Smaller countries would have their security enhanced.
Do you see states like Maine or New Hampshire pushing to be released from the United States?
Nope. . . because there is strength in unity.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Smaller countries would have their security enhanced.
Do you see states like Maine or New Hampshire pushing to be released from the United States?
Nope. . . because there is strength in unity.
I came out with what i think its a fairer system. Please check it up
It wouldn't be easily formed, today and until the next elections France and Germany have federalists in power but in France for example it's not reflective of the majority among politicians or the population. I think that the first step is going to be with France and Germany tightening their links at higher pace than the rest of the EU, if that happens there is a chance for a federation otherwise it won't happen and it will take time anyway.
Indeed that's what I suggested... Though I think more probable is only 2 options on the ballot to start with (but how you would arrive at that question would be a nightmare process of legal challenges and counter challenges)
Of course it will take time, but it will happen.
It isn't 'destiny' and would never have happened had the UK voted to Remain, and still might not, unless the UK wanted it to.
We had a veto, if the EU decides to go down a different path without the UK then it doesn't follow that it would have happened anyway had the UK remained. Wanting to lose our voice in the EU has always been one of the most bizarre ambitions for the neo-imperialists who have cheerlead for Brexit.
A fully federal EU won't happen for a good while yet - maybe would if it was just the original Western Europe countries, but I can't see all member states agreeing to it at all, and while I'm pro-EU I'm not necessarily sure a fully federalised EU is a good thing.
It's a matter of opinion whether it is destiny or not..
"Unless the UK wanted it to". . . . The UK is leaving the European Union on March 29th, 2019. This is great news for federalists.
The world is changing rapidly.
Shame that the problem for the UK (well predominantly the English) is that they still can't get over the Second World War when everyone else has moved on.
That's actually not true. These particular things are treaty based which means that the countries that want it could simply sign it between while the others don't and leave, the veto is useless here.
Biggest issues this week have not been the brexit deal but the calls from Macron and Merkel for a European army.
Things can move pretty rapidly once the UK is out.
Agreed, if it happens it will most likely be between members and eventually spread to others.
Macron and Merkel are leaders of two of the most pivotal founding EU members historically. They border each other and will likely be a lot more keen on the idea of a federal Europe than, say, more distant countries like Greece.
If Greece don't like it they can leave. I cannot understand why Greece would be opposed (to a single European army) given they've got Turkey & Erdogan next door.
We sure would be opposed in Ireland.
90% support EU membership in Ireland.
No other country in Europe os more pro-EU.
On Irish neutrality, the Irish were never neutral. Not neutral during WW2, not neutral during the Iraq war.
Ireland would never give up its EU membership, and if that means a referendum to allow for an EU army, then so be it.
I still don't know why you joined PESCO.
It would be worrying if people were not opposed.
My point isn't whether or not it's a good idea - my point is that several countries are going to be opposed or fairly wary to it, and if it's going to pass you're going to need the approval of all countries involved. Trying to mesh together 20+ different sovereign nation states into one US-like entity in a single swoop, many of whom speak different main languages and have very different cultural backgrounds from each other, isn't going to happen, and if it does happen I don't think it'd be particularly smooth.
There's a difference between supporting the EU in its current form and supporting giving up your sovereignty to become a regional state within a national EU.
You're right on some areas, but a lot of the necessary things that would have to be put in place would come under one of the areas which requires unanimity in the council.
Whilst they're are mechanisms the EU could use to get round that (e.g. when Cameron vetoed a treaty in 2011) in this area I don't think there is any realistic prospect that could happen without it being seen as an infringement of that member states sovereignty and causing a crisis that makes Brexit pale in comparison.
I would think the rest of the world is looking on in disbelief at what's going on in the UK. The few programmes we have on the subject have all the same theme. They discuss it rationably and sensibly and although they recognise there are problems with the EU, the sense is that the UK are providing the best advert there is for being part of the EU.
Like most Brexiters seem to think the EU will break up without them, it is actually having the opposite effect and reinforcing it.
It's already happening.
People said the same about the single currency.
Geopolitical forces will bring Europe together because either Europe unites or it divides, or maybe even gets conquered in the future.
Economically the European Union is a powerhouse competing with the United States and more powerful than China. This is not going to remain the case for ever. But being economically powerful is not enough. For historical reasons militarily the EU is a mess with its separate armies and over reliance on NATO.
The world of tomorrow doesn't care about your separate nation states.
Arguably, by uniting, such nation states can be protected.
Ireland was technically neutral during WW2. You can argue about Irish soldiers joining the UK argue and our help with D Day weather reports etc. but we were neutral. Same with the cold war and Iraq war.
And there's a big difference between helping the allies and actively taking part in creating an EU army and instigating a regional state.
Besides, our biggest attraction to foreign companies is our tax rate and we would never join something that could jeopardize it, regardless of how pro EU we are. And the fact that it would probably need a referendum we would surely reject.
By the way back in 2007 we were the most anti EU country in all polls so things can change pretty quickly.
Yeah. The most you could say is that the door is left open for it, generations down the line, should they see it as a good idea. As we stand today it's both unpalatable and unworkable.
And yet a number of EU countries still don't use that single currency because they prefer their own. Indeed the EU, while urging its members to take up that single currency, quite literally has mechanisms designed so countries can get around it. Because they know that while most countries are keen to be in the EU, they're not that keen on all amalgamating into the one big country. If anything the currency issues disproves your argument: plenty are dissatisfied with the Euro to the point where they're considering leaving (Italy) - if that's the case now, imagine the EU proposing to Italy that they give up their national sovereignty and become part of this one larger country? For now it's a non-starter.
France and Germany will likely work towards an increasingly closer union, especially with the UK gone, but it's not happening for a long time. I imagine a lot of the Eastern European former Soviet states would be extremely wary of joining, for example, due to their history of essentially being controlled by a much larger power who could impose its own will on them. This would be different, of course, but that wariness would likely remain.
You can think whatever you want of nationalism in all its various incarnations, but the fact is that trying to merge over 20 nation states together in one swoop isn't going to happen. It's naive to think there wouldn't be immense divisions from the first moment.
Shannon airport is basically a US base. I landed there once and saw nothing but soldiers with American accents.
That's making a farce of neutrality.
Ireland's low CT rate is only part of the picture. It's membership of the European Union is far more important. There are other EU countries with lower rates than Ireland but they cannot compete in other areas.
50.2% of Ireland's exports go to the EU28 (including UK).
But we're still neutral.
The second part has nothing to do with what is being suggested here. Ireland likes the EU in its current form, we wouldn't like it in this future form. The EU won't kick us out for not agreeing to their demands. It would be terrible for them.
EU countries were given their own choice to join the Euro and EVERY EU country is obliged to join the Euro at some point in the future.
Put down the Torygraph (and other related anti-EU propaganda). The Euro has been one of the great success stories of the European project. It has survived the 2008 economic crash and it just happens to be the case that those who are "opposed" happen to be in countries which flagrantly borrowed and spent beyond their means in the years leading up to 2008. All the talk was of Greece leaving the Euro. The EU was prepared to cut them loose, allowing the drachma to return, and giving the Greeks a chance to rejoin in the future. . . . The Greeks, under Syriza, were having none of it.
Eastern bloc countries are banging on the EU door to become members.
As regard merging states not going to happen?
It has already happened economically.
Politics comes next.
Ireland is not neutral.
Just because you write words on a page which states "we're neutral" does not make it so.
Don't kid yourself.
Given Europe's history, it seems the latter may be more likely.
Interesting points @RW2. I'm not sure how I feel about it in the near time but long term it makes sense that Europe would aim to be more congruent....
You are only correct if you think that it would be an amendment of the current treaties while I'm suggesting that it would be a new treaty which means that countries would have two options, join or opt-out.
Settle down there Luke Skywalker. Do you not think it’s better to be involved and push for change for the better than be on the outside realizing that the government is run by a bunch of incompetent fools who will flush the place down the shitter?
Yes, but there is no definitive date as to when that is. Ergo, some countries continually postpone joining. If they're hesitant about that, why will they be willing to become an active part of an EU nation?
I'm not anti-EU. You're misunderstanding me here - I'm not saying that the Euro, or EU, isn't a success story. I'm saying that there's a certain level of hostility towards it in certain member states and that a number of them will simply not want to give up their own sovereignty to become part of a larger nation state. Closer integration will continually happen but we're a long way off the EU becoming a single sovereign entity.
Never change Scottish Labour.
Kicking a country out goes against everything the EU wants to be seen as, they couldn't do it. If they didn't kick Greece out they won't kick anyone out.
If it went to referendum and we rejected it, it would likely be like Lisbon and we get rebates and concessions and then vote again.
Yeah, at a time when they want to appear united in the face of Britain leaving, it'd be beyond bizarre for them to start ejecting other member states. Won't happen.
Greece leaving the EU was never on the agenda.
What is the context? I don't see a subject that would require or lead to Ireland being kicked out.
Didn't Cameron try that?