EP elections 2019

Do you plan to vote on the EP elections?


  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
Status
Closed

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,671
Europix
Seriously, yes!

Brit way. Exit.

We all (still) live in reasonably democratic countries, and the "breaking point" of politicians is quite low.

A referendum for an exit can be obtained/pressured/forced. It is very doable.

Not to say that in terms of paperwork is much easier to solve than all the procedure needed for reforming EU.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,588
Netherlands
Seriously, yes!

Brit way. Exit.

We all (still) live in reasonably democratic countries, and the "breaking point" of politicians is quite low.

A referendum for an exit can be obtained/pressured/forced. It is very doable.
So why hasn't it happened outside of the UK?
Not to say that in terms of paperwork is much easier to solve than all the procedure needed for reforming EU.
Nah you just need money.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,671
Europix
Nah you just need money.
Well, why not? Thank You, I'm in on that.

So why hasn't it happened outside of the UK?
Honestly?

Because media and forums aren't real world.

In the real world, the majority of real Europeans do not want the end of the EU that much, not as much as it looks like.

There are a lot of small and less small advantages, people got used to EU and for the things they do not like, there's someone else to blame (immigrants, Putin, leeches, Merkel, traders, Tump, Chinese, aso).

And there's that old human "hope" (it will get better ... eventually).

But really, it's simply that there isn't the majority against. Once the majority is there, it's done.

Brexit's problem isn't EU, nor British politicians. It's that the majority was, and still is a bit short. Would have been something like 60% leavers (or more), everything would have been over by now.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,541
Londinium
[cont.]

It is clear. Some areas are even crystal clear. It seems that only your lack of knowledge and your bias against the EU don’t see it clear: “The European Union can only act in those areas where its member countries have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. The treaties specify who can pass laws in what areas: the EU, national governments or both.”

Source: “Areas of EU action”, please red it, and the different areas, or at read the treaties.

The areas are clear in the treaties. We can agree or disagree with that, but that is a matter of fact. A legal one. Often doubts and political discussions result in the implementation and in the developments, but that is a natural in politics, especially in democracies.

Yes. Same for many international organizations, ONGs, UN, UN agencies. In my younger years, I was a member of an international students organization recognized internationally by the UN and by many states, and yet it… surprise!… it wasn’t a state.

Biological analogy apart, you forgot to say that it sings like a canary, I recall a certain story that I said to other member of this forum some time ago. A professor of mine said something like: “when someone in an intellectual or serious conversation uses “LOL” or “duh”, we know that the conversation reached the bottom and that is not intellectually relevant anymore.” My teen students also use those terms often, albeit not in the classes. I guess my old mentor was right.

I think that it is clear and obvious with the reading of the mentioned part. Yes.

In international treaties as a part of the whole construction of the international law, the sovereign states prescind in some way of parts of their sovereignty in favour or major organizations. More in some treaties than other. This is one of the relevant debates of this century. Globalization vs sovereignty. There are studies about it. I am surprised that you were unaware!

Some time ago in a discussion with a colleague of mine, around a table that wasn’t full of documents but full of food, we compared the states in the international society with the individuals in the society. And we compared total sovereignty with the individual liberty to do whatever the individual wanted.

Since individuals leave in society the liberty is always finite. It has boundaries and limits. It has much more limits as the individual is inserted in the society. In other words his individual liberty diminishes in the reverse ratio of his social integration.

For the states we can make the analogy that their sovereignty is also always finite. Its limits are in their relations with the other states, and with the international community, including here non state agents. In other words its state sovereignty diminishes in the reverse ratio of his international integration.

It was a good meal!

The words integration and construction are in the EU vocabulary, so not sure why do you state that is convenient. But after all these days and all these posts, I am not also that interested.

If you want to agree to disagree it is fine. We can move on. If you don’t want to agree to disagree, that is also fine by me, I will probably move on alone.
This is an exceptionally difficult post to respond to. I’m going to make it easier for us both by providing a single response rather than going line by line.

The EU does have a public service as it provides certain funds and grants. There is also a civil service/bureaucracy/admin as part of the EU, so it very much does provide a public service – to the citizens of the EU…as another state would do.

I may have introduced that link into this thread, but even if I did, you then used it as an example of why I should not consider the EU a state, at that point it became your source so please don’t try and distance yourself from it in retrospect. Then you attack this source by saying it’s not academic enough. Very bizarre

Again, aside from e.Europe, no nation joined the EU – they joined the EEC or the coal and steel community. No nation, aside from the UK has had a referendum on the EU. The Lisbon treaty was put to a ref in Ireland, which they rejected. Then on the second attempt it went through. Not suspicious though I’m sure you’ll say.

Even if they did, the fact remains that member states are not sovereign within the system as - AGAIN – the EU makes laws, at the EU level, which must be applied to the member state and not the other way around. If a country in Portugal can make local laws but national laws must be implemented, however their local laws don’t apply to other countries, then there is a clear line of sovereignty leading up to the national law. If you understand this then you can understand why the EU is the supreme or sovereign entity.

Have you considered that the EU has declared itself a state because of the resistance to that, even from pro-EU supporters as this thread shows? When the time is right this will happen, an “ever closer union” will get….closer.

Not sure why you think a military is a fundamental part of having a state, is this just an opinion because it doesn’t follow any information I’ve yet come across (List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia)

So, now I shall wait for your next minor point to argue, please look at the big picture and the mechanisms and attributes of the EU then compare against your own country and consider what’s missing.

Would be great for someone to try and argue that Germany is a state because I don’t think it is anymore, same with Portugal…..
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,541
Londinium
(emphasis mine)
You didn't convinced me yet, so no, I don't mean the EU is no longer a state, as I never believed EU is a state.



You don't have to accept any of all those, as it isn't about that.

You said that EU is a state, I said it lacks a couple of attributes defining the modern state.

Amongst them, the military aspects.

I gave You the legal texts, You have the liberty to compare to any legal texts defining the military aspects of any state. Preferably, comparing with what You (and the general consensus) consider undoubtedly a state.
List out the attributes the EU would require to be a state. I shall then compare this against, say, Germany and we can see if we both agree the EU is not a state (like Germany)...I dare you to :)
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,491
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The EU is not a state.

It's an unaccountable supra-national organisation that has appropriated and usurped many of the powers of a state.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,671
Europix
List out the attributes the EU would require to be a state. I shall then compare this against, say, Germany and we can see if we both agree the EU is not a state (like Germany)...I dare you to :)
I've did it more than once, my friend.

But ok, I'll repeat the most important:

- military
- budged
- taxes
- territory
- population
- juridical system

This:
The EU is not a state.

It's an unaccountable supra-national organisation that has appropriated and usurped many of the powers of a state.
is a good definition.

One (a pro-EU) could object to the use of some terms ("usurped", for example) but that is simply a difference of opinion, of interpretation, thus debatable.

But Naomasa's definition itself definitely stands.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed