The "Irish Guarantees" on Lisbon - are They Enough?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Hope the tidying is going well, Ibis. Its good to come across a man who can multi-task.

Quote :

The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum

Oh dear.

Quote :

it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

You should be delighted to be able to tell someone that their wishes may be fulfilled.

Quote :

it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty

You only need to convince 51%.

I think you gave a better answer in an earlier post on why Government failed to convey any that positive change was proposed - because they prefer the EU the way it is.

Hmm. That wasn't an answer to that question. It was in answer to why the government don't explain their part in the democratic deficit, or make any real effort to bring the EU closer to the citizens.

I don't disagree with that Ibis - I just think it also explains the performance (or lack of it) of FF/ Government in the Yes campaign.

Really? I don't think so at all. The Irish government worked very hard to get the Constitution finalised, and they worked very hard to keep most of the institutional changes through into Lisbon, because they thought they were the best possible deal for small states. All the evidence suggests that they are now working pretty hard on getting it ratified, and there's no way they were unaware of the pressure they would come under in the event of a No and the damage that would do the government. I'm afraid they simply budgeted for the usual level of scaremongering and nay-saying, and that was a miscalculation.

If you think that their campaign was adequate, then I think you are in a small minority. A number of Government members have conceded that they put up a very poor show and did virtually no door to door work.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

johnfás wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

I have a different view to you, so my view is hyperbole? I see.

This Treaty is a consolidation of the integration process, is it not? You might call it a 'tidying up exercise', though I would go further and call it an advancement of the process, e.g. the appointment of an EU Foreign Affairs Representative with expanded powers. And I believe, like it or not, that political integration, the 'one size fits all' super-state, is an absurd ideology being pushed by ideological zealots and by careerist national political elites. And so I say 'no' to Lisbon because Lisbon represents both an entrenching and a further expansion of the agenda. My opposition is from a far broader point of view than that represented by Coir and Libertas, being more cognisant of the historical train of European integration over the long term. My view is that the ultimate agenda, above the short-term nitpicking, is motivated by a misplaced belief in the necessity for political integration to combat supposedly 'new' transnational forces that have somehow slipped through the net of the sovereign states system. These forces are neither historically new, nor, I believe, outside the scope of effective sovereign state action. I believe in international co-operation, not transnational centralisation, though I am willing to accept the very limited and targeted pooling of sovereign power in certain exceptional cases (e.g. the International Criminal Court, or a well-defined environmental action oversight organisation).

So, no, non, niet, nein to Lisbon.

toxic, would you be able to clarify what you mean by that ? I am not understanding.

A common refrain from the integrationists is that we need centralised pooled-sovereignty bodies to effectively counter what they proclaim to be new and modern forces that individual sovereign states can not adequately deal with by themselves. Globalisation is cited as relatively recent phenomenon whereby e.g. criminals, terrorists, businesses and finance, etc. are said to be increasingly slipping the net of effective national control, hence the need for unified trans-national bodies, such as the various EU institutions, in order to combat these perceived problems.

I would argue that such 'problems' are vastly over-stated, and are nothing new. Globalisation could be argued to be a phenomenon with roots extending back hundreds of years, certainly in terms of commerce and finance. Criminals and terrorists/political agitators have been operating across borders for centuries too, hence the various bilateral extradition treaties operating since the early 19th Century (plus political offence exemptions stretching back just as long). National sovereign co-operation has always sufficed (not perfectly, I admit) to deal with these issues. The integrationist agenda, in my view, is based on a false premise, i.e. that pooling sovereignty is the only way to deal with these matters, even the transcending of national sovereignties.

An example is the European Arrest Warrant. A list of offences for which extradition (actually, extradition within the EU is formally abolished, it is now internal housekeeping, a demand is all that is necessary, habeas corpus gone, a presumption of fairness granted to every single justice system within the EU without quibble) is compulsory now exists, a de facto pre-cursor to a European Criminal Code. There was nothing wrong or inadequate with the old system of extradition. But there is an ideological agenda at work here, in which effectiveness is cited as the reason for the need for the EAW, which is really a cover for a belief in the gradual transition towards a super-state. Effectiveness has not been increased, but individual rights suffer. Extradition now can happen for offences that don't exist in the country harbouring the alleged fugitive. A right to a court hearing of the extradition case does not exist any more. A presumption of unimpeachable integrity in the justice system demanding extradition is now compulsory, despite massive concern that many are the opposite. And none of this is necessary. But ideological zeal will gloss over these inconveniences, because the ultimate prize is all that matters, the vindication of the idealist 'one size fits all' agenda. A sledgehammer is used to crack a nut, and misses the nut altogether.

That, as I said before, does not completely rule out the cession of sovereignty in limited cases, such as the ICC, where wisdom really does dictate the necessity for such bodies. But the EU is not about effectiveness, it's about ideology, and an absurd and unworkable one in my view.

cactus flower wrote:

If you think that their campaign was adequate, then I think you are in a small minority. A number of Government members have conceded that they put up a very poor show and did virtually no door to door work.

I don't think I said that either. I certainly don't think the government campaign was anywhere within an asse's roar of adequate, and have said so repeatedly.

Quote :

An example is the European Arrest Warrant. A list of offences for which extradition (actually, extradition within the EU is formally abolished, it is now internal housekeeping, a demand is all that is necessary, habeas corpus gone, a presumption of fairness granted to every single justice system within the EU without quibble) is compulsory now exists, a de facto pre-cursor to a European Criminal Code. There was nothing wrong or inadequate with the old system of extradition. But there is an ideological agenda at work here, in which effectiveness is cited as the reason for the need for the EAW, which is really a cover for a belief in the gradual transition towards a super-state. Effectiveness has not been increased, but individual rights suffer. Extradition now can happen for offences that don't exist in the country harbouring the alleged fugitive. A right to a court hearing of the extradition case does not exist any more. A presumption of unimpeachable integrity in the justice system demanding extradition is now compulsory, despite massive concern that many are the opposite. And none of this is necessary. But ideological zeal will gloss over these inconveniences, because the ultimate prize is all that matters, the vindication of the idealist 'one size fits all' agenda. A sledgehammer is used to crack a nut, and misses the nut altogether.

That, as I said before, does not completely rule out the cession of sovereignty in limited cases, such as the ICC, where wisdom really does dictate the necessity for such bodies. But the EU is not about effectiveness, it's about ideology, and an absurd and unworkable one in my view.

Was this under the Nice Treaty?
A common currency and powers of arrest of citizens are two very powerful instruments.

Is your concern about the Lisbon Treaty an in principle objection to loss of National sovereignty ? Is there a different kind of EU that you would like us to integrate with ?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

An example is the European Arrest Warrant. A list of offences for which extradition (actually, extradition within the EU is formally abolished, it is now internal housekeeping, a demand is all that is necessary, habeas corpus gone, a presumption of fairness granted to every single justice system within the EU without quibble) is compulsory now exists, a de facto pre-cursor to a European Criminal Code. There was nothing wrong or inadequate with the old system of extradition. But there is an ideological agenda at work here, in which effectiveness is cited as the reason for the need for the EAW, which is really a cover for a belief in the gradual transition towards a super-state. Effectiveness has not been increased, but individual rights suffer. Extradition now can happen for offences that don't exist in the country harbouring the alleged fugitive. A right to a court hearing of the extradition case does not exist any more. A presumption of unimpeachable integrity in the justice system demanding extradition is now compulsory, despite massive concern that many are the opposite. And none of this is necessary. But ideological zeal will gloss over these inconveniences, because the ultimate prize is all that matters, the vindication of the idealist 'one size fits all' agenda. A sledgehammer is used to crack a nut, and misses the nut altogether.

That, as I said before, does not completely rule out the cession of sovereignty in limited cases, such as the ICC, where wisdom really does dictate the necessity for such bodies. But the EU is not about effectiveness, it's about ideology, and an absurd and unworkable one in my view.

Was this under the Nice Treaty?
A common currency and powers of arrest of citizens are two very powerful instruments.

Is your concern about the Lisbon Treaty an in principle objection to loss of National sovereignty ? Is there a different kind of EU that you would like us to integrate with ?

It was agreed in the post September 11th hysteria in December 2001, at the Laeken Summit, the framework decision finalised in 2002, and it came into force in January 2004.

My objection to Lisbon is part of a wider objection to what I consider an ideologically motivate folly, whereby national (I prefer to call it local) sovereignty is increasingly and mindlessly surrendered to a distant centre, less in touch with the people (why exactly fight for independence from London for these very reasons, then hand over everything to an even more distant place with our province-status being several times amplified?). I believe in extensive multi-national co-operation, not centralisation in a new super-power. The democratic deficit and general contempt for the views of ordinary people (a step back to the old Concert of Europe power-politics) is a secondary objection, for even if the thing were wonderfully democratic and accountable (and in my view it is inherently incapable of being so), it would still be misguided nonsense.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

An example is the European Arrest Warrant. A list of offences for which extradition (actually, extradition within the EU is formally abolished, it is now internal housekeeping, a demand is all that is necessary, habeas corpus gone, a presumption of fairness granted to every single justice system within the EU without quibble) is compulsory now exists, a de facto pre-cursor to a European Criminal Code. There was nothing wrong or inadequate with the old system of extradition. But there is an ideological agenda at work here, in which effectiveness is cited as the reason for the need for the EAW, which is really a cover for a belief in the gradual transition towards a super-state. Effectiveness has not been increased, but individual rights suffer. Extradition now can happen for offences that don't exist in the country harbouring the alleged fugitive. A right to a court hearing of the extradition case does not exist any more. A presumption of unimpeachable integrity in the justice system demanding extradition is now compulsory, despite massive concern that many are the opposite. And none of this is necessary. But ideological zeal will gloss over these inconveniences, because the ultimate prize is all that matters, the vindication of the idealist 'one size fits all' agenda. A sledgehammer is used to crack a nut, and misses the nut altogether.

That, as I said before, does not completely rule out the cession of sovereignty in limited cases, such as the ICC, where wisdom really does dictate the necessity for such bodies. But the EU is not about effectiveness, it's about ideology, and an absurd and unworkable one in my view.

Was this under the Nice Treaty?
A common currency and powers of arrest of citizens are two very powerful instruments.

Is your concern about the Lisbon Treaty an in principle objection to loss of National sovereignty ? Is there a different kind of EU that you would like us to integrate with ?

It was agreed in the post September 11th hysteria in December 2001, at the Laeken Summit, the framework decision finalised in 2002, and it came into force in January 2004.

My objection to Lisbon is part of a wider objection to what I consider an ideologically motivate folly, whereby national (I prefer to call it local) sovereignty is increasingly and mindlessly surrendered to a distant centre, less in touch with the people (why exactly fight for independence from London for these very reasons, then hand over everything to an even more distant place with our province-status being several times amplified?). I believe in extensive multi-national co-operation, not centralisation in a new super-power. The democratic deficit and general contempt for the views of ordinary people (a step back to the old Concert of Europe power-politics) is a secondary objection, for even if the thing were wonderfully democratic and accountable (and in my view it is inherently incapable of being so), it would still be misguided nonsense.

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

An example is the European Arrest Warrant. A list of offences for which extradition (actually, extradition within the EU is formally abolished, it is now internal housekeeping, a demand is all that is necessary, habeas corpus gone, a presumption of fairness granted to every single justice system within the EU without quibble) is compulsory now exists, a de facto pre-cursor to a European Criminal Code. There was nothing wrong or inadequate with the old system of extradition. But there is an ideological agenda at work here, in which effectiveness is cited as the reason for the need for the EAW, which is really a cover for a belief in the gradual transition towards a super-state. Effectiveness has not been increased, but individual rights suffer. Extradition now can happen for offences that don't exist in the country harbouring the alleged fugitive. A right to a court hearing of the extradition case does not exist any more. A presumption of unimpeachable integrity in the justice system demanding extradition is now compulsory, despite massive concern that many are the opposite. And none of this is necessary. But ideological zeal will gloss over these inconveniences, because the ultimate prize is all that matters, the vindication of the idealist 'one size fits all' agenda. A sledgehammer is used to crack a nut, and misses the nut altogether.

That, as I said before, does not completely rule out the cession of sovereignty in limited cases, such as the ICC, where wisdom really does dictate the necessity for such bodies. But the EU is not about effectiveness, it's about ideology, and an absurd and unworkable one in my view.

Was this under the Nice Treaty?
A common currency and powers of arrest of citizens are two very powerful instruments.

Is your concern about the Lisbon Treaty an in principle objection to loss of National sovereignty ? Is there a different kind of EU that you would like us to integrate with ?

It was agreed in the post September 11th hysteria in December 2001, at the Laeken Summit, the framework decision finalised in 2002, and it came into force in January 2004.

My objection to Lisbon is part of a wider objection to what I consider an ideologically motivate folly, whereby national (I prefer to call it local) sovereignty is increasingly and mindlessly surrendered to a distant centre, less in touch with the people (why exactly fight for independence from London for these very reasons, then hand over everything to an even more distant place with our province-status being several times amplified?). I believe in extensive multi-national co-operation, not centralisation in a new super-power. The democratic deficit and general contempt for the views of ordinary people (a step back to the old Concert of Europe power-politics) is a secondary objection, for even if the thing were wonderfully democratic and accountable (and in my view it is inherently incapable of being so), it would still be misguided nonsense.

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

If entirely wrong, at least in my view.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

If entirely wrong, at least in my view.

I haven't had the pleasure of EU Re-Education Camp yet, grant me your indulgence...

I don't see that its a question of right or wrong, Ibis. To a large extent its a question of preference and personal judgement. There are many unknowables and which option would have the better is not something that can not be predicted with certainty. Also, what you might find a good outcome, Toxic Avenger might not.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

If entirely wrong, at least in my view.

I haven't had the pleasure of EU Re-Education Camp yet, grant me your indulgence...

Ah yeah, I forgot. Next year's holiday will be on the Costa del Gulags for you, sunny jim.

Hey, why not compare someone to Mugabe while you're at it?

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

If entirely wrong, at least in my view.

I haven't had the pleasure of EU Re-Education Camp yet, grant me your indulgence...

Ah yeah, I forgot. Next year's holiday will be on the Costa del Gulags for you, sunny jim.

Hey, why not compare someone to Mugabe while you're at it?

I was joking, touchy. Although, now that you mention it, I've never seen Mugabe and Barroso in the same room together, have you?...

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks toxic avenger, that's very clear.

If entirely wrong, at least in my view.

I haven't had the pleasure of EU Re-Education Camp yet, grant me your indulgence...

Ah yeah, I forgot. Next year's holiday will be on the Costa del Gulags for you, sunny jim.

Hey, why not compare someone to Mugabe while you're at it?

I was joking, touchy. Although, now that you mention it, I've never seen Mugabe and Barroso in the same room together, have you?...

Hmm...or Cowen. Actually I'd already seen your robust criticism of Cael over the way.

Still, there's an implication in the term 'eurosceptic' that brands anyone who is pro-EU as unsceptical. I'm not unsceptical. The EU is extremely imperfect, and suffers from the double whammy of national government reflexes and bureaucratic reflexes.

However, yes, I think it's a reasonable response to modern issues - indeed, to quite a lot of historical issues. Primarily, I see it as a very reasonable extension of the historical European trend towards a pan-European free market. The political -and indeed, military - integration I accept as being a logical response to a history of intra-European warfare, and a continuing reality of virulent nationalism and inter-ethnic conflict. The Brits still hate the French, still don't trust the Germans, the Hungarians detest the Rumanians - do I think it's better, and even more realistic - to have the all in the one tent squabbling than each pitched in their separate tents arming? Yes, I do. Do I think European wars are a thing of the past, and unthinkable? Not without effort. If the EU did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

Of course, this is easy for me, because I find nationalism entirely unappealing. Much of Europe consisted for much of its history of multi-ethnic polities which worked in the same clumsy but mostly benevolent way as the EU. Our experience in Ireland was different, because we were under the direct hegemony of a nationalist neighbour.

I would second that Ibis - its a pretty good summation of my view of the EU too - its flawed as it is - its still the best game in town at the moment - and I would prefer to work on its imperfections slowly, bit by bit from the inside - rather than some kind of big bang episode that some think will make it perfect (an impossibility) or tear it apart.

ibis wrote:

Hmm...or Cowen. Actually I'd already seen your robust criticism of Cael over the way.

Still, there's an implication in the term 'eurosceptic' that brands anyone who is pro-EU as unsceptical. I'm not unsceptical. The EU is extremely imperfect, and suffers from the double whammy of national government reflexes and bureaucratic reflexes.

However, yes, I think it's a reasonable response to modern issues - indeed, to quite a lot of historical issues. Primarily, I see it as a very reasonable extension of the historical European trend towards a pan-European free market. The political -and indeed, military - integration I accept as being a logical response to a history of intra-European warfare, and a continuing reality of virulent nationalism and inter-ethnic conflict. The Brits still hate the French, still don't trust the Germans, the Hungarians detest the Rumanians - do I think it's better, and even more realistic - to have the all in the one tent squabbling than each pitched in their separate tents arming? Yes, I do. Do I think European wars are a thing of the past, and unthinkable? Not without effort. If the EU did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

Of course, this is easy for me, because I find nationalism entirely unappealing. Much of Europe consisted for much of its history of multi-ethnic polities which worked in the same clumsy but mostly benevolent way as the EU. Our experience in Ireland was different, because we were under the direct hegemony of a nationalist neighbour.

Fair enough, that's an acceptable and coherent position (and I know from your own posts, unlike some others, that you haven't lost the capacity to be critical, in a supportive way, of the the EU). I personally disagree, I think that even if measures of integration were necessary to prevent another war on the Continent, then a)there's no need for it to be so all-encompassing, b)it still doesn't necessitate centralisation, and c) we and the British can leave them get on with it, if that's the main reason. I would argue that the complete destruction of Germany by Russian tanks and by American and British bombers made the post-war peace possible, not the EU/EEC. But I'm no doubt a tiny minority on this, as on my general opposition to integration. And I'm realistic enough to know that our EU membership is here to stay, supported by the vast majority of the population. And, I'm nothing if not a democrat.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

Hmm...or Cowen. Actually I'd already seen your robust criticism of Cael over the way.

Still, there's an implication in the term 'eurosceptic' that brands anyone who is pro-EU as unsceptical. I'm not unsceptical. The EU is extremely imperfect, and suffers from the double whammy of national government reflexes and bureaucratic reflexes.

However, yes, I think it's a reasonable response to modern issues - indeed, to quite a lot of historical issues. Primarily, I see it as a very reasonable extension of the historical European trend towards a pan-European free market. The political -and indeed, military - integration I accept as being a logical response to a history of intra-European warfare, and a continuing reality of virulent nationalism and inter-ethnic conflict. The Brits still hate the French, still don't trust the Germans, the Hungarians detest the Rumanians - do I think it's better, and even more realistic - to have the all in the one tent squabbling than each pitched in their separate tents arming? Yes, I do. Do I think European wars are a thing of the past, and unthinkable? Not without effort. If the EU did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

Of course, this is easy for me, because I find nationalism entirely unappealing. Much of Europe consisted for much of its history of multi-ethnic polities which worked in the same clumsy but mostly benevolent way as the EU. Our experience in Ireland was different, because we were under the direct hegemony of a nationalist neighbour.

Fair enough, that's an acceptable and coherent position (and I know from your own posts, unlike some others, that you haven't lost the capacity to be critical, in a supportive way, of the the EU). I personally disagree, I think that even if measures of integration were necessary to prevent another war on the Continent, then a)there's no need for it to be so all-encompassing, b)it still doesn't necessitate centralisation, and c) we and the British can leave them get on with it, if that's the main reason. I would argue that the complete destruction of Germany by Russian tanks and by American and British bombers made the post-war peace possible, not the EU/EEC. But I'm no doubt a tiny minority on this, as on my general opposition to integration. And I'm realistic enough to know that our EU membership is here to stay, supported by the vast majority of the population. And, I'm nothing if not a democrat.

I don't think, on that score, that Germany could not have rebuilt its military capacity in the time available. From 1918 to 1939 was 21 years - Germany wasn't as shattered in 1918, but it rebuilt its economic capacity after 1945 within much the same period.

ibis wrote:

I don't think, on that score, that Germany could not have rebuilt its military capacity in the time available. From 1918 to 1939 was 21 years - Germany wasn't as shattered in 1918, but it rebuilt its economic capacity after 1945 within much the same period.

But it wasn't completely occupied by the Red Army and by the Allies in 1918...

The US needed a buffer against the Soviet Union, and couldn't afford the political risk of a disintegrating Europe.

cactus flower wrote:

The US needed a buffer against the Soviet Union, and couldn't afford the political risk of a disintegrating Europe.

And indeed, were foremost in supporting a European political union at the time (Ganley/CIA/General America-phobes note)...

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't think, on that score, that Germany could not have rebuilt its military capacity in the time available. From 1918 to 1939 was 21 years - Germany wasn't as shattered in 1918, but it rebuilt its economic capacity after 1945 within much the same period.

But it wasn't completely occupied by the Red Army and by the Allies in 1918...

True, but as I said, it had rebuilt its manufacturing capacity by the Sixties anyway. Military capacity is only one step beyond manufacturing capacity. Germany could have rebuilt its military by the Seventies at the latest - a time when Greece, Spain, Portugal were still under military rule, when France was still hanging on to chunks of its overseas empire.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't think, on that score, that Germany could not have rebuilt its military capacity in the time available. From 1918 to 1939 was 21 years - Germany wasn't as shattered in 1918, but it rebuilt its economic capacity after 1945 within much the same period.

But it wasn't completely occupied by the Red Army and by the Allies in 1918...

True, but as I said, it had rebuilt its manufacturing capacity by the Sixties anyway. Military capacity is only one step beyond manufacturing capacity. Germany could have rebuilt its military by the Seventies at the latest - a time when Greece, Spain, Portugal were still under military rule, when France was still hanging on to chunks of its overseas empire.

I suppose we could argue the toss on this all night. Either way, I'll vote 'no' and you'll vote 'yes'. And I think we'll lose this time anyway, due to the collywobbles of some first-time 'no' voters on the 'need' to be friends with everyone again in these times. So, it's all academic anyway.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The US needed a buffer against the Soviet Union, and couldn't afford the political risk of a disintegrating Europe.

And indeed, were foremost in supporting a European political union at the time (Ganley/CIA/General America-phobes note)...

Please Ibis note. The USSR is gone.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

I don't think, on that score, that Germany could not have rebuilt its military capacity in the time available. From 1918 to 1939 was 21 years - Germany wasn't as shattered in 1918, but it rebuilt its economic capacity after 1945 within much the same period.

But it wasn't completely occupied by the Red Army and by the Allies in 1918...

True, but as I said, it had rebuilt its manufacturing capacity by the Sixties anyway. Military capacity is only one step beyond manufacturing capacity. Germany could have rebuilt its military by the Seventies at the latest - a time when Greece, Spain, Portugal were still under military rule, when France was still hanging on to chunks of its overseas empire.

I suppose we could argue the toss on this all night. Either way, I'll vote 'no' and you'll vote 'yes'. And I think we'll lose this time anyway, due to the collywobbles of some first-time 'no' voters on the 'need' to be friends with everyone again in these times. So, it's all academic anyway.

It's a bit of an "agree to differ" moment alright. Your position isn't reconcilable with any version of the EU, and I don't 'get' nationalism as such anyway.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The US needed a buffer against the Soviet Union, and couldn't afford the political risk of a disintegrating Europe.

And indeed, were foremost in supporting a European political union at the time (Ganley/CIA/General America-phobes note)...

Please Ibis note. The USSR is gone.

Wait...what? Why me? Toxic makes the point that the US needed a buffer against the USSR - and therefore supported the EEC (based around the US protectorate Germany and later the US ally Britain) - but now the USSR has gone, and the EU is a competitor for global influence much more than the mirror-image and helpmate that people like Ganley would like to make it.

ibis wrote:

It's a bit of an "agree to differ" moment alright. Your position isn't reconcilable with any version of the EU, and I don't 'get' nationalism as such anyway.

I'm more of a 'localist' than a nationalist, I would say. I'm not unable to see that our EU membership is not going to be on the table any time in my lifetime, so I'd say my position is one of 'what we have, we hold', not one of withdrawal, which isn't politically feasible any more.