, country, nation or pan-national union. With each step you trade some of your soverignty for a small part of soverignty over others. The net result is paradoxically positive, because it allows for far more coordination and cooperation between what are still individuals.

McHrozni

 

[Nessie]

That's an interesting point of view and one which I'm sure isn't shared by Brexiteers.

Remember that signing up to a series of standards, the overwhelming majority of which we have helped define and have agreed to (and those which we haven't, we likely have an opt-out or veto), is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty but committing to a trade deal with the US where they have the whip-hand is the UK celebrating its sovereignty post-Brexit.

Brexiters just hate the EU. They are happy following the rules of the WTO, UN, Commonwealth, NATO, IMF, OECD and the numerous other organisations the UK is in, despite those memberships causing similar restrictions on sovereignty regarding trade, immigration etc. We cannot even hunt for whales any more because of the IWO.

The only one we got a vote and proper representation in, is the EU and we are leaving it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

The EU IS a collection of independent sovereign countries... which of them will be the first in your view to change that status and volunteer to become a state of this USE?

(Answer: None of them)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, I disagree. A unified, single pan-European state is the main goal of the EU.

It really isn't. There may be (some, very few) people within the EU who would like that but the EU isn't anything other than a group of member states none of whom want to, plan to or would ever genuinely consider giving up their status as independent, sovereign nations.

Some of those members have fought long and hard to get their independent sovereign nation status. They aren't giving it up any time soon.

 

[McHrozni]

It really isn't. There may be (some, very few) people within the EU who would like that but the EU isn't anything other than a group of member states none of whom want to, plan to or would ever genuinely consider giving up their status as independent, sovereign nations.

Some of those members have fought long and hard to get their independent sovereign nation status. They aren't giving it up any time soon.

Have you seen a historic map of Europe lately?

This is Germany.
This was France.
This became Spain.
Italy.
What do you think put "United" in the United Kingdom of Netherlands?
UK is not unique either. This is England by the way, plus the five or six Welsh kingdoms.

There was opposition to that too, but it was overcome. EU is just the next iteration of the process that has been going on since the high middle ages. Democratically this time around. Yay!
It's the second time it happened, after USA was created six years after the 13 colonies won their independence from UK.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I disagree. A unified, single pan-European state is the main goal of the EU. The current crop knows this is unachievable in the present generation, but they know that to be the end goal - and agree with it.

What those against it do is claim the EU is doing that and leaving at it, as if it were an argument against the EU in on itself. Why would it be? That's how UK came into existence. So did France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Sweden and I could go on (Greece anyone?).

Nonsense, they would need a proper war to conquer the other states, that is how all true nations are built not this BS political process. Violence and blood people, that is what makes a nation!

 

[McHrozni]

Nonsense, they would need a proper war to conquer the other states, that is how all true nations are built not this BS political process.

Yeah. Especially the ones with "United" in the name. Like UK.

Oops. That was a feudal inheritance.

Like USA?

Oops. That was a political process much like the EU.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yeah. Especially the ones with "United" in the name. Like UK.

Oops. That was a feudal inheritance.

Like USA?

Oops. That was a political process much like the EU.

McHrozni

Apart from all those wars between England and Scotland and Ireland and those Wars between Britain, France and Spain in America and the wars between USA and Britain, Canada, Spain and Mexicoand against itself and the indigenous population you mean?

 

[The Don]

Yeah. Especially the ones with "United" in the name. Like UK.

Yes, the subjugation of the Welsh was an entirely peaceful process

 

[McHrozni]

Apart from all those wars between England and Scotland and Ireland and those Wars between Britain, France and Spain in America and the wars between USA and Britain, Canada, Spain and Mexicoand against itself and the indigenous population you mean?

Yeah.

Great Britain was created peacefully, through a political process, a unification of two kingdoms with centuries of animosity between them. Sure in the preceeding centuries England conquered Wales and Ireland with fire and blood. What of it? The final stage was a peaceful political process, indicating it is possible to unify countries in that manner, even in England.

Something very similar happened in Spain, Germany and France. Italy was the most violent of the bunch - in no small part due to overwhelming foreign influence in Italy at the time.

That's the five largest and most important countries in Europe, all came together from smaller, fragmented parts. Parts that were fiercly independent, parts that spoke different languagues, many still do. Some did it in a more violent manner, some with a combination of politics and violence, Spain was the most political and least violent IIRC.

But going one step further and unify the whole Europe politically with a peaceful process is supposed to be obviously wrong and pig-headed and silly and would never work and ...

Why?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, the subjugation of the Welsh was an entirely peaceful process

No one claims it is not possible to expand your borders with violence. That's a given. I'm claiming it is possible to unify countries with a peaceful political process too.

Union of Scotland and England into UK is a prime example. So was unification of Castillie, Leon and Aragon, or the creation of the USA. Did you ever wonder why did the 13 colonies win independence in 1783 but they didn't have the first president until 1789?

Because the idea of a unified USA wasn't around in 1783. They wanted to have separate, independent colonies at first. It took the Americans a few years to realize that was a Bad idea, so they opted for a unified state instead - and did so peacefully.

McHrozni

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

Good idea, taken slowly and one step at a time, maybe over a century. The UK, an aggregate of several nations, took longer.

***
Democracy based on universal values still must be centered on communities of perceived shared interest to create coherent governance structures. Nothing undemocratic per se about the EU, but the claims made by Brexiteers in that regard are, indeed, incoherent. What is failing, and oddly so, is the perception of shared interest. Explains the constant anti-German and anti-Brussels messaging Putin loves to stir up to keep the continent bickering and divided.

As an aside, list the times Anglo nations have faced major issues in the last few centuries that were not resolved by colonialism, outright land grabs, or, down under, violent offshore prisons for feared migrants.... Yeah, I know! Hard to do. Explains the missing mental kit in the English-speaking world with regard to dealing peacefully with having less money or bling than one might wish, and tendency to go all bully when lacking one's "just deserts in life". Perhaps some deep soul-searching following WWII was as needed among the "good" guys as anyone else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one claims it is not possible to expand your borders with violence. That's a given. I'm claiming it is possible to unify countries with a peaceful political process too.

Union of Scotland and England into UK is a prime example. So was unification of Castillie, Leon and Aragon, or the creation of the USA. Did you ever wonder why did the 13 colonies win independence in 1783 but they didn't have the first president until 1789?

And that would be wrong there too. See they were united by the articles of confederacy before then as a single political unit, then wrote up a new constitution. The writing of a new constitution doesn't change the violent origin.

I guess the Louisiana purchase might be counted as non violent if we simply ignore the actual inhabitants.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Have you seen a historic map of Europe lately

Yes, have you?

A hell of a lot of those countries weren't on it until quite recently.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, have you?

A hell of a lot of those countries weren't on it until quite recently.

But rather lacking in conglomeration of states into superstates.

 

[McHrozni]

And that would be wrong there too. See they were united by the articles of confederacy before then as a single political unit, then wrote up a new constitution. The writing of a new constitution doesn't change the violent origin.

I guess the Louisiana purchase might be counted as non violent if we simply ignore the actual inhabitants.

Europe had violent origins too. I'm not sure where you're getting at.

McHrozni