Ultimatum EU Blueprint - The Final Solution
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
Piersman2 said:
but the EU is trying to rule the european member states of it's organisation.
The EU *is* the member states of its organisation, lots of people seem to be viewing the EU as *them* when, up to now, it's been *us*. What the EU does is decided by representatives of those member states. Yes some of those representatives are unelected (like UK civil servants), but their powers are given to them by the elected bodies, and major decisions need to voted on by the elected European Parliament.Piersman2 said:
You're also trying to look into a crystal ball, like all of us are to be fair.
Since I was old enough to actually understand politics and have watched the EU evolve over 30 years, I've always disliked and mistrusted it's influences, goals and methods. It's always been clear that the UK is not of the same mentality as the rest of the peoples of Europe. My personal belief is because we never got invaded by another nation during the world wars, we don't share our neighbours fears of it happening again.
I had my one and only chance to directly vote on the EU last week, and took it. As did 17M others. We managed to gain a majority and we should be out in due course.
If we had stayed in I would have accepted that, I wouldn't have expected another referendum in my lifetime. I would have hoped for the whole edifice to collapse under it's own weight in the fullness of time.
But the collapse of the EU will not end well for any of the countries within, the EU powers brokers will not relinqush control easily, it will be messy, utterly disastrous and quite likley in my view to lead to civil unrest and war across Europe.
That little bit of sea may stop the physicality of war coming to us yet again, but the political break was needed to give us our own chance to sail away from the impending economic implosion and ever increasing, creeping, insidious ruling over us by an unelected foreign quango.
It's not my fault the last few governments have been sucked into the EU, but I was going to take my frist chance to get out when it came along.
I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your reasoning.Since I was old enough to actually understand politics and have watched the EU evolve over 30 years, I've always disliked and mistrusted it's influences, goals and methods. It's always been clear that the UK is not of the same mentality as the rest of the peoples of Europe. My personal belief is because we never got invaded by another nation during the world wars, we don't share our neighbours fears of it happening again.
I had my one and only chance to directly vote on the EU last week, and took it. As did 17M others. We managed to gain a majority and we should be out in due course.
If we had stayed in I would have accepted that, I wouldn't have expected another referendum in my lifetime. I would have hoped for the whole edifice to collapse under it's own weight in the fullness of time.
But the collapse of the EU will not end well for any of the countries within, the EU powers brokers will not relinqush control easily, it will be messy, utterly disastrous and quite likley in my view to lead to civil unrest and war across Europe.
That little bit of sea may stop the physicality of war coming to us yet again, but the political break was needed to give us our own chance to sail away from the impending economic implosion and ever increasing, creeping, insidious ruling over us by an unelected foreign quango.
It's not my fault the last few governments have been sucked into the EU, but I was going to take my frist chance to get out when it came along.
My frustration is with the people claiming 'EU power brokers' are somehow going to cling onto power, when the very treaty everyone seems to think removed our sovereignty actually gave us a formal method to leave the EU, and when we have just had a completely uneventful (from an EU perspective) referendum to trigger leaving the EU.
I don't see those shadowy 'EU power brokers' fixing the result of our referendum, I don't see them rushing to block Article 50 to stop us from leaving, in fact I see the opposite. I see people upset we don't share their views saying 'OK, you voted, we respect that, get on and leave'.
How does that square with the view that they want to force us into political union irrespective of the wishes of the electorate?
If we are the model, and given we were a net contributor and so arguably much more important than some other member states to the EU project, how on earth is the EU going to collapse into civil war and unrest. Surely if there is popular will in the member states, they will simply hold referendums of their own and leave the EU by the same method.
It just doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The EU said:
A Credible Union. To engage responsibly with the world, credibility is vital. The EU’s credibility hinges on our unity, on our many achievements, our enduring power of attraction, the effectiveness and consistency of our policies, and adherence to our values. A stronger Union also requires investing in all dimensions of foreign policy. In particular, investment
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Who's moving goalposts? There's nothing in that extract you've just posted that suggests a European army. It talks about cooperation and capability building, which already goes on as evidenced by the UK/French CJEF, German Netherlands Corps and others collaborations, and is also what NATO is all about.You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The EU said:
A Credible Union. To engage responsibly with the world, credibility is vital. The EU’s credibility hinges on our unity, on our many achievements, our enduring power of attraction, the effectiveness and consistency of our policies, and adherence to our values. A stronger Union also requires investing in all dimensions of foreign policy. In particular, investment
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
ETA: If the EU did want to create a UK army it would have to be a unanimous decision by all nations, and UK law states we'd need an act of parliament and a referendum on it if we were still in the EU.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 29th June 14:59
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Its difficult not to find Don posts amusing. You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The EU said:
A Credible Union. To engage responsibly with the world, credibility is vital. The EU’s credibility hinges on our unity, on our many achievements, our enduring power of attraction, the effectiveness and consistency of our policies, and adherence to our values. A stronger Union also requires investing in all dimensions of foreign policy. In particular, investment
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
in security and defence is a matter of urgency. Full spectrum defence
European Union Global Strategy 11
capabilities are necessary to respond to external crises, build our partners’
capacities, and to guarantee Europe’s safety. Member States remain
sovereign in their defence decisions: nevertheless, to acquire and maintain
many of these capabilities, defence cooperation must become the norm.
The EU will systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to
create a solid European defence industry, which is critical for Europe’s
autonomy of decision and action.
Here he posts wording that actually say:
"Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions"
Only in his mind could this mean a European army.
Derek Smith said:
There is an irony in the suggestion that a no vote would restore the sovereignty of parliament when a referendum conveniently sidesteps it. Parliament had a majority for remain. So, in effect, the biggest hit parliament has taken is from the referendum.
In our form of democracy, MPs do not represent the views of the constituents. They vote according to their own beliefs. You vote in a person you trust to make decisions for you. In opting for a referendum, Cameron has abrogated his responsibilities.
This is incorrect, under Parliamentary sovereignty the electorate pass sovereignty to Parliament for a determined period of five years. After this time a General Election is held and sovereignty is again passed to Parliament for a further term. Ultimate sovereignty is with the people, this mustn't be forgotten.In our form of democracy, MPs do not represent the views of the constituents. They vote according to their own beliefs. You vote in a person you trust to make decisions for you. In opting for a referendum, Cameron has abrogated his responsibilities.
What has happened is the past is that Parliament has then transferred sovereignty to the EU. This has been done without the consent and informed knowledge of the people (and even Parliament - how many MPs admitted to not reading the various treaties?). This has led us to be in the position we now find ourselves, where the people are now beginning to realise what has happened and rejected it.
After watching the Professor Dougan video that was widely shared, he states that the UK remains sovereign as the transfer of powers to the EU have been done by treaty. I strongly disagree with him, firstly Parliament does not have the authority to transfer power, as their own powers are temporary, and secondly if Parliament is unable to reverse the transfer of power then control, and with it, sovereignty is indeed lost.
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Move the goalposts a bit?You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The document you are quoting explicitly says that the member states would retain full sovereignty over their armed forces.
The UK also had an opt-out from any European defense policy.
So what exactly was (or is) the issue with the EU proposing co-ordination of defense at an EU level?
mattmurdock said:
Outside the EU we will have the same control over our decisions we had in the EU i.e. they will be made for us by a representative democracy. The same representative democracy you think would just agree to everything the EU said if we were still a member.
Not true. Huge difference - in one election we have a manifesto to assist with the decision making, or at least direction of travel. With the other, there is no ability to understand the proposed actions or when they are planned to occur.
ETA - they're both forms of 'representative democracy', but operate in entirely different ways that mean the principle is lost.
Another example - in the UK, any member of the electorate can lobby their representative to table a motion for a vote in Parliament. Every representative has this ability.
Is it possible to lobby the EU Commissioners? No. Do the elected representatives acting in the interest of their electorate have any ability to table motions for Parliamentary vote? No.
Edited by Sway on Wednesday 29th June 15:23
mattmurdock said:
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Move the goalposts a bit?You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The document you are quoting explicitly says that the member states would retain full sovereignty over their armed forces.
The UK also had an opt-out from any European defense policy.
So what exactly was (or is) the issue with the EU proposing co-ordination of defense at an EU level?
mattmurdock said:
I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your reasoning.
My frustration is with the people claiming 'EU power brokers' are somehow going to cling onto power, when the very treaty everyone seems to think removed our sovereignty actually gave us a formal method to leave the EU, and when we have just had a completely uneventful (from an EU perspective) referendum to trigger leaving the EU.
I don't see those shadowy 'EU power brokers' fixing the result of our referendum, I don't see them rushing to block Article 50 to stop us from leaving, in fact I see the opposite. I see people upset we don't share their views saying 'OK, you voted, we respect that, get on and leave'.
How does that square with the view that they want to force us into political union irrespective of the wishes of the electorate?
If we are the model, and given we were a net contributor and so arguably much more important than some other member states to the EU project, how on earth is the EU going to collapse into civil war and unrest. Surely if there is popular will in the member states, they will simply hold referendums of their own and leave the EU by the same method.
It just doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.
The problem with the UK and the EU has always been the UK's reticence to fully engage. We've always looked on from outside to a certain extent and questioned and prodded the EU to justify and explain itself. It has never appreciated our ability to put the brakes on! My frustration is with the people claiming 'EU power brokers' are somehow going to cling onto power, when the very treaty everyone seems to think removed our sovereignty actually gave us a formal method to leave the EU, and when we have just had a completely uneventful (from an EU perspective) referendum to trigger leaving the EU.
I don't see those shadowy 'EU power brokers' fixing the result of our referendum, I don't see them rushing to block Article 50 to stop us from leaving, in fact I see the opposite. I see people upset we don't share their views saying 'OK, you voted, we respect that, get on and leave'.
How does that square with the view that they want to force us into political union irrespective of the wishes of the electorate?
If we are the model, and given we were a net contributor and so arguably much more important than some other member states to the EU project, how on earth is the EU going to collapse into civil war and unrest. Surely if there is popular will in the member states, they will simply hold referendums of their own and leave the EU by the same method.
It just doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.
The response from the quango over the last few days has been expected and equally illuminating. They obviously feel they have reached the position where they can progress their vision quicker and more effectively without the UK, and its money. Fair enough, someone else will need to pay, or they'll have to cut their cloth, which they never have done before. Either way, they have decided enough is enough, if the UK wants to go, let it, it has been a thorn in our side for long enough already.
Those left in the club, particularly the poorer ones are even more beholden to the EU now that we have left, they will not be given the option to a referendum, it was a mistake to allow it in the UK, they will not want to allow that mistake again. Even as the people increasingly rise up against the straight jacket of the EU, the governments will be restrained until open revolt is the only option to the people. See Greece as the first potentially to go, with some of the poorer Balkan states likely to be next as the taps turn off without the UK's money to help keep everyone sweet.
I believe the Germans genuinely are doing what they are for the good of Europe, but it's a big burden for just 1 nation to carry. I don't see the EU surviving for too long, but who knows, it's best hope is probably to try and complete the vision before it unravels. Basically do or die trying.
London424 said:
mattmurdock said:
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Move the goalposts a bit?You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The document you are quoting explicitly says that the member states would retain full sovereignty over their armed forces.
The UK also had an opt-out from any European defense policy.
So what exactly was (or is) the issue with the EU proposing co-ordination of defense at an EU level?
It seem sensible to me that EU countries cooperate on defence matters. Having similar command and control structures, similar equipment, should make NATO's role easier, and reduce costs.
Sway said:
Not true. Huge difference - in one election we have a manifesto to assist with the decision making, or at least direction of travel.
With the other, there is no ability to understand the proposed actions or when they are planned to occur.
ETA - they're both forms of 'representative democracy', but operate in entirely different ways that mean the principle is lost.
Another example - in the UK, any member of the electorate can lobby their representative to table a motion for a vote in Parliament. Every representative has this ability.
Is it possible to lobby the EU Commissioners? No. Do the elected representatives acting in the interest of their electorate have any ability to table motions for Parliamentary vote? No.
Under the Lisbon treaty, if an EU citizen can get a petition of a million signatures, they can request legislation from the EU Commission. The EU Council and the EU Parliament, made up of elected representatives of EU citizens, can also request legislation from the EU Commission.With the other, there is no ability to understand the proposed actions or when they are planned to occur.
ETA - they're both forms of 'representative democracy', but operate in entirely different ways that mean the principle is lost.
Another example - in the UK, any member of the electorate can lobby their representative to table a motion for a vote in Parliament. Every representative has this ability.
Is it possible to lobby the EU Commissioners? No. Do the elected representatives acting in the interest of their electorate have any ability to table motions for Parliamentary vote? No.
Edited by Sway on Wednesday 29th June 15:23
The Commission itself is made up of individuals nominated by the elected national leader of each member state, and they have to be approved by vote of the EU Parliament, also elected representatives. The Parliament can also dissolve the Commission if they are not happy with what they are doing, via a vote of no-confidence.
Yes, it is 'less' democratic because the EU Commission can refuse to initiate legislation if they don't want to (so they hold effectively the ultimate veto on EU law making). However, if they kept blocking a popular piece of legislation, the MEPs could vote them out.
I'm certain that a lot of the nonsense spread on these threads is due to populist soundbites, rather than anyone actually bothering to understand how it works.
Mrr T said:
London424 said:
mattmurdock said:
don4l said:
A week ago, any suggestion of a European army was treated to howls of derision. We were told that there were absolutely no plans for such a force.
You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
Move the goalposts a bit?You would think that the people who denied that any plans existed would now admit that they were wrong. But no... they simply try to move the goalposts a bit.
Incredible.
The document you are quoting explicitly says that the member states would retain full sovereignty over their armed forces.
The UK also had an opt-out from any European defense policy.
So what exactly was (or is) the issue with the EU proposing co-ordination of defense at an EU level?
It seem sensible to me that EU countries cooperate on defence matters. Having similar command and control structures, similar equipment, should make NATO's role easier, and reduce costs.
mattmurdock said:
Sway said:
Not true. Huge difference - in one election we have a manifesto to assist with the decision making, or at least direction of travel.
With the other, there is no ability to understand the proposed actions or when they are planned to occur.
ETA - they're both forms of 'representative democracy', but operate in entirely different ways that mean the principle is lost.
Another example - in the UK, any member of the electorate can lobby their representative to table a motion for a vote in Parliament. Every representative has this ability.
Is it possible to lobby the EU Commissioners? No. Do the elected representatives acting in the interest of their electorate have any ability to table motions for Parliamentary vote? No.
Under the Lisbon treaty, if an EU citizen can get a petition of a million signatures, they can request legislation from the EU Commission. The EU Council and the EU Parliament, made up of elected representatives of EU citizens, can also request legislation from the EU Commission.With the other, there is no ability to understand the proposed actions or when they are planned to occur.
ETA - they're both forms of 'representative democracy', but operate in entirely different ways that mean the principle is lost.
Another example - in the UK, any member of the electorate can lobby their representative to table a motion for a vote in Parliament. Every representative has this ability.
Is it possible to lobby the EU Commissioners? No. Do the elected representatives acting in the interest of their electorate have any ability to table motions for Parliamentary vote? No.
Edited by Sway on Wednesday 29th June 15:23
The Commission itself is made up of individuals nominated by the elected national leader of each member state, and they have to be approved by vote of the EU Parliament, also elected representatives. The Parliament can also dissolve the Commission if they are not happy with what they are doing, via a vote of no-confidence.
Yes, it is 'less' democratic because the EU Commission can refuse to initiate legislation if they don't want to (so they hold effectively the ultimate veto on EU law making). However, if they kept blocking a popular piece of legislation, the MEPs could vote them out.
I'm certain that a lot of the nonsense spread on these threads is due to populist soundbites, rather than anyone actually bothering to understand how it works.
See FIFA for a worked example.
Piersman2 said:
Those left in the club, particularly the poorer ones are even more beholden to the EU now that we have left, they will not be given the option to a referendum, it was a mistake to allow it in the UK, they will not want to allow that mistake again. Even as the people increasingly rise up against the straight jacket of the EU, the governments will be restrained until open revolt is the only option to the people. See Greece as the first potentially to go, with some of the poorer Balkan states likely to be next as the taps turn off without the UK's money to help keep everyone sweet.
I believe the Germans genuinely are doing what they are for the good of Europe, but it's a big burden for just 1 nation to carry. I don't see the EU surviving for too long, but who knows, it's best hope is probably to try and complete the vision before it unravels. Basically do or die trying.
This is just complete supposition and conjecture though. Given Article 50 exists in the treaties, and DOES NOT require a referendum to be triggered, the member states can simply invoke it and leave. Also, the EU has absolutely no power at all to prevent any member state having a referendum on anything. They would have to change the legislation in a way that would require the full support of the elected government of each member state.I believe the Germans genuinely are doing what they are for the good of Europe, but it's a big burden for just 1 nation to carry. I don't see the EU surviving for too long, but who knows, it's best hope is probably to try and complete the vision before it unravels. Basically do or die trying.
The only reason I can see for the poorer states to go along with that is if their countries would disintegrate if they left i.e. they were completely dependent on EU funding. If it got to that stage, then they likely have nothing left to lose by exiting as the EU would be collapsing anyway.
Short of physical force, they CANNOT stop anyone from leaving if their elected representatives choose for them to leave.
So it still sounds like nonsense.
Piersman2 said:
All the rules and regulations in the world mean nothing is everyone is too afraid or beholden to those in the positions of influence.
See FIFA for a worked example.
So Merkel, Hollande and Cameron were 'beholden' to the EU Commission?See FIFA for a worked example.
If anything, the issue in the EU recently has been the member states uni/bi/trilaterally ignoring the rules and regulations, not the 'un-elected' Commissioners.
London424 said:
Why do they need to? What's wrong with NATO?
Well for starters NATO tends to be pretty slow to do anything as its a partnership of 27 countries...er...While NATO members have a lot of common goals, I suspect there's a few things Europe are concerned about that USA and Canada for example might not see as a priority. Plus it means military cooperations with non NATO countries like Austria, Sweden and Ireland.
The EU already undertakes various military tasks anyway, eg EUFOR that took over from SFOR/IFOR in the Balkans, various missions in Africa, and the yet to be deployed EU Battlegroup.
mattmurdock said:
This is just complete supposition and conjecture though. Given Article 50 exists in the treaties, and DOES NOT require a referendum to be triggered, the member states can simply invoke it and leave. Also, the EU has absolutely no power at all to prevent any member state having a referendum on anything. They would have to change the legislation in a way that would require the full support of the elected government of each member state.
The only reason I can see for the poorer states to go along with that is if their countries would disintegrate if they left i.e. they were completely dependent on EU funding. If it got to that stage, then they likely have nothing left to lose by exiting as the EU would be collapsing anyway.
Short of physical force, they CANNOT stop anyone from leaving if their elected representatives choose for them to leave.
So it still sounds like nonsense.
I know it sounds like nonsense to you, but that's because it's not how you see things, that's fine. That's your opinion, we're all entitled to one.The only reason I can see for the poorer states to go along with that is if their countries would disintegrate if they left i.e. they were completely dependent on EU funding. If it got to that stage, then they likely have nothing left to lose by exiting as the EU would be collapsing anyway.
Short of physical force, they CANNOT stop anyone from leaving if their elected representatives choose for them to leave.
So it still sounds like nonsense.
But, why did the goverment of Greece NOT invoke section 50 when it had been specifically voted in by a majority of Greeks on a mandate to do exactly that, with a 'strong' populist PM and FI minister and a people willing to take the consequences?
I actually don't know the answer, but my guess would be that the threats from the EU were so grave, that the PM/FI minister felt that the personal wrath of the people directed at them was a pain worth taking in comparison to what the EU was threatening against Greece.
Must have been one hell of a threat!
mattmurdock said:
So Merkel, Hollande and Cameron were 'beholden' to the EU Commission?
If anything, the issue in the EU recently has been the member states uni/bi/trilaterally ignoring the rules and regulations, not the 'un-elected' Commissioners.
As I've said, I believe Germany genuinely feels it is doing the right thing, and I think they probably are, I support them. Unfortunately I think they are being lead along a path which is the wrong one.If anything, the issue in the EU recently has been the member states uni/bi/trilaterally ignoring the rules and regulations, not the 'un-elected' Commissioners.
As for Hollande and France, it's been said before that the French see themselves as the diplomats of Europe, so long as they can spend Germany's money doing it. France , with the CAP, has always looked after it's own interests very weel with the EU.
Cameron probably less beholden, with a physically separate country and strong financial sector, which meant he was more able to gamble on the referendum for his own party politics, and got it wrong. Oops.
Piersman2 said:
I know it sounds like nonsense to you, but that's because it's not how you see things, that's fine. That's your opinion, we're all entitled to one.
But, why did the goverment of Greece NOT invoke section 50 when it had been specifically voted in by a majority of Greeks on a mandate to do exactly that, with a 'strong' populist PM and FI minister and a people willing to take the consequences?
I actually don't know the answer, but my guess would be that the threats from the EU were so grave, that the PM/FI minister felt that the personal wrath of the people directed at them was a pain worth taking in comparison to what the EU was threatening against Greece.
Must have been one hell of a threat!
They had a mandate to stop austerity, not a mandate to leave the EU. Opinion polls at the time suggested a 70% 'remain' vote to stay in the EU. So they were between a rock and a hard place - they had to renegotiate the austerity, but they couldn't threaten to leave the EU as they would have had a hard time politically at home.But, why did the goverment of Greece NOT invoke section 50 when it had been specifically voted in by a majority of Greeks on a mandate to do exactly that, with a 'strong' populist PM and FI minister and a people willing to take the consequences?
I actually don't know the answer, but my guess would be that the threats from the EU were so grave, that the PM/FI minister felt that the personal wrath of the people directed at them was a pain worth taking in comparison to what the EU was threatening against Greece.
Must have been one hell of a threat!
So it wasn't EU threats that kept them in, it was democracy
.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff