Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Maticmaker]

Who told you that?

Well to be honest not sure about the last bit about Frenchman being CC... but Guy Verhofstadt has made reference to this eventuality, if and when the USE was formed.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Let's be honest 2021 is gonna make us pine for the sunny uplands of 2020 isn't it. Brexit is going to be a shitshow visible from space.

The Kent lorry park will be.

 

[JPRouve]

Well to be honest not sure about the last bit about Frenchman being CC... but Guy Verhofstadt has made reference to this eventuality, if and when the USE was formed.

And at which point did you hear that France were willing to give their seat? France isn't even favorable to a federation. France aren't willing to give up a thing, you are mixing foreing politicians talking about France while Le Drian has made it clear that it was nonsensical.

 

[Maticmaker]

And at which point did you hear that France were willing to give their seat? France isn't even favorable to a federation. France aren't willing to give up a thing, you are mixing foreing politicians talking about France while Le Drian has made it clear that it was nonsensical.

It was sometime back, Guy Vershofstadt was postulating that if and when a EU army was formed one of the consequences would be that both France and the UK would have to be willing to give up their seats on the UN Security Council in order to facilitate an EU representative. Since the UK is no longer in the EU they won't be giving up their seat any time soon, so the pressure will fall on France to stand aside for the new USE.

 

[JPRouve]

It was sometime back, Guy Vershofstadt was postulating that if and when a EU army was formed one of the consequences would be that both France and the UK would have to be willing to give up their seats on the UN Security Council in order to facilitate an EU representative. Since the UK is no longer in the EU they won't be giving up their seat any time soon, so the pressure will fall on France to stand aside for the new USE.

No one gives a damn about Verhofstadt, he isn't french and has no power. You claimed that France were willing to give up their seat which isn't the case, unless if you are back into your fantasies.

 

[Maticmaker]

No one gives a damn about Verhofstadt, he isn't french and has no power. You claimed that France were willing to give up their seat which isn't the case, unless if you are back into your fantasies.

I agree about Verhostadt, he's a 'little rascal' isn't he, became a must read, must see poster boy for leavers in the UK.

I said 'apparently' (referenced to Verhostadt's line), but you have put matters straight, if there is going to be a USE is does not matter, France is going to keep its place on the UN Security Council, come what may, and (do you concur) they can stuff the majority voting as well?

 

[JPRouve]

I agree about Verhostadt, he's a 'little rascal' isn't he, became a must read, must see poster boy for leavers in the UK.

I said 'apparently' (referenced to Verhostadt's line), but you have put matters straight, if there is going to be a USE is does not matter, France is going to keep its place on the UN Security Council, come what may, and (do you concur) they can stuff the majority voting as well?

I have no idea about what would happen if a USE happened, it's not in the near future and I don't know what member states will think at that time and how the EU will be just before it happens. And no they can't stuff the majority voting, with unanimity you do nothing, a qualified majority which is the current way of taking decision within the Council of the EU is the best option.

 

[Maticmaker]

I have no idea about what would happen if a USE happened, it's not in the near future and I don't know what member states will think at that time and how the EU will be just before it happens. And no they can't stuff the majority voting, with unanimity you do nothing, a qualified majority which is the current way of taking decision within the Council of the EU is the best option.

So, you do not anticipate any problems with QMV over the EU's 'ever closer union' objective, with standard approval QMV being 55% States/65% Populace and reinforced approval being QMV being 72%States/72% Populace ?

Is that because the option will never be put to the vote?

If so better not tell Guy Verhofstadt!

 

[africanspur]

The idea that the EU would be ‘enthralled’ by anyone is laughable. The EU (pre-Brexit at least) had the largest economy in the world, world leading technology, and a population size that made it a match for any of the potential superpowers. The only area where it was weak was militarily, and then only because of the post-war reliance on the US, something that could and should be remedied quickly.

You really think Australia and NZ will align to the US? Why exactly? Because they’re white and speak English? You know who Australia’s biggest trade partners are? China and Japan.

Agree with the first part of this post but of course Australia and NZ will align to the US and are in fact already aligned to the US. They already are engaged in the 5 eyes network for instance, ANZUS, engaged with QUAD, engaged with NATO. The biggest source of their foreign arms imports are from the USA. The USA has a permanent military presence in Australia for training. They were involved with the occupation of Japan, Korean war, Vietnam war, 1st gulf war, Afghanistan war and 2nd gulf war. Their recent rhetoric has been directed aggressively towards China. The recent defence review involves buying large amounts of arms from the USA and mentions dealing with 'potential aggression in the Indo-pacific'. He for sure was not talking about Fiji. He also mentioned the need to build a reasonable deterrent, with other nations, Japan, India, Indonesia, in the region. No prizes again for seeing which country wasn't mentioned in that list.

If in the future relations between the USA and China continue to become ever more strained and countries are forced to choose sides (I don't see it happening as starkly as it did in the cold war), then Australia and NZ will for sure have a harder decision to make than the USA, Canada, UK or EU (all of which have varying degrees of trade with China). But I can't see the circumstance in which Australia or NZ ends up in the Chinese camp if it does end up coming down to that.

 

[africanspur]

Very happy to see the EU have agreed the Covid economic rescue package by the way.

 

[sun_tzu]

Very happy to see the EU have agreed the Covid economic rescue package by the way.

Given how badly the uk performed with covid I wonder how much eu support we would have been given if we were still a member

 

[JPRouve]

So, you do not anticipate any problems with QMV over the EU's 'ever closer union' objective, with standard approval QMV being 55% States/65% Populace and reinforced approval being QMV being 72%States/72% Populace ?

Is that because the option will never be put to the vote?

If so better not tell Guy Verhofstadt!

What are you talking about? QMV is about how decisions are taken at the council, governments seldomly use referendums when they deal with foreign policies issues, we would be voting every day if it was the case. Now when it comes to treaties which would be the context of your worries, you sign treaties or you don't, they have nothing to do with QMV.

 

[JPRouve]

Given how badly the uk performed with covid I wonder how much eu support we would have been given if we were still a member

In practice you will still get money at some point, you are now part of the EU neighborhood policy.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Neither does it for us local government staff.

It's fine, we'll just be forced to go on strike after months of being ignored at negotiations even though we're already 12 months behind and get called cnuts by the same folk who were banging pots outside their front doors for weeks.

 

[africanspur]

I

Neither does it for us local government staff.

I'm sure you'll be able to pay off bills with claps and gratitudes.

 

[TheGame]

It's fine, we'll just be forced to go on strike after months of being ignored at negotiations even though we're already 12 months behind and get called cnuts by the same folk who were banging pots outside their front doors for weeks.

Yep everyone just keeps pushing and pushing making us do more with less and all we get is criticism. I bet people wouldn’t have a clue about the work local authorities have done during Covid.

 

[TheGame]

I


I'm sure you'll be able to pay off bills with claps and gratitudes.

Its ok, we don’t even get that. Only moans when people have to pay their Council tax.

 

[4bars]

Yes he's like a red rag to a bull with Leavers!



No I didn't want to leave, but now things are changing anyway, the effects of climate change already underway (non-reversible) /and the legacy of Covid are already happening and Brexit will help us to make more independent and rational and timely decisions that affect us as a off shore island, rather than as part of the mainland mass. The EU is (so we are told) essentially a trading block, with little political emphasis, but if in future its going to spend trillions of euros, it will want value for money and focused on the main needs of the larger countries. At the moment you are right any country can veto any policy, but how long can that last, when regular wildfires fires are ravaging country sides in Spain, Germany and of course France, when freak weather storms floods the Netherlands/Belgium every year or two years and there is nowhere to run the water off unless you start flooding parts of France, etc. Majority voting has to come and the little guys will pay a heavy price, Presently Germany might bail out their economies, but it wont be able to afford to change the landscape of these countries without major inputs from the other rich EU countries who will have their own devils to fight!
The only way for the EU to go is as a federal state , a United States of Europe, all trading in euro's only. The Federal State then can force the issues, it will have to to survive.

No, is not the only way. And no, while UK would have veto, they could use it, so UK can decide. It doesn't matter that you repeat that the USodE will happen, is not true

 

[4bars]

In practice you will still get money at some point, you are now part of the EU neighborhood policy.

I don't know how much help if the UK opted out on the EU vaccine scheme. I don't see the UK engaged with the EU on anything

 

[Klopper76]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

 

[Berbasbullet]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

No, I am not.

I still think brexit is so entrenched in people that people will call it a success no matter what.

The NHS will be taken a part very slowly so people won’t even notice.

 

[Wibble]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

No. Before the Brexit debacle started we were 50/50 about returning to the UK to retire but that has reduced to zero now. Sadly my son will now never hold a British passport as the Irish one makes so much more sense.

Brexit will prove to be the worst decision made since ... erm?????

I was going to say the poll tax but this is much worse. Churchill returning to the gold standard in 1925 maybe?

Not exactly a government decision but the Scots attempts to set up its own colony in Central America 1698. Sadly the Darian Gap in Columbia where they choose, is essentially a tropical swamp, which doomed the project from day 1 and nearly bankrupted the Scottish ruling class and forced it to seek the Act of Union with England in 1707.

 

[Stactix]

You only need to look at how the UK handled COVID, despite having ample time to prepare, the advantage of being an island.. still most deaths per capita?
If it was the UK that got hit first in Europe instead of Italy.. well...thank feck it wasn't.

You put an incredibly competent government in power and Brexit is still a crock of shite. Paint a turd as much as you wish, still a fecking turd.
Except, we not only have a bunch of fecking incompetent morons in power, they're also utter cnuts with little regard for the population and now have the perfect scape goat in Covid.

 

[Smores]

You only need to look at how the UK handled COVID, despite having ample time to prepare, the advantage of being an island.. still most deaths per capita?
If it was the UK that got hit first in Europe instead of Italy.. well...thank feck it wasn't.

You put an incredibly competent government in power and Brexit is still a crock of shite. Paint a turd as much as you wish, still a fecking turd.
Except, we not only have a bunch of fecking incompetent morons in power, they're also utter cnuts with little regard for the population and now have the perfect scape goat in Covid.

At some point there's going to be an investigation and you'd expect it will lay out how many could have been saved and it'll be grim.

Question for the government then will be how welcoming the population are to the argument that we had to let them die to save X GDP. That's a decision they make every election but not so directly.

That's not the bollocks "lock down indefinitely" strawman either but simply timing of the lockdown and extent.

 

[horsechoker]

Any investigations and reports are useless if the tories are involved.

 

[Sweet Square]

Very happy to see the EU have agreed the Covid economic rescue package by the way.

Includes a ton of cuts

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/eu-leaders-slash-science-spending-18-trillion-deal

 

[Drifter]

UK close to abandoning post-Brexit trade deal with EU due to deadlock on key issues, report claims


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hing-rights-level-playing-field-a9631381.html

 

[FireballXL5]

Which was the plan all along.

 

[Maticmaker]

Now when it comes to treaties which would be the context of your worries, you sign treaties or you don't, they have nothing to do with QMV.

So, if the proposal from the Council was, via treaty, to form what amounts to a USE, i.e. following the ever closer union objective (from ToR) then the populace would not get a vote and any individual country could veto the proposal, and majority voting (qualified or unqualified) would not apply?

What would happen if say only one country didn't want a USE? Could they thwart the will of the 26 other countries, or would they be given their own. '...Exit' by the other 26?
I fully accept at the moment this would be an unlikely scenario, but my arguments are about future situations where a combination of actual climate change necessities (for survival) are required and any lingering issues from Covid or the next virus problem, require new norms to apply, surely across the continent of Europe the populace couldn't wait for each country to make up its own mind?

 

[JPRouve]

So, if the proposal from the Council was, via treaty, to form what amounts to a USE, i.e. following the ever closer union objective (from ToR) then the populace would not get a vote and any individual country could veto the proposal, and majority voting (qualified or unqualified) would not apply?

What would happen if say only one country didn't want a USE? Could they thwart the will of the 26 other countries, or would they be given their own. '...Exit' by the other 26?
I fully accept at the moment this would be an unlikely scenario, but my arguments are about future situations where a combination of actual climate change necessities (for survival) are required and any lingering issues from Covid or the next virus problem, require new norms to apply, surely across the continent of Europe the populace couldn't wait for each country to make up its own mind?

Majority voting has nothing to do with a potential federation, that type of things are out of the scope of the EU, the council, commission or any supra national organizations.

Why? Because it's a constitutional matter which is above international treaties(for example the EU), you would be changing the statutes of a country. The way a country modifies its constitution depends on the constitution of said country it has nothing to do with the EU, some questions are to be dealt with referendums while others are dealt by members of parliament/Senate/or both(In France we call that the Congress).

As for your second question it exposes a massive misunderstanding on what the EU and a country are, if 26 countries decided to form a federation and the 27th decided not to, you would have a EU with two countries, a federation with 26 states and the former 27th, unless if there is a decision to abrogate EU treaties.

And that type of things will never be done due to climate change or Covid-19, it would take an absolute eternity for every countries involved to agree on a constitution, even if the EU evolved into something that was very close to a federation. It's not going to be some sort of surprise, you will need at least one new treaty and since the current one isn't close to it, you would most likely need a lot of new structural treaties and since every treaties have opt outs, no one is going to be in the situation that you describe.

 

[africanspur]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure self reflection is particularly high up on the list of attributes for most people, let alone people with a strong political view. I imagine covid will provide a buffer for the economic impact and anything else can just be blamed on EU 'obstruction' by these people.

A hard border in Ireland, rightly or wrongly, is something very few people in the UK outside of Northern Ireland really care about I'd imagine.

The fruit picking is an interesting one. If you mean that Eastern Europeans won't want to come here anymore, they clearly will. If you mean that immigration will be hostile to them, again I don't see this. The argument is that the immigration will suit the needs of the country and seasonal fruit pickers will be one of those needs. Pretty much every other country outside of the EU manages it without free movement. I think this area brings about a certain snobbery though. As a lefty, I don't believe the economy should have jobs that can't sustain the local population. If these jobs are not compatible with someone being able to live a dignified life in their country, that for me is a big problem with how the economic system works. One of the (few) brexit arguments I have some sympathy with is that the free movement has allowed some workers to come and undercut pay in some areas due to being able to work in a way local British workers would not.

I doubt the NHS will go and, if it does, I doubt it will go down the American route as so many think it will. It will probably be more like... Almost every other single advanced economy in the world, in Asia, Europe and Oceania. Whether British people will be happy with that is another issue, as some of them have quite an entitled attitude to what they can expect from the NHS.

Lorry Park will be a shambles.

I'm feeling really quite pessimistic and, as I believe I've already said, I am considering moving back to Australia. Being a doctor there was infinitely better than the UK, even pre covid. But we'll see I guess. Its a big move. So bloody isolated.

If I could speak Dutch, I'd probably look to move there but alas I don't and the effort to be able to speak it to an acceptable standard for my job would be overly difficult.

 

[Maticmaker]

Majority voting has nothing to do with a potential federation, that type of things are out of the scope of the EU, the council, commission or any supra national organizations.

Why? Because it's a constitutional matter which is above international treaties(for example the EU), you would be changing the statutes of a country. The way a country modifies its constitution depends on the constitution of said country it has nothing to do with the EU, some questions are to be dealt with referendums while others are dealt by members of parliament/Senate/or both(In France we call that the Congress).

As for your second question it exposes a massive misunderstanding on what the EU and a country are, if 26 countries decided to form a federation and the 27th decided not to, you would have a EU with two countries, a federation with 26 states and the former 27th, unless if there is a decision to abrogate EU treaties.

And that type of things will never be done due to climate change or Covid-19, it would take an absolute eternity for every countries involved to agree on a constitution, even if the EU evolved into something that was very close to a federation. It's not going to be some sort of surprise, you will need at least one new treaty and since the current one isn't close to it, you would most likely need a lot of new structural treaties and since every treaties have opt outs, no one is going to be in the situation that you describe.

So, am I to understand that the EU as it is now constituted could never become a single state, the powers that individual countries cede to the Council through budgetary commitments underpinning and adherence to single market requirements etc. can never be usurped by a sovereign state called e.g. United States of Europe, even in federal form?
That is surprising! So those existing treaty objectives going back to the Treaty of Rome identifying 'ever closer union' actually cannot achieve full Union by the EU in its present form neither can it be formulated by treaty

I of course understood that constitutional changes in each country would be necessary before any new entity could be formed, maybe because the UK has not got a written constitution (as such, all laws primarily based on precedent) is one of the reasons that the sovereignty issue became such a thing in the Brexit campaign. It seems strange and somewhat remiss of the Remainer camp that this fact was not made public in the UK. I know a number of people who, economics apart, voted for Brexit because they believed that ultimately the EU could through future treaties be 'graduated' into a federal state, just like the EEC morphed into the EU via Maastricht. Wonder how much difference this would have made to the Brexit vote if what you say had been widely publicized in the UK.

Probably the fact that unlike other EU states, the UK public were never given an opportunity to vote on previous treaties (like Maastricht), so when they were at last given a vote, the dam broke under the weight of resentment and denied entitlement. Of such things is history made!

Surely this would result in at least a two speed EU entity, presumably there would have to be an accommodation on currency, if the single state was not in the Euro-zone? If treaties were abrogated wouldn't that amount to a sort of 'second division' status ?

 

[JPRouve]

So, am I to understand that the EU as it is now constituted could never become a single state, the powers that individual countries cede to the Council through budgetary commitments underpinning and adherence to single market requirements etc. can never be usurped by a sovereign state called e.g. United States of Europe, even in federal form?
That is surprising! So those existing treaty objectives going back to the Treaty of Rome identifying 'ever closer union' actually cannot achieve full Union by the EU in its present form neither can it be formulated by treaty

I of course understood that constitutional changes in each country would be necessary before any new entity could be formed, maybe because the UK has not got a written constitution (as such, all laws primarily based on precedent) is one of the reasons that the sovereignty issue became such a thing in the Brexit campaign. It seems strange and somewhat remiss of the Remainer camp that this fact was not made public in the UK. I know a number of people who, economics apart, voted for Brexit because they believed that ultimately the EU could through future treaties be 'graduated' into a federal state, just like the EEC morphed into the EU via Maastricht. Wonder how much difference this would have made to the Brexit vote if what you say had been widely publicized in the UK.

Probably the fact that unlike other EU states, the UK public were never given an opportunity to vote on previous treaties (like Maastricht), so when they were at last given a vote, the dam broke under the weight of resentment and denied entitlement. Of such things is history made!

Surely this would result in at least a two speed EU entity, presumably there would have to be an accommodation on currency, if the single state was not in the Euro-zone? If treaties were abrogated wouldn't that amount to a sort of 'second division' status ?

First the "ever closer" idea isn't to be mixed with a federation, it has nothing to do with that. It was simply the expression of the goal of the Treaty of Rome which was that Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg never find themselves in a situation where they are at war for economic, social or political reasons, the goal for these 6 countries is to be as close as possible and maintain peace.

The EEC didn't morph into the EU, From former treaties standpoint the EU is essentially a consolidated version of several communities and treaties, the EEC was only one of them. It adds other mechanisms and important structural changes but it's not a morphing of the EEC.

And yes it would create a two speed EU but that's the choice of the countries involved, in particular the ones that don't want to be included.

 

[sun_tzu]

Barnier was pretty scathing in his assessment of the talks just now

No commitment to a level playing field
and the UK fishing plans are unacceptable to the EU

Therefore a free trade deal is unlikely

 

[Maticmaker]

First the "ever closer" idea isn't to be mixed with a federation, it has nothing to do with that. It was simply the expression of the goal of the Treaty of Rome which was that Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg never find themselves in a situation where they are at war for economic, social or political reasons, the goal for these 6 countries is to be as close as possible and maintain peace.

The EEC didn't morph into the EU, From former treaties standpoint the EU is essentially a consolidated version of several communities and treaties, the EEC was only one of them. It adds other mechanisms and important structural changes but it's not a morphing of the EEC.

And yes it would create a two speed EU but that's the choice of the countries involved, in particular the ones that don't want to be included.

Thank you for your clear response, I would suggest the following is a possible viewpoint;

For the original six that objective of 'ever closer union' may have been and still is the case for them, but for many others within the existing EU, especially many EU Parliament MEP's as well as some 'appointed' EU Czars a Federation of sorts is seen as the ultimate goal . For many it does make sense, especially for the Baltic states, they know they have to belong to a power block of some kind to survive as recognizable entities and rather than be drawn back into Russia's sphere of influence they would probably see an USE as a good thing. They would then worry less about NATO protection if the USE had its own military.

The EEC did in fact morph/develop into the EU by growing, by adding members and subsuming other similar organs of trade, but mostly via major treaties, of which Maastricht was probably the most significant. The EEC ( initially a Trading block) was the start point and then through its mechanism it became initially a form of catalyst and also then a generator of the political European Union, which now exists.

What would be the point for a country of not accepting a treaty and trying to remain in the second tier of a two speed EU, opt outs do apply but not from major treaties?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Barnier was pretty scathing in his assessment of the talks just now

No commitment to a level playing field
and the UK fishing plans are unacceptable to the EU

Therefore a free trade deal is unlikely

Which is odd because without a deal the EU has no say on fishing rights in UK waters or any level playing field further to GATT.

 

[JPRouve]

Thank you for your clear response, I would suggest the following is a possible viewpoint;

For the original six that objective of 'ever closer union' may have been and still is the case for them, but for many others within the existing EU, especially many EU Parliament MEP's as well as some 'appointed' EU Czars a Federation of sorts is seen as the ultimate goal . For many it does make sense, especially for the Baltic states, they know they have to belong to a power block of some kind to survive as recognizable entities and rather than be drawn back into Russia's sphere of influence they would probably see an USE as a good thing. They would then worry less about NATO protection if the USE had its own military.

The EEC did in fact morph/develop into the EU by growing, by adding members and subsuming other similar organs of trade, but mostly via major treaties, of which Maastricht was probably the most significant. The EEC ( initially a Trading block) was the start point and then through its mechanism it became initially a form of catalyst and also then a generator of the political European Union, which now exists.

What would be the point for a country of not accepting a treaty and trying to remain in the second tier of a two speed EU, opt outs do apply but not from major treaties?

On your second paragraph no the EEC didn't morph into the EU and the EEC wasn't the starting point. The starting point is the ECSC with the treaty of Paris in 1951, the EEC and EAEC were created on the same day, March 27th 1957, one was established by the Treaty of Rome and the other by the Euratom treaty, those were merged in 1967 to form the European communities(EC). The EEC was a custom union not a trading block, the trading bloc(single market) was actually established in 1993 by the Single European Act who was signed in 1986. To that you can add TREVI(1975), Schengen(1985) and the EPC(1970), all of that was either merged or consolidated by Maastricht and divided into pillars which together form the EU.

 

[Abizzz]

Which is odd because without a deal the EU has no say on fishing rights in UK waters or any level playing field further to GATT.

Yeah but the EU doesn't need those if UK fish and goods can't make it onto the EU market at competitive prices.

 

[Maticmaker]

On your second paragraph no the EEC didn't morph into the EU and the EEC wasn't the starting point. The starting point is the ECSC with the treaty of Paris in 1951, the EEC and EAEC were created on the same day, March 27th 1957, one was established by the Treaty of Rome and the other by the Euratom treaty, those were merged in 1967 to form the European communities(EC). The EEC was a custom union not a trading block, the trading bloc(single market) was actually established in 1993 by the Single European Act who was signed in 1986. To that you can add TREVI(1975), Schengen(1985) and the EPC(1970), all of that was either merged or consolidated by Maastricht and divided into pillars which together form the EU.

Thank you, I did mention sub or merging with others, but I accept my shorthand description of the establishment of the EU was too 'short handed' and incomplete, I now know better!

 

[JPRouve]

Thank you, I did mention sub or merging with others, but I accept my shorthand description of the establishment of the EU was too 'short handed' and incomplete, I now know better!

It wasn't incomplete but simply wrong and it's also one of the reasons why Brexit happened, that narrative has been used for decades with people even claiming that the UK only joined the EEC which is not the case.