The EU is 17 years old.
Uh, source?
Now What For The UK ?
The EU is 17 years old.
Uh, source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
My mistake. I didn't read the entire article and misread this line, " A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency," to mean it was founded in 1999. Reading further down, I see that it was founded in 1993. Still, we're talking about an additional 6 years.
My mistake. I didn't read the entire article and misread this line, " A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency," to mean it was founded in 1999. Reading further down, I see that it was founded in 1993. Still, we're talking about an additional 6 years.
But the EEC, which pre-dated the EU, was formed in 1958 and thus is considerably older. Being a filthy American, I'm not super clear on how much that distinction matters but I do hear a lot of talk on the news implying or outright asserting that the age of the "EU" is quite a bit older than ~20 years, so it seems like in some circles, as least, the time from the treaty of Maastricht is something of a technicality w.r.t to the age of the institution?
A bad idea? Yea maybe. That being said, I really think the whole thing is really overblown. Give it a couple of years and we'll all see that not much came of it. Really the stupidity of it is the radical nationalism on the rise again.
My mistake. I didn't read the entire article and misread this line, " A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency," to mean it was founded in 1999. Reading further down, I see that it was founded in 1993. Still, we're talking about an additional 6 years.
But the EEC, which pre-dated the EU, was formed in 1958 and thus is considerably older. Being a filthy American, I'm not super clear on how much that distinction matters but I do hear a lot of talk on the news implying or outright asserting that the age of the "EU" is quite a bit older than ~20 years, so it seems like in some circles, as least, the time from the treaty of Maastricht is something of a technicality w.r.t to the age of the institution?
Right, and my understanding is that the UK is voting to leave agreements going back to that (considerably) earlier time as well. If so, even referring to the 1993 date is really missing the point, as the implication that the UK is leaving something that's "only" been around for 20ish years isn't really correct.
The joining of the EEC was, basically, a joining of the EU via stealth means - it was always going to become what it was, just some name changes and some treaty tweaks.
In fact a fair amount of the older vote for 'out' is tied directly to that - they feel lied to and misled and so are almost protesting against that old choice regardless of the other issues.
(I had someone argue that we couldn't have joined the EU anyway because an old treason law from 17xx basically said 'do nothing which would result in loss of power for the crown' so it was an illegal treaty and we weren't in anyway... although that guy was around my age and managed to get the hallowed distinction of being the only 'leaver' who I had to block in this whole debate due to the levels of BS put out...)
In fact a fair amount of the older vote for 'out' is tied directly to that - they feel lied to and misled and so are almost protesting against that old choice regardless of the other issues.
(I had someone argue that we couldn't have joined the EU anyway because an old treason law from 17xx basically said 'do nothing which would result in loss of power for the crown' so it was an illegal treaty and we weren't in anyway... although that guy was around my age and managed to get the hallowed distinction of being the only 'leaver' who I had to block in this whole debate due to the levels of BS put out...)
Europe has also been at war with infighting for most of those millennia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fall of the EU means a return to those times, but I'm not exactly reassured by a "hey, it was fine before, the EU is just a new thing".
Do you think a union will stop infighting in the long term? ;-)
Yes.
In terms of its age - I note that firstly you base your argument that 17 years is "literally children", but then say 1993 is merely "an additional 6 years" - except it blows a hole in your "literally children" argument.
But my comment was not talking about a return to the pre-1993 EEC - that would be fine too. But unlikely - out is out, not a return to pre-1993, and if the EU collapses due to other countries leaving, we're talking pre-1958. Your comment also was not talking about the 1958-1993 period - you said "England has ruled itself for more than a millennia" and I just pointed out what most of those millennia looked like (at least, for Europe).
The panic you're seeing is partly the unknown - that may have something to do with the fact that we had a Leave vote with utterly no plan as to what will happen in terms of negotiating trade agreements, and there's still no sign of any consensus. For starters if you're going to understand, it may help to have a knowledge that is more than a misreading of Wikipedia (this reminds me of the Google trends showing people searching for "What is the EU" after the referendum). But even the 1993 date is misleading, because an out vote doesn't return us to 1993, it puts us out of the common market, so pre-1973 (when the UK joined). Well, unless we be like Norway which means still abiding by EU rules and having freedom of movement, without any say in the EU.
I don't see how the panic is very odd, unless you think not much has changed in 46 years.
Phantom:
(I had someone argue that we couldn't have joined the EU anyway because an old treason law from 17xx basically said 'do nothing which would result in loss of power for the crown' so it was an illegal treaty and we weren't in anyway... although that guy was around my age and managed to get the hallowed distinction of being the only 'leaver' who I had to block in this whole debate due to the levels of BS put out...)
Ah but the crown also has the power to join the EU! (Unless by crown he means the Queen, but by that logic, the Commons is treason also.) This guy may have been an isolated bs-er, but the common theme of supremacy of the UK Government seems to be a main argument. The paradox is that the UK Government is still supreme when it chooses to accept things in return for benefits such as free trade. The Government would have been supreme if it'd say "we're not having a referendum, and not leaving the EU". The UK has always had the choice to leave the EU - as it will now do. What the UK can't do is pick and choose - have the free trade without the things people don't like. But I don't see how we'll be able to do that out the EU either...
Yeah, I don't understand the argument he was trying to make either, and it really was BS, but this was the day before the vote when it looked like Remain might just about win, so I think he was desperately searching for something, anything, to get the outcome he wanted.
Of course, 3 days on, now the Remain supporters are, in many cases, searching for something, anything, to get the outcome they wanted :D
Of course, 3 days on, now the Remain supporters are, in many cases, searching for something, anything, to get the outcome they wanted :D
Yes, but there isn't any requirement for it to be done again.
There is a petition, which ironically was started by a leave campaigner when it looked like they might lose and has since be 'hijacked' by remainers, and while it isn't unheard of to set the requirements for a vote to pass this is generally done BEFORE the vote is held. (Also, parliament isn't required to pay attention to it, the wording on the site says 'consider' when it reaches a threshold.)
There is basically no legal requirement for a rerun of this vote.
The trajectory is pretty set at this point; House of Commons debates and votes on it; in theory at this point they can vote it down if they do not believe it is in the best interests of the country (chances are MPs in areas which voted against will carry this in to the House), but you have a 'will of the people' problem and doing so could be political suicide. Then it has to go to the House Of Lords; at which point they can also kick it back if they believe it isn't in the country's best interests - they aren't so tied to political issues/will of the people problems as those people are basically in for life - so in theory it could stop there... the outcome of which would be interesting on its own.
At which point, assuming someone decides to take the poisioned leadership of the Government and become PM, Article 50 could be invoked and the clock starts on exit. However, unless the votes before put a time line on it then the new PM/Government wouldn't have to do this right away, however that would piss off business, the MPs who wanted out, around 1/3 of the population and, of course, the EU.
Which is why the PM job right now is something I doubt anyone wants; if you don't Brexit you get a revolt of your party and people. If you do Brexit you get hammered at the next election. (Someone explained this much better than me, but it's why Boris and Gove weren't dancing in the streets on Friday...).
Welcome to limbo :D
There is a petition, which ironically was started by a leave campaigner when it looked like they might lose and has since be 'hijacked' by remainers, and while it isn't unheard of to set the requirements for a vote to pass this is generally done BEFORE the vote is held. (Also, parliament isn't required to pay attention to it, the wording on the site says 'consider' when it reaches a threshold.)
There is basically no legal requirement for a rerun of this vote.
The trajectory is pretty set at this point; House of Commons debates and votes on it; in theory at this point they can vote it down if they do not believe it is in the best interests of the country (chances are MPs in areas which voted against will carry this in to the House), but you have a 'will of the people' problem and doing so could be political suicide. Then it has to go to the House Of Lords; at which point they can also kick it back if they believe it isn't in the country's best interests - they aren't so tied to political issues/will of the people problems as those people are basically in for life - so in theory it could stop there... the outcome of which would be interesting on its own.
At which point, assuming someone decides to take the poisioned leadership of the Government and become PM, Article 50 could be invoked and the clock starts on exit. However, unless the votes before put a time line on it then the new PM/Government wouldn't have to do this right away, however that would piss off business, the MPs who wanted out, around 1/3 of the population and, of course, the EU.
Which is why the PM job right now is something I doubt anyone wants; if you don't Brexit you get a revolt of your party and people. If you do Brexit you get hammered at the next election. (Someone explained this much better than me, but it's why Boris and Gove weren't dancing in the streets on Friday...).
Welcome to limbo :D
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement