|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: EU: in or out?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm old enough to have voted in the 1975 referendum and the memory of that campaign, and the revelations that have come with the release of papers under the 30 Year Rule, leave me less than confident that any future referendum will be either honest or fair.
It is well-documented that the majority of people at the top of the IN campaign in 1975 were not only aware that the plan was for closer, possibly full, political integration on the countries in the EEC but that a conscious decision was made to deny it. Messrs Jenkins, Heath, etc, were gung-ho about the UK ceding huge swathes of powers to Brussels-Strasbourg but knew that it would not get past the electorate so they deliberately covered it up.
Most of the people who voted YES in 1975 did so because they could see trade advantages, and even then we were lied to, particularly in relation to our well-established trade links with Australia and New Zealand.
I'm also disturbed at reports that the European Commission has its lawyers busy trying to find a way to channel funds to the IN campaign for any UK referendum: this is clearly and unequivocally against the law - both UK law and EU law. But the little matter of something being illegal doesn't seem to bother Senhor Barroso.
And there is also the little matter of the EU commission's attitude to national referenda: as has been seen in Ireland, if the country in question doesn't come up with the "right" answer then the EU will re-word the question until they get the answer they deem to be correct.
Similarly, the EU is less than honest when producing statistics to bolster the IN camp's position: for example, the figure usually touted as being the percentage of UK output that is "exported" to the EU includes everything that goes elsewhere in the world via another EU port outside the UK. So if Nissan cars are loaded onto a ship that leaves Immingham for New Zealand (or anywhere) but that docks at, say, Rotterdam briefly on the way, then ALL those cars are listed by the EU as being exported from the UK to the EU.
Above all, the EU has expanded far too rapidly for its bureaucracy, which is corrupt, inefficient, hugely expensive and totally unaccountable. Its creation of a Foreign Affairs department in particular shows just how out-of-touch with reality the politicos who run the EU are: not only has the EU commission decided that IT, rather than national governments, shall decide the foreign policy of member states, but it puts at its head Catherine Ashton: a labour life-peer who has NEVER won an election in her life. With a degree in Sociology, her background has all been in quangos or large public bodies: her brief period at the helm of the Hertfordshire Health Authority was disastrous, as was her period of responsibility for the office of Public Guardian - which she left in a shambolic state which was (rightly) castigated by a commons committee and the National Audit Office. Baroness Ashton (Mrs Peter Kellner) is also supposed to be the EU's head of security policy, despite having no background in either foreign affairs, security or diplomacy of any kind.
This is but one example of the EU but it is fairly typical. The EU not only does nothing to root out corruption at its heart, it hunts down and attempts to punish anyone who attempts to whistleblow. The over-rapid enlargement has only worsened things in this regard so that we now have open boarders with countries with some of the most endemic corruption and organised crime in the world.
The IN campaign is doing its best to cause panic and fear by trotting out a number of multinationals to say they don't want the UK to leave the EU. But with the greatest respect, it is for the people of the UK, not the board of a Japanese car-maker or the US State Department, to decide whether or not we remain in the EU.
Will Nissan leave? No. Neither Nissan nor any of the other large Japanese companies that have plant here have made that investment just to pull out - it wouldn't make economic sense in either the short or the long term.
IN or OUT? My heart says 51% in - but my head says 80% out, simply because the graft, corruption, inefficiency and all-round dishonesty with the EU are just too great and there seems no will (never mind ability) to face them, never mind sort them out.
If you remain in doubt look at Greece. The EU KNEW that Greece didn't meet the criteria it set for joining. It knew because it had anti-fraud investigators in Greece before Greece joined to try and find out what was happening to EU funds. So concerned was it that they employed specialist, non-EU forensic accountants to try to track the money - and so frightening were the threats that at least 2 of those investigators had armed personal protection not only whilst in Greece but when they returned to write their report and for some years after. The EU was given hard evidence of fraud and corruption and chose to ignore it.
Later they were given evidence that ALL of the economic figures on which Greece's membership of the EURO were based were fiction: the EU chose to ignore it.
The evidence now is that there is no change in the fundamental corruption that got Greece into its current state: but the EU is now putting pressure on member states - notably Germany - to accept that Greece is OK and has a working economy and is on-track to dig its way out of the mess. Nothing could be further from the truth: and the EU has had the evidence for years that for Greece to be a member of the Eurozone is a timebomb for the other members - sooner or later there'll be another crisis, and this will continue until common sense prevails and Greece goes back to the Drachma, perhaps even leaves the EU. And for Greece you can read Bulgaria, Romania, etc. Frankly, if the EU was going to expand beyond the 12 the country in the best economic position at the time to do so was Turkey... but we all know why that wasn't an option.
Out. Out now. Ignore the bluster and threats. If we're offered a Free-Trade agreement, fine, but if not there's a whole big world out there without a lot of the red tape that Brussels winds into a club. Out may be a risk, but staying in guarantees a without time limit blank cheque that will shackle our children and grandchildren to paying for graft, corruption and incompetence on a truly epic scale.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm also disturbed at reports that the European Commission has its lawyers busy trying to find a way to channel funds to the IN campaign for any UK referendum: this is clearly and unequivocally against the law - both UK law and EU law.
Do you have a source for that assertion?
[ 16. November 2013, 08:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Eutychus
Yes, I do.
Without going into too much detail I can tell you that the EU have (a) put out feelers to the Electoral Commission about the rules on funding for UK campaigns; (b) back in Brussels the EU's own legal department is busy looking to see if there is a way to circumvent the rule that the Commission cannot give funds to a specific party or campaign team UNLESS it is an EU-wide election, and then only in a very narrowly defined way; (c) it is offering help via un-paid "volunteers" to the In campaign as and when the date is known.
Friends who work for the devil can be useful...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I meant a source you could quote.
Anecdotal evidence is all very well, but it cannot be subjected to third-party scrutiny or its legality or otherwise easily established.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Apart from my sources who work in Brussels?
Well, even The Sunday Times managed to get something into print on 3rd November
quote:
The constitutional committee of the Brussels parliament has sent a confidential document to lawyers asking for advice on how Europe can participate in national referendums.
EU law prohibits European interference in elections or referendums held in individual nation states, but the parliament believes a detailed study of different national rules may enable it to find ways of legally sidestepping the restriction.
That do for starters?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sure. What it tells me first and foremost is that the alleged efforts are to "legally sidestep", whereas you said any such action would be "against the law".
It could be argued that the EU has legitimate grounds for voicing an opinion on the secession of a member state and exploring all legitimate means of doing so.
And in any case, I don't think such behind-the-scenes attempts to influence the democratic process are the preserve of any one entity.
The EU is far from perfect and needs a lot more transparency, but I think it's better for existing member states to be in than out.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
"Legally sidestep" means they want to step around the law - in other words, contributing monies from the EU to a particular campaign in one country would be against the law.
You think its better for states to be in the EU than not: what are you basing that belief on?
The best place for you to look would be Norway: despite an overwhelming majority of its political class being pro-EU the good people of Norway have refused to vote to join - TWICE.
So, Norway has a free-trade agreement with the EU. It also contributes on a voluntary basis to some EU projects but it retains the right to stand apart from the EU on others.
The following from the UK Electoral Commission may also answer some of your questions: quote:
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), a political party can only contest UK elections to the European Parliament if it is registered with the Electoral Commission. Here is a link to our guidance document "Introduction to registering a political party" which sets out the registration process:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__...
Under PPERA parties registered with the Commission are subject to restrictions on the sources from which they can accept donations and loans. Here is our guidance document "Overview of donations to political parties" which describes the sources from which parties registered in Great Britain can accept donations:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__...
Parties registered to stand for election in Northern Ireland can also accept donations and loans in that regard from some sources in the Republic of Ireland.
These provisions mean that any party that contests European Parliament elections in the UK is subject to PPERA restrictions on sources of donations and loans.
The same rules apply to UK referenda as to other elections.
quote:
I don't think such behind-the-scenes attempts to influence the democratic process are the preserve of any one entity.
I'm quite sure you're right, but any donation(s) to either campaign in the UK will have to be reported to the Electoral Commission, and if they come from a political party, company or trades union they will have to be reported by that body too.
What the EU Commission is wanting to do is to be able to give funds to one particular side of an argument in a sovereign state which is absolutely against EU rules - for the very good reason that national elections (which includes referenda) are just that: a plebiscite for citizens of one nation to be held fairly without let, hindrance, interference or gerry-mandering by any third party(s) - which is the status of the EU in regards to ANY UK election of any type, a third-party. So, to use your own word, it is not "legitimate" for the EU to seek to explore any means whatsoever to try to bring its influence to bear on an election held in the UK, regardless of the subject of that election.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You think its better for states to be in the EU than not: what are you basing that belief on?
That's not what I said. I said existing member states. I think it would be better for existing member states to work to improve the way the EU works than to slam the door, but that's as much a question of temperament as of politics for me.
quote:
The best place for you to look would be Norway
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that Norway has something the UK hasn't: a wealth of exploitable natural fossil fuel resources within its own territory. This offers it a sure source of autonomy (at least for now).
I am well aware from direct experience that Norway opts into bits of EU operation (such as cross-border projects) when it wants to; but the fact is that it can only do so because those EU projects exist!
quote:
What the EU Commission is wanting to do is to be able to give funds to one particular side of an argument
I don't see how you can give money to a "side of an argument". You have to give it to some sort of agency. The links in your quote don't work, but as I understand it contributions to UK parties and campaign funds have to be declared. This is said to apply to donations from within the UK, but I can't imagine that some foreign entity can simply and legally make a huge donation directly without going through a UK entity and/or declaring it. If foreign entities could do that, the EU would surely not be the first to do so.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
European Union law
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
So, when financial services are decimated, worker protection repealed and cheap immigrant labour expelled, what will you do then? Recruit a massive UK Border Agency to police the unpoliceable Irish border to make up the slack?
More importantly, who will the right wing press have as a scapegoat then? Be careful what you wish for.
Ireland tried isolation for decades after independence and it impoverished us. Unless there is some kind of new grouping between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavians that gives the benefits of pooled resources, worker protection and some form of currency link, Ireland will be better off within the the EU - that is the only situation that I could see the Irish dumping the EU or the Euro.
Going back to the Irish Pound would be a carpetbagger's wet dream and we have proven that isolationism is a dead end.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
"Legally sidestep" means they want to step around the law - in other words, contributing monies from the EU to a particular campaign in one country would be against the law.
No, "legally sidestepping the restriction" means finding a way to do what they want that would be in accordance with the law - otherwise it would say "illegally sidestepping."
The two links you attempted to include are
The first is irrelevant; the second is a little more useful, as it lists the permissible donors to political parties, which seems at first glance not to include a category into which an EU body might fit. But political parties aren't the only ones permitted to campaign on referendums, so maybe there's a way in there. You'd probably end up wading into something like PPERA 2000 c.41, Schedule 15, Part II Prohibitions on accepting donations from impermissible donors, so getting an authoritative an answer to the question of how Europe can participate in national referendums probably would require a discussion with lawyers, and ... hey, isn't that exactly what the constitutional committee is said to be doing?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
European Union law
I think you miss the point. As I understand it, EU law exists in the same way that road tax or the bedroom tax exist - they don't, but they are a convenient shorthand for someone more complex.
If Ricardus plc breaches "EU labour law", it will actually be prosecuted for breach of an English law that is an EU directive enacted into English statute. If Westminster had in fact failed to enact the directive, I think Ricardus plc would be in the clear, although the UK itself might not be.
The practical consequence is that when the Daily Mail runs a story about ridiculous EU rules, sometimes it's the way Westminster chose to incorporate those rules into English law that's ridiculous, not the original directive.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
European Union law
I think you miss the point. As I understand it, EU law exists in the same way that road tax or the bedroom tax exist - they don't, but they are a convenient shorthand for someone more complex.
If you follow one of the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia page Doc Tor cites, you can experience the ineffable pleasures of EUR-Lex Access to European Law, which in turn leads to the enthralling Official Journal of the European Union, which contains records of and links to legislative acts like REGULATION (EU) No 1051/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances. This contains such exciting passages as
quote:
Where, in the area without internal border control, there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State, that Member State may exceptionally reintroduce border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders for a limited period of up to 30 days or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat if its duration exceeds 30 days. The scope and duration of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders shall not exceed what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat.
This (and the rest of it) looks a lot like other laws I've had occasion to see, and it is filed under "legislative acts" of the EU parliament and Council - so in what sense is it not really a law? It looks to me like the EU is telling member states what to do, and they have to do it - much as the US Congress might pass a law telling states what to do.
Perhaps the distinction you're trying to draw is that EU law applies directly to member states, but only indirectly to the individual citizens thereof? In the US, too, there are plenty of cases in which a higher level of government regulates a lower one without reference to the behavior of individual citizens - but these regulations are still called "laws".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
"EU law" so called only has effect in the UK by virtue of particlar Acts of Parliament, for example the European Communities Act 1972 and others. These pieces of legislation in essence delegate certain aspects of Parliamentary power to Brussels. This is a very important point to bear in mind when people say that the UK is "no longer sovereign".
The correct situation is that certain laws made in Brussels are part of English or Scots law, pursuant to powers delegated by the appropriate body within those legal systems. It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".
Do you understand my point now?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Do you understand my point now?
Do you correct everyone who says "sunrise" by telling them that the Sun isn't actually rising, but it's the rotation of the Earth giving the appearance of the sun rising?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've lost the thread of this in legislation citations, which seems curiously appropriate for the EU, but if it means there could be a border, what will happen to Northern Ireland? Ireland will stay in the EU, Scotland after independence is highly likely too, which would mean that those in Northern Ireland would need a visa to get out of it. Would the UK minister for Northern Ireland need a visa to get into it too?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It would be a matter for Ireland, Scotland and the rump UK to deal with under their own domestic legislation - a point that appears to be lost on Doc Tor.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
"EU law" so called only has effect in the UK by virtue of particlar Acts of Parliament, for example the European Communities Act 1972 and others. These pieces of legislation in essence delegate certain aspects of Parliamentary power to Brussels. This is a very important point to bear in mind when people say that the UK is "no longer sovereign".
The correct situation is that certain laws made in Brussels are part of English or Scots law, pursuant to powers delegated by the appropriate body within those legal systems. It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".
Do you understand my point now?
I'm afraid not, actually. You seem to be describing in some detail the process by which EU member states agreed to abide by certain EU legislative acts and the means by which they effect them, but I fail to see what this situation lacks that makes the term "EU law" shorthand rather than simple fact.
For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".
I never said it wasn't a law. It is just as much a law as any other law. The point is that EU law only has effect insofar that it is part of a member state's national law.
Similarly, the European Parliament (which I never described as being in Brussels as it is in Strasbourg - please read properly) isn't like a national parliament as it has no inherent sovereignty of its own.
The significance of this is that the EU doesn't get to say what individual member states get to do with their borders. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".
I never said it wasn't a law. It is just as much a law as any other law.
And it was promulgated by the EU, and therefore EU law. quote:
The point is that EU law only has effect insofar that it is part of a member state's national law.
Assuming that acquiescence to EU law isn't optional, I can't see how that makes any difference sufficient.
quote:
Similarly, the European Parliament (which I never described as being in Brussels as it is in Strasbourg - please read properly) isn't like a national parliament as it has no inherent sovereignty of its own.
I did read properly - you said quote:
It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".
and previously
quote:
Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
I am pointing out that the power to make these laws has been delegated to the European Parliament, not to a "secretariat in Brussels."
quote:
The significance of this is that the EU doesn't get to say what individual member states get to do with their borders.
Really? The law I quoted above certainly suggests otherwise, at least as regards borders between members of the Schengen Area.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.
This diagram gives the answer to the first part of your question (no, it isn't). The Channel Islands are missing off the diagram, and I'm not quite sure what Kazakhstan and Belarus are doing on it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.
This diagram gives the answer to the first part of your question (no, it isn't). The Channel Islands are missing off the diagram, and I'm not quite sure what Kazakhstan and Belarus are doing on it.
Geographically Europe perhaps.
With San Marino, it also has no (public) airports or ports (or indeed coast). So in a sense it's rather easy to have a free border with.
Unless they were born/made there, you let them in to your country in the first place (and if there really was someone difficult who you can't stop from going to SM but Spain (& hence Europe) really doesn't want running around, you can probably work something out for that one case).
With say Norway/Sweden/Europe there's scope for play, so it would be a lot harder (they seem to have managed, though). With England/Ireland/Europe you have the added complication that the go-between is the smaller and external party (again they seem to have managed ok).* But if the UK and Europe diverge then...
*it probably helps in both cases that really you need to go by ship at some point (I know there are roads from Norway to Denmark, and Northern Ireland is part of the UK**).
**at least if I've got the terms right.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So what is the deadline for the decision to withdraw or join the EU? Is it something any country in the EU can do at any time or never after joining or somewhere in between?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
I'm sure that's a great image, especially if you want to maintain the point that the EU is a peace project.
You could also add that given the central idea of the EU as an "ever closer union", it's not certain when the people of a nation actually signed on to an unsecedable union. It certainly wasn't clear in 1973, I believe. Claiming that it is now will be another blow against democracy (and legitimacy), delivered by the hands of the eureaucracy.
And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to. Take away all democratic functions from such a system, and it seems that we've forgone the independence and democracy we wanted to protect when creating a peace-inducing trade agreement.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Agreed.
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.
And the use of the word "secede" only adds to the impression that we've been frogmarched into a political union - most Brits, for example, will associate the word with the actions of the Southern states in the US in the run-up to the civil war.
The UK signed a treaty to join a free-trade organisation, with some added bits to bring into line various rules to do with the definition and standard of manufactured goods. We did not sign a treaty to give up our sovereignty and to imply that we can't leave the EU would be to confirm that the EU has taken over the governance of the UK.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Aiui Ireland has a choice - Schengen or Britain. Scotland as a new EU member would be obliged to join Schengen. The rest of the UK would then have to accept an open border with Schengen via Scotland, or else erect controls.
Closing the border with Scotland is a much more practical proposition than closing the one with the Republic of Ireland. There are relatively few roads crossing the border, and all the major ones cross it cleanly once.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.
My statement in response to Palimpsest's question (which nobody has answered for sure yet) was, as I made clear, a vague recollection, not a sure assertion and still less being put forward as an argument.
quote:
And the use of the word "secede" only adds to the impression that we've been frogmarched into a political union - most Brits, for example, will associate the word with the actions of the Southern states in the US in the run-up to the civil war.
I did not use the word "secede" in relation to the EU but in relation to the US, where there has been talk of Arizona seceding from the Union a lot more recently than the Civil War.
At no point have I made the case for the UK being unable to leave the EU simply because there is no provision for it doing so. All I'm saying is that I don't think there is provision for such a move, and I'm wondering whether there is provision for a similar move at federal level in the US.
[ 18. November 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.
Any EU insistence that secession is not allowed may well lead to a greater risk of (civil?) war between those states that want to leave and the rest of the union. Which would be ironic, given the amount of people who claim that the EU is the greatest protection against another European war...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) As far as I can tell, nobody here has alleged that a member state leaving the EU is not allowed. Palimpsest asked about the details, and I said I thought it might be the case that no provision had been made - i.e. no formal procedures exist. That was not intended to be transmogrified into an argument or prohibition against member states leaving - at least not by me.
And for those who don't like the comparison with the United States: is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And for those who don't like the comparison with the United States: is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?
Apparently not.
OMGCIVILWAR11!!!Eleventyone
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign. ...
That's probably true. On the other hand, didn't the Treaty of Lisbon set up a mechanism (at least, in general terms) for a country to leave the EU? That being the case, it seems unlikely that the EU authorities would deny the existence of such a mechanism.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to.
I'd be interested to see a source for that figure, or at least a clarification of what it's actually measuring.
So far as I can see, the countries of the EU have vastly different systems of healthcare, transport, education, democratic representation, foreign policy, policing, in fact most things, and where similarities exist, that's mostly a consequence of ideas becoming popular across Europe at the same time, rather than centralised Eurocratic fiat.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?
If it ever happens I assume the government will fall back on the usual strategy of Making It Up As We Go Along...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to.
I'd be interested to see a source for that figure, or at least a clarification of what it's actually measuring.
So far as I can see, the countries of the EU have vastly different systems of healthcare, transport, education, democratic representation, foreign policy, policing, in fact most things, and where similarities exist, that's mostly a consequence of ideas becoming popular across Europe at the same time, rather than centralised Eurocratic fiat.
This particular web page refers to UK law. I doubt that there is signifiant difference between UK and Sweden in this respect.
quote:
Indeed as the House of Commons Library concluded, it is “possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts, depending on the approach.”
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
The United States had a debate about whether states could secede from the Union. It was called the Civil War and the conclusion was no, states can't secede. Texas Secession movements occur for Texas to secede from the Union. This has come to issue several times since there are a number of Texans who do want to secede and not a small number of non-Texans who would be happy for them to do so. The federal government has rejected this theory and imprisoned some ardent advocates.
There's occasional attempts for portions of states to form a new state. This has not happened in modern times. While it's easy for two regions of a state to detest each other, since it gives the state more representation in the US Senate which other states aren't likely to allow and allowing the split would require a national vote. In the last election some counties in Colorado tried to switch what state they belonged to in order to escape the incursion of urbanites.
[ 18. November 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The United States had a debate about whether states could secede from the Union. It was called the Civil War and the conclusion was no, states can't secede.
Technically the Civil War only decided the question of whether states can unilaterally secede. Some theorize that since it requires a vote of the U.S. Congress to admit a new state to the union it should similarly require permission from Congress to secede. This is presumably similar to the way a Congressional vote is required to split an existing state (e.g. Maine or West Virginia) or form a new state out of the union of two current states (which has never happened to date). As far as I know, the U.S. Congress has never even debated the outright secession of a state from the union.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The same argument used against unilateral secession (Article IV, Section 4) which states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." applies to secession by Congressional majority vote. If a state was allowed to secede, it would not be possible to enforce that guarantee.
In any event, there's been no discussion of it because no one thinks it would be possible. The only secession talk in Congress that I've seen has been for various US territories, notably Puerto Rico to secede. The Civil War was not fought because the seceding states failed to say "Mother may I?" before seceding.
[ 19. November 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The only secession talk in Congress that I've seen has been for various US territories, notably Puerto Rico to secede.
But I suppose the Philippines are sort-of precedent for that.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There is a longstanding agreement that PR can choose either independence or become a state. So far their voters haven't gone for either.
The other big anomaly is DC of course. The only reason it is not allowed statehood is fear of two liberal Democrat senators.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
Puerto Rico chose not to leave the US. However that doesn't mean they qualify for Statehood yet.
Puerto Rico has financial problems that rival Greece. They have over 70 billion dollars in debt in municipal bonds and are closed out of the bond market. In the past they've been assumed to have US Municipal Bond status but there is no clear Bankruptcy route like Detroit took.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
Can President Obama get Congress to do *anything*? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
Can President Obama get Congress to do *anything*?
Perhaps the best way to get them to do it would be to come out against it!
I don't think that works. He thinks drone strikes are great, but Congress hasn't stopped them.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
