Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

I think our out vote has knocked a few of their plans back.

 

And we'd have veto'd any genuine federalist ideals.

Cameron obviously wasn't concerned about it either..

 

There's absolutely no doubt we would have had a vote to enter a federal Europe superstate. Not just the UK btw, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, everyone.

It's not as simple as it being up to the UK.

 

My tuppence, Further integration in the eurozone is essential for the Euro to be viable long term. Whether the end result is a federal state will be up to interpretation. We would never become a part of this but if we had stayed in the EU then these changes wouldve made renegotiation of our position inevitable.

 

Stirring the pot, Hull? Is this the point where any reasonable debate gets derailed?

 

Despite what The Excess may try to scare you with, do you seriously believe that they would even attempt to introduce federalism without consulting the populace?

There would be riots in every capital - including Brussels!...

 

I think this is about right. Especially the need for further renegotiation.

 

Looks like it!...

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-union-brexit-eurobarometer/


Overall, the limited evidence available strongly suggests that Britons do not want further integration, but that all other Europeans, especially those in the eurozone, are more open to the idea. Fortunately, the Eurobarometer asks two more specific questions on the topic. One is whether more decisions should be taken at the EU level. In that respect, ‘only’ 48 percent of Europeans are in favor, so enthusiasm about giving more power to Brussels is tepid. However, there are still more in favor than against (40 percent). Yet again there is a difference between the percentages within the eurozone — 50 percent — and those outside — 43 percent. The second, and more important question, is whether the EU should develop into a federation of nation states. Here, only 41 percent are in favor, but, again, those against are even fewer, at 34 percent. A whopping 25 percent just do not know.


Although the evidence is inconclusive, there appear to be three points to consider:

1. those who claim that European political union is impossible contradict the evidence;
2. support for further integration is greater in the eurozone than in the rest of the EU, especially the UK;
3. and those who say the EU is an elite-driven project should think again.

 

To explain, becoming part of a federal "United States of Europe" would necessitate giving up fiscal control and handing it to Brussels or Frankfurt.

Once you have ceded fiscal control, you lose the ability to raise taxes, decide how they're spent, etc. In other words you've given over your sovereignty, which is why I'd never support it. If you have lost the ability to raise the finance to pay for them, any Gvt's policies or promises would be worthless.

I strongly suspect that once the citizens of Europe have it explained to them that their country will effectively cease to be a sovereign nation and become a subordinate state of Europe's central Gvt, any supposed appetite for it would rapidly wane!

 

Two people who definitely need to engage with one another are HIAG and Sensible Pete.

They could bore the life out of each other.

 

Spain, Portugal, Greece and to some degree Ireland are arguably already running to more EU budgets than domestic ones. It's a part of being linked to the Eurozone The publication of the strategy for the proposed EU army was delayed until after the referendum, but is now available on line. Government policies in some member states are already minimised, particularly in areas such as border control.

It is the long term goal of the EU, and has been creeping in bit by bit. It's not all going to come tomorrow, but I don't want it at all. It's not the legacy I want to leave future generations.

A failing in the referendum debate was the almost lack of discussion on the politics of it all. It conflated euroscepticism with anti-europe and anti-EU.

 

Entirely different. They still have control over their tax raising ability and eventually, what it's spent on.

If control is handed to Frankfurt, you'll get what you're given.

 

It's not entirely different though, it's just a different position on the line. It follows through to other areas as well.

I think most are comfortable with a shared market, and even methods to make movement easier, but when Hungary and others can veto changes to our benefits system because they want to share in what others have had, then we see the signs that we're losing sovereignty.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/four-eu-states-reject-camerons-migrant-benefits-plan

 

Again totally different. A federal state entails handing over fiscal policy and control to the central Gvt.

Yes, you would get to make relatively minor decisions locally, as states do in the USA, but the real control is in Washington. As it would be in Frankfurt under a federal state.

 

It's not totally different at all. It is quite clearly the goal of the EU and where things have been heading slowly but surely.

 

Wrong! It's the aim of a certain part of the EU, led by people like Juncker.

They have recently, however, been put back in their box - as per the start of all this.

I've no doubt that they will try again sometime in the future, but trying and succeeding are two very different things, in this case. The appetite for it is not there and I doubt they would be foolish enough to even put it to the test without far more appetite for it than there currently is.

 

We were part of the EU and it was never our goal and we'd have never have accepted it.

I don't know what you're trying to prove her tbh.

Those with federalist ideals have always been around within the EU it's nothing new

 

It's been watered down due to euroscepticism in various parts of Europe, but don't mistake that for antiEU. The EU was always designed to be the main power.

Our vote out has taken some of it back, hopefully enough for the major rethink that they should have had years back.

On the outside of all of this, there'll be a few eyes squinting east to see what the Russians are liable to do to try and take advantage. They could end up being a factor due to the EU and US reaction if there's the sniff of an increase in trade between us and them.

 

Can I ask a different question? Please don't turn this into the insanity that Cameron was proposing with World War 3, but looking at it rationally, IF the EU falls apart, will that increase the likelihood of conflict in Europe? Especially as a possible effect of austerity... or fueled by proxy through Russia and/or U.S.?