I dont agree. People signed up because it was an economic union. Nobody said anything about having to accept maastricht. They created a monster with introduction of the euro, schengen ECHR etc
4 Likes
I think we are taking two very different perspectives on the same thing. My understanding of your comment is that you think the majority of UK voters neither understood nor cared for the arguments for greater EU integration and the establishing of the bodies / entities that were needed to support that. My view is that regardless of the views of these UK voters such integration and the enabling entities were a necessary step - without them the old common market would have simply eroded away. Stopping at the common market means that there would be no Europe as a strong economic bloc. Individual countries would partially trade together, partially invest in each other but also be increasingly weak against the US, China and Russia. Just hanging on to the common market would have been like a long, slow Brexit for the UK. And for the other EU countries.
Maastricht and the creation of the EU (and the euro, free movement, ECHR, et al) marked a strategic decision by Europe. Either let the common market meander on without much global impact or influence, and pretty soon be irrelevant, or aim to establish a Europe that is wealthy, influential and able to accommodate central Europe states, and to stand up against big global players.
I know what I think was the right course to take, indeed the only course. (Which is different from me saying that the EU has always delivered on this potential.)
Thereās a huge difference between an economic bloc and direct rule from mainly an un-elected bureaucracy in Brussels with very little influence possible by the elected delegations from individual nations.
Itās obvious that the average citizen on the streets of Britain didnāt have a clue the phrase āever closer unionā was part of the deal. But the main crime is that British citizens didnāt get a choice in whether we should go for Maastricht. We didnāt get a choice in whether to adopt the Euro but at least the government at the time saw sense on that score.
Iām a remain supporter and believe economic unity and working towards shared interests are the way forward to avoid fragmentation and picking off by stronger powers. Once youāre in such a union you donāt just leave it, you try to influence it from within to your advantage.
But the EU āeurocratsā have gone over the top in their officiousness and condescension, with some nations thinking they are top dog. institutions created within the EU with the best intentions, have been abused by the power-hungry. E.g. legal harmonisation is of course a good thing for business confidence, but telling individual nations what they can or cannot do vis a vis day to day legal rulings is something else entirely.
You are a great champion of the EU, but itās important that you acknowledge the system has its weaknesses and these weaknesses need to be addressed in order for all stakeholders to be engaged. Individual nations have to be respected. Iām sure you agree.
2 Likes
I will ask the same question Iāve asked before when faced with this claim - please detail the remit of this direct rule? What laws, what decisions, what taxation, what domestic policies does / did the EU determine for its member states? What was Westminster unable to determine for itself while in the EU? This claim of direct rule is surely gross exaggeration.
You mention legal harmonisation - I do not recognise that in the EU. Each country retains its own laws - both statute and precedence in courts. What businesses gained was free movement of goods and people and capital. Plus alignment of standards pertaining to goods and services. But laws? Have you an example of such a harmonised law? What day to day legal rulings are set by Brussels for all member countries?
I am greatly in favour of a strong, aligned EU. I am not so naive as to think its all perfect, it is not. Prior to Brexit I suspect that the UK did influence decisions ā¦ but probably could have done more. I definitely think the EU has made mistakes and one significant tactical error at the time of the 2008 finance crash was not seriously trimming the overheads of Brussels and Strasburg - perhaps even simplifying the governance model. So there is still that to be done.
The claim that individual nations are not respected is also false. Any one state can call foul on any pan-EU agreement. We have seen this again and again when the EU is trying to set a trade agreement with another country. Perhaps you mean that there is a perception that some nations have more influence on decisions and some less? That is most likely true - perhaps inevitable - given the different sizes, populations, contributions and economies of the countries involved. The UK was part of the top 3 nations - did it use that status effectively? Did the anti-EU voices in the UK hinder the UKās ability to shape EU decisions? Did MEPs from the UK who were strongly anti-EU avoid such contributions (for example Farageās non-attendance on fishery regulation decision making during his tenure)?
If you want an example look at the way FRS vs IFRS in accounting standards. The same type of approach has been used to try to harmonise legal regulations where possible to create a commonality so that you arenāt confronted with different rules in different member states. Before members join as part of entry requirements they are asked to ensure their laws are in line with EU legal expectations. e.g. human rights. Eventually the aim would be to completely replace the individual nation state legal systems with an EU wide model. The intention isnāt bad but some countries do not want it, at least not at the level of interference that the EU would like to have in their affairs.
It was well publicised that Poland was fined because they stuck two fingers up to some of the EUās demands - this related to the way it wanted to run itās own legal system, refusing to close a coal mine. The EU was also trying to force them to take in people and they only have a temporary exemption because of Ukraine. So what you say about countries retaining their own laws is clearly not correct.
You will refuse to accept any of this as fact so Iām not sure of the value of discussing it to be honest.
1 Like
Oh no, heaven forbid, human rights! We donāt want human rights. Which must mean we want the opposite -human wrongs. Really?
Come on. That is beyond careless speculation. Scotland and England joined in 1707 and both still retain separate legal systems. Yes, over more than 300 years there has been alignment and shared laws but there has not been replacement. Your claim here does not hold up to any examination - unless you can share an EU policy that confirms it.
Really - this is your example. Poland under the Law & Justice party. This government was very simllar to Orban in Hungary. They undermined judicial independence, rigged their constitutional court with their supporters, cut across parliamentary procedures, gave power to the leader of their party over the president and prime minister, tried to curb independent media and completely took over the state media, restricted free speech and assembly, pushed their supporters into key civil service roles, etc etc.
All of this cuts across the EU premise that member states are democratic countries without the trappings of dictatorships. Same as for Hungary - at that time Poland failed that assessment. And if the EU did not act against what Poland was doing then the EU was tacitly endorsing this government.
So it is much more than I am not accepting your claims as fact - I am saying they are individual and poor examples that fail to justify your claims.
āEver closer unionā - its in the original treaty and hasnāt changed
The fact that you donāt like the politics is irrelevant to the fact that itās valid.
As predicted, you donāt want to acknowledge weaknesses in the EU.
1 Like
Scotland is part of the UK the EU isnāt, and never will be.
When a person voluntary depatriationises perspectives can go anywhere.
1 Like
That is hardly the clear evidence that the EU is aiming for a single legal framework and single set of laws. Any quick reflection on how law works in any country (mix of statute, criminal, civil, court laws - some going back centuries) will confirm how difficult it would be to supersede these with an imposed new set of laws. Please. Be realistic in your claims.
I presume you mean the policies that the then Polish government were implementing? It is not about me not liking them. It is that they breached the Copenhagen criteria - the standards for member states. As predicted, you appear not to be able to come up with a valid example.
Be realistic in your own claims.
It is very much the interpretation of āever closer unionā by many running the EU that eventually there is one nation state like the USA. That is the aim of the EU army and harmonisation of standards and the legal framework. Iām not sure why you think otherwise when Maastricht changes plus the introduction of the Euro (and all the restrictions of being part of that) point to the truth. If the EU can fine countries for going against its wishes whatever those might be, that is interference in sovereign nation status.
You donāt want to say anything negative about the EU but in order to be taken seriously you have to take the sour with the sweet. Itās not perfect and thatās why there is anger by those who want economic union but do not want ever closer union on matters which should be autonomous and the decision on nation states.
Restrictive standards will be breached by nation states wishing to run their nations as they see fit. Same goes for Britain. Not liking a nationās politics does not mean the EU should discriminate on the basis of itās own bias towards certain politics that are popular in its circles. The fact that Poland didnāt want certain types of marches isnāt the EUās business, any more than it is their business what the British govt allowed or didnāt allow here. Iām sure just as much imperfect politicking and legal breaches happen in Brussels but they are not held to account. That is gist of the problem.
The evidence is clear after being duped into thinking that the common market was just about trade. Who would have thought back in 1975 that the common market would turn into an all consuming, governing monster with tentacles reaching into the foundations of 27 countries. And make that 28 when you consider our own government who are still bullied and blackmailed by the brotherhood in Brussels. No wonder we havenāt benefited from Brexit, you can never leave itās just gone undercover, and Farage was too dangerous with too many followers, so they find something to discredit him.
Quite possibly true. But why not state that there are many running (not sure what you mean by that) who are determined to make sure the EU does not mimic the way the US is set up. Recently the EU itself has been re-thinking what this ever closer union means and even if its the right or most important goal. Certainly it is not as clear cut as you imply. And nothing is imminent.
That is patently a false claim. The fine on Poland was for acting against the standards of governance of Poland that Poland signed up to on joining the EU. Specifically in the changes to how the judiciary worked. These were in direct conflict with the standards of the rule of law in a member country. Was a fine the right approach? It might have been better to withhold grants from the EU - although that amounts to the same thing. The point is that Poland signed up to standards and then broke them.
Iāve been very clear that the EU is flawed and makes mistakes. Yes, this means taking the sour with the sweet - for the overall benefit of being in the EU.
However Iād ask why you feel the need to make exaggerated claims? We have many already. The concept of ever closer union is a direct path to a US style governance. Maybe is a goal for a few, maybe some time in the far future, maybe never - but you state it as fact.
The EU fines countries who go against their wishes. One example of a fine and many examples of countries not fully adhering to EU regulations and standards, Your claim implies its common and malicious - neither are true.
The EU is trying to establish one single legal system. Not true - there is an overlay EU legal framework and if you are in the EU, then the highest court is the European court. But that is not the same as a single EU wide legal system. Why exaggerate?
Funnily enough I suspect Iād agree with most of what you put forward if you removed the hyperbole.
See the thread about Farage.