Ultimatum EU Blueprint - The Final Solution
Discussion
Why is this not big news.......
Does it just not fit with the regret stories being pushed by all the media.
So the UK votes to remain, then this is released..... would leave have got a 2nd referendum due to the massive change in policy or admittance of the actual intended EU policy for further integration.
Does it just not fit with the regret stories being pushed by all the media.
So the UK votes to remain, then this is released..... would leave have got a 2nd referendum due to the massive change in policy or admittance of the actual intended EU policy for further integration.
king LOVE this and are stirring the pot as much as they can! I now want them gone!
jjlynn27 said:
reuters* said said:
"Neither a simple call for more Europe nor a phase of mere reflection can be an adequate answer," Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Jean-Marc Ayrault said in the paper, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.
"To prevent the silent creeping erosion of our European project we have to be more focused on essentials and on meeting the concrete expectations of our citizens," they added.
The two ministers, whose countries are at the core of the EU, said it was important to recognize that member states had different appetites for deepening European integration.
"We have to find better ways of dealing with different levels of ambition so as to ensure that Europe delivers better on the expectations of all European citizens," they said.
Previous post on this topic. Can someone who actually read it confirm if the quoted part is actually in that document or not?"To prevent the silent creeping erosion of our European project we have to be more focused on essentials and on meeting the concrete expectations of our citizens," they added.
The two ministers, whose countries are at the core of the EU, said it was important to recognize that member states had different appetites for deepening European integration.
"We have to find better ways of dealing with different levels of ambition so as to ensure that Europe delivers better on the expectations of all European citizens," they said.
Northern Munkee said:
Holy crap-ola.This is why I voted out.
All this talk about leave and remain lies and deceptions, neither side had the truth or the full picture. Can't imagine that many voters on the remain side fully understood what the plans were for the EU and am sure this would have influenced voting but has been held off until after the referendum.
For me as one that wavered on which way to vote, this would have swung me further towards leave. I don't want the country to be part of an EU superstate that is slowly dissolving power from the individual nations. Am sure lots of other people would agree.
Time to work together, be strong and move this country forward in our brave new world.
For me as one that wavered on which way to vote, this would have swung me further towards leave. I don't want the country to be part of an EU superstate that is slowly dissolving power from the individual nations. Am sure lots of other people would agree.
Time to work together, be strong and move this country forward in our brave new world.
Puggit said:
It's just a strategy documnet, isn't it? The musings of someone who wants an EU superstate. Or is it more?
And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
^^That might be the musings of a Federalist, but this is on the Federal German Government's website;And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Pres...
And iirc, QMV will replace vetoes next year......
Puggit said:
It's just a strategy documnet, isn't it? The musings of someone who wants an EU superstate. Or is it more?
And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
National vetoes go and QMV comes in next year (2017), the initiation of the Lisbon treaty. End of March I think. And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
hornetrider said:
Northern Munkee said:
Holy crap-ola.This is why I voted out.
This is an aspiration of the committed Europhiles.
However, in the real world German would vote against the proposals because:
1. It would need a constitutional change in Germany this is a political no no.
2. This would mean fiscal transfers between the richer northern countries, German, Holland and Denmark to the poorer nations Greece, Spain, Italy. Politically this will never run.
Mrr T said:
So that is why you voted out? So you admit you know so little about the EU and its politics you should not have voted at all.
This is an aspiration of the committed Europhiles.
However, in the real world German would vote against the proposals because:
1. It would need a constitutional change in Germany this is a political no no.
2. This would mean fiscal transfers between the richer northern countries, German, Holland and Denmark to the poorer nations Greece, Spain, Italy. Politically this will never run.
In the same way that Greece joining the EZ should never have politically run?This is an aspiration of the committed Europhiles.
However, in the real world German would vote against the proposals because:
1. It would need a constitutional change in Germany this is a political no no.
2. This would mean fiscal transfers between the richer northern countries, German, Holland and Denmark to the poorer nations Greece, Spain, Italy. Politically this will never run.
Mrr T said:
2. This would mean fiscal transfers between the richer northern countries, German, Holland and Denmark to the poorer nations Greece, Spain, Italy. Politically this will never run.
If that is not already happening how come some countries are net receivers of EU funds and others like us, are net givers?Has anyone actually read this document, or are you too busy frothing at the mouth?
Secondly, of course the strategy of the EU is greater political, economic and military union, as without that the benefits of a shared currency and shared face to the world will always be diminished.
Finally, given we were already out of the shared currency, and we already had a veto on most if not all of the 'ever closer union' this strategy already did not apply to us, regardless of how the EU referendum went.
This thread is an example of the emotional rhetoric and lack of critical thinking that has beset both sides of this debate.
EU Strategy Document p.45 said:
Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions.
Firstly, this is a strategy document, and is for discussion and implementation when agreed by the member states (the heads of which are elected, and a number of which could veto it anyway).Secondly, of course the strategy of the EU is greater political, economic and military union, as without that the benefits of a shared currency and shared face to the world will always be diminished.
Finally, given we were already out of the shared currency, and we already had a veto on most if not all of the 'ever closer union' this strategy already did not apply to us, regardless of how the EU referendum went.
This thread is an example of the emotional rhetoric and lack of critical thinking that has beset both sides of this debate.
mattmurdock said:
Has anyone actually read this document, or are you too busy frothing at the mouth?
Secondly, of course the strategy of the EU is greater political, economic and military union, as without that the benefits of a shared currency and shared face to the world will always be diminished.
Finally, given we were already out of the shared currency, and we already had a veto on most if not all of the 'ever closer union' this strategy already did not apply to us, regardless of how the EU referendum went.
This thread is an example of the emotional rhetoric and lack of critical thinking that has beset both sides of this debate.
I'm pretty sure that veto everyone keeps holding up as the key to everything evaporates soon. EU Strategy Document p.45 said:
Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions.
Firstly, this is a strategy document, and is for discussion and implementation when agreed by the member states (the heads of which are elected, and a number of which could veto it anyway).Secondly, of course the strategy of the EU is greater political, economic and military union, as without that the benefits of a shared currency and shared face to the world will always be diminished.
Finally, given we were already out of the shared currency, and we already had a veto on most if not all of the 'ever closer union' this strategy already did not apply to us, regardless of how the EU referendum went.
This thread is an example of the emotional rhetoric and lack of critical thinking that has beset both sides of this debate.
Do you not realise that the objective is for a common tax policy, law, army, currency etc.
It is being driven by Germany and France, this is the main goal.
Unanimity is still required in areas of:
- membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
- change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[26]
- taxation;
- the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);
- harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
- certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);
- the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;
- the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;
- the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
- citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);
- certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the - Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Counci...
- membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
- change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[26]
- taxation;
- the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);
- harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
- certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);
- the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;
- the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;
- the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
- citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);
- certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the - Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Counci...
Hosenbugler said:
Puggit said:
It's just a strategy documnet, isn't it? The musings of someone who wants an EU superstate. Or is it more?
And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
National vetoes go and QMV comes in next year (2017), the initiation of the Lisbon treaty. End of March I think. And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
It doesn't really matter now (as we have voted to leave), but the UK would have retained an effective veto by opt-out to most of the stuff covered by this strategy, regardless of the Lisbon Treaty.
- The UK has an opt-in or opt-out option to EU measures concerning asylum, border controls, crime prevention, criminal justice cooperation, criminal law, Eurojust, Europol, freedom security and justice evaluation, immigration and police cooperation. This means the UK can choose whether or not to participate in decisions on these matters (but if we choose to participate, then we have to abide by the QMV rule).
- The UK has an opt-out from the Euro and Eurozone representation.
- In two cases – concerning freedom of movement for workers and social security – there is an ‘emergency brake’, which means that if a Member State objects to a proposal on grounds of important national concerns, the decision is taken by unanimity.
- Common defence policy: any move towards achieving a common defence policy will be by unanimity. QMV can be used only to establish ‘structured cooperation’ in defence, whereby a group of like-minded Member States choose to cooperate in a defence-related matter. If the UK does not want to participate, it does not have to.
As an aside, the introduction of QMV was actually beneficial to the UK within the EU, as our large population meant we had more chance of achieving a majority on the things that mattered to us, and of blocking things we didn't like. The smaller countries like Spain and Poland were worse off, which is why they lobbied for the QMV to only take full effect in 2017, rather than immediately in 2014.
mattmurdock said:
Hosenbugler said:
Puggit said:
It's just a strategy documnet, isn't it? The musings of someone who wants an EU superstate. Or is it more?
And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
National vetoes go and QMV comes in next year (2017), the initiation of the Lisbon treaty. End of March I think. And surely national vetoes can still be used here, not QMV?
It doesn't really matter now (as we have voted to leave), but the UK would have retained an effective veto by opt-out to most of the stuff covered by this strategy, regardless of the Lisbon Treaty.
- The UK has an opt-in or opt-out option to EU measures concerning asylum, border controls, crime prevention, criminal justice cooperation, criminal law, Eurojust, Europol, freedom security and justice evaluation, immigration and police cooperation. This means the UK can choose whether or not to participate in decisions on these matters (but if we choose to participate, then we have to abide by the QMV rule).
- The UK has an opt-out from the Euro and Eurozone representation.
- In two cases – concerning freedom of movement for workers and social security – there is an ‘emergency brake’, which means that if a Member State objects to a proposal on grounds of important national concerns, the decision is taken by unanimity.
- Common defence policy: any move towards achieving a common defence policy will be by unanimity. QMV can be used only to establish ‘structured cooperation’ in defence, whereby a group of like-minded Member States choose to cooperate in a defence-related matter. If the UK does not want to participate, it does not have to.
As an aside, the introduction of QMV was actually beneficial to the UK within the EU, as our large population meant we had more chance of achieving a majority on the things that mattered to us, and of blocking things we didn't like. The smaller countries like Spain and Poland were worse off, which is why they lobbied for the QMV to only take full effect in 2017, rather than immediately in 2014.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff