Brits would much rather have a closer economic relationship with EU than US

[silentwitness]

You may be interested in the following.

With UK out, Macron unveils 'nuclear weapons doctrine' with France leading an EU army

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 469. The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Emmanuel Macron's speech where the French President unveiled his nuclear doctrine advocating for a more coordinated European Union defence strategy in which France, the EU's only...

www.bitchute.com

 

[Vouthon]

I’m thinking Europeans today are better than that.

Does it not strike one as a peculiar anomaly that - in the past 25 + years since the EEC became a fully-fledged European Union in 1992 - the only countries in Europe (sans the very last phases of the Troubles in Northern Ireland which persisted from the 1970s and 80s, although it wasn’t a war between states) that have experienced armed conflicts lie outside the borders of the political-economic Union?

From 1992-1995 you had the Bosnian War; the Transnistria War with Moldova in 1992; from 1998 - 1999 the Kosovo War; the First Chechen War from 1994-1996; the Six-Day War of 1998 Abkhazia in Georgia; the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia; the Russia-Georgia War of 2008; the Russia-Ukraine conflict of 2014-now, the Four-Day War in 2016 between Armenia and Azerbaijan etc. etc.

There are others that could be cited and none of them happen to have occurred in the regions of Europe inside the EU, oddly enough.

Correlation is not causation but it should at least be worthy of serious reflection that the Pax Europa has extended only to those parts of the European continent that have entered into political-economic union. Other regions of Europe have experienced wars in the last two decades.

NATO cannot be cited as a possible answer because a number of EU member states including Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden are not part of NATO, whereas NATO members like Turkey have been engaged in wars and civil upheavals during that time. It does not inherently appear to be correlated with regions of peace versus war-torn regions, in the same way as the EU.

The UK, presumably and hopefully, will buck this trend now that we’ve Brexited but it still doesn’t invalidate the trend.

 

[Vouthon]

The U.S. was considerably more warlike after the Civil War than before. The same was true of German unification. Simply consolidating states does not, in itself, prevent war.

Fair enough, but the EU hasn’t been “more warlike” since political-economic union began in the 1950s or since the process of unification was largely completed in 1992. That’s because the European Union, unlike Bismarck’s German Unification in 1871 and Lincoln’s successful retention of the American Union in 1865, wasn’t “consolidated” at the barrel of a gun through warfare and armed coercion.

Compare:

Unification of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Military successes—especially those of Prussia—in three regional wars generated enthusiasm and pride that politicians could harness to promote unification.

With:

Enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the Maastricht Treaty, each current member state and the European Parliament must agree to any enlargement. The process of enlargement is sometimes referred to as European integration.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The EU is explicitly a peace project, hence its status as a “voluntary union” which expands and contracts purely through the volition of the states.

So the models of unification are different - hence the different results.

 

[Theo520]

You are cherry picking your data.

You can’t ignore the impact of NATO just because it isn’t universal. It encompasses the vast majority of their military power with the treaty

There has been no conflicts within the boarder you cited since WW2, the EEC going live in 1992 made no appreciable difference.

Economic interdependence does reduce conflict, but that only requires harmonization of standards and rule of law, not unified governance.

 

[Vouthon]

The EEC going live in 1992 made no appreciable difference.

The EEC didn’t go live in 1992.

European political integration began from 1951-1957 with the creation of the EEC involving four main political institutions - an executive Commission, a parliament, European Court of Justice (set up first in 1952) and a Council of Ministers (all extant today as the main governing institutions of the EU) - in addition to a single economic market and a number of other institutions.

The first direct democratic elections to the supranational European Parliament were in 1979:

1979 European Parliament election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Treaty of Rome in 1957, which established the Communities, specified that the European Parliament must be elected by universal suffrage using a common voting system. The Council eventually agreed to elections and the first European Parliament elections were held in 1979 after proposals were put forward in the mid 1970s.

Europeans in the core states - France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands - have been politically united under common governmental, parliamentarian and economic institutions since the 1950s.

The scope has simply expanded through Treaty change and court judgments in the intervening years, with more national powers being transferred to Brussels in 1957, 1965 Merger Treaty, 1976, 1987 Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty of 1992, 1995 Schengen Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty of 1998, Nice Treaty of 2001 and the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.

1992 is only significant because it was the year when the process of European integration begun in 1951 was basically completed in the shape we know today and explicitly named “the European Union”.

The plan on how to complete the unification process begun in 1951-1957, was agreed at the Summit Conference of European leaders in 1972. As then Prime Minister Edward Heath announced to the UK Parliament:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1972-10-23/debates/20c34d99-7c82-427e-84a6-fd67f1bd6e31/EuropeanCommunities(SummitConference)?highlight=european%20union#contribution-00b64bd5-efaf-4e69-ae80-0acf48f7a034

European Communities (Summit Conference)

23 October 1972

Volume 843

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)​

The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975.

The European Union for which we have agreed to aim is a reaffirmation of the best in our continent since the war. This time Britain was there as a member. And as I said to the House when I returned from Paris in May:

"I believe that this opens the prospect of a degree of unity, and thus of peace and prosperity, in Western Europe which our continent has never seen before …"
I added then that this would be—now I can say that it will be—
"of profound significance for Britain, for Europe and for the whole world."

 

[Ridgerunner]

Correlation is not causation but it should at least be worthy of serious reflection that the Pax Europa has extended only to those parts of the European continent that have entered into political-economic union. Other regions of Europe have experienced wars in the last two decades.

NATO cannot be cited as a possible answer because a number of EU member states including Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden are not part of NATO, whereas NATO members like Turkey have been engaged in wars and civil upheavals during that time.

I agree that correlation is not causation. No one should be surprised that Baltic states had armed conflicts. And, of course, those particular ones were once part of a single political unit. Their mutual antipathies had nothing to do with a failure to unite politically. The Russia/Ukraine conflict represents exactly a desire on the part of Ukraine NOT to be united with Russia.

NATO is undoubtedly part of the answer despite the non-membership of mini-states like Ireland, Finland, Malta and Sweden. But NATO’s presence undoubtedly kept them from being absorbed by Russia; something they couldn’t have done on their own. Having an aggressive and well-armed enemy at one’s borders is something of an encouragement not to engage in local conflicts. Besides, with the U.S. protecting the NATO countries, they became less and less willing to devote sufficient resources to their own defense to the point that they couldn’t engage in serious, protracted conflicts now anyway.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Fair enough, but the EU hasn’t been “ more warlike ” since political-economic union began in the 1950s or since the process of unification was largely completed in 1992. That’s because the European Union, unlike Bismarck’s German Unification in 1871 and Lincoln’s successful retention of the American Union in 1865, wasn’t “ consolidated ” at the barrel of a gun through warfare and armed coercion.

The political integration of the U.S. was peaceful and voluntary until it wasn’t. Correlation is not causation.

 

[niceatheist]

Vouthon:

Fair enough, but the EU hasn’t been “ more warlike ” since political-economic union began in the 1950s or since the process of unification was largely completed in 1992. That’s because the European Union, unlike Bismarck’s German Unification in 1871 and Lincoln’s successful retention of the American Union in 1865, wasn’t “ consolidated ” at the barrel of a gun through warfare and armed coercion.

The political integration of the U.S. was peaceful and voluntary until it wasn’t. Correlation is not causation.

Well, the EU doesn’t have having to try to shove together a constitution that involves Abolitionists and Slaveholders. What’s more, unlike the US, the Treaty on European Union actually allows member states to withdraw from the EU, which is what Britain has done. There are repercussions, but none of them, curiously enough, involve someone firebombing Fort Sumter.

I’m really trying to understand this peculiar American fetish with deriding the EU. First of all, there’s no skin in the game, not directly at least. It’s been US foreign policy since the of the Second World War that Europe should enter a tighter economic and political union. Churchill was very much onboard, and in a way, was actually the first person of the Second World War to coherently argue for it. From a Catholic point of view, it was the mission of the Papacy for centuries to try to unite Europe, since wars between European powers were so destructive.

So is it just sort of a philosophical view? Or are Americans concerned that a more tightly integrated Europe represents some sort of threat? Is the US prepared, if the EU dissolves, to walk in as peacemaker. Britain tried it, and ended up having to pull the British Expeditionary Force out under German artillery fire by everything from Royal Navy destroyers to tugboats. Would you prefer that Russia reabsorb large portions of Eastern and Central Europe? Would you like Germany and France back at each others’ throats, with mere free trade agreements as the only kind of security? What is your motivation here?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m really trying to understand this peculiar American fetish with deriding the EU

No fetish. It’s more like it’s difficult to understand why Europeans would want to give up their political sovereignty if free trade is the objective of it all.

From a Catholic point of view, it was the mission of the Papacy for centuries to try to unite Europe,

And for a time, European states (the western ones anyway) were openly and intentionally influenced by the Church. But not now.

What is your motivation here?

Curiosity as to why Europeans are willing to give up political sovereignty when they don’t need that in order to have free trade.

 

[Vouthon]

Is the US prepared, if the EU dissolves, to walk in as peacemaker.

Mercifully this will remain only hypothetical.

 

[Vouthon]

Curiosity as to why Europeans are willing to give up political sovereignty when they don’t need that in order to have free trade.

Do you have a customs union with Canada and Mexico involving a uniform system of customs duties on goods imported from outside; where workers, capital, services and goods can move freely across the border? A borderless zone of free movement for labour without passports and all other types of border control? A single currency? What about complete harmonisation of standards and a common economic zone that shares the same trade policies?

Last time I checked, you had a full hard border with physical infrastructure, with customs posts, people in uniforms with arms and dogs.

All of the above have benefits that extend far behind mere “free trade”. The European Economic Area of the EU has a one-rule-for-all policy for members operating within a single market economy, rather than separate rules and regulations as still operate within Canada and the USA. NAFTA only makes temporary arrangements for business visitors or investors to move freely, whereas the EEA gives all EU citizens the equal right to live, work, study, settle down or establish a business in another EU member state without any limits and with no discrimination on the basis of nationality.

The main barriers to trade are not tariffs. They are regulatory barriers arising from a lack of harmonisation in standards and laws arising from completely sovereign states, understandably, legislating differently.

A truly frictionless, single free market cannot be created between two sovereign states who aren’t willing to voluntary pool some of their sovereignty. Shave away a tariff there, embrace a little bit of common cross-border regulation there to cut away the red-tape in a few important industries, pass any disputes along to a joint tribunal, allow for a degree of transnational rights of audience in courts - sure that can all be done.

But it has limits to how “close” the two economies can ever be. They remain two distinct economies. If you want to go further and remove all limits (all non-tariff barrirers), you need to integrate more - customs being the first and from there, as with the German Zollverein (Customs Union) of 1834, the process tends to result in full economic union over time, facilitated by increasing political convergence in order ro foster the harmonisation needed for frictionless market access.

Reciprocity is great, among friends a lot can be shared. But it will never be like a marriage. There are no friends with benefits, short of tying the knot, when it comes to economics - as Britain will soon discover now that we’ve been through our divorce (although the financial settlement still awaits).

Friendship works for the U.S. and Canada. Hopefully it will for the UK as well but the problem is that whilst a slender majority of Brits no longer liked being ‘married’ to Brussels, they still want to act like we a married couple. We can certainly be friends but not ‘a little bit married’ / ‘friends with benefits’.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m really trying to understand this peculiar American fetish with deriding the EU.

I’m an American and I don’t understand it, either. Is it a fear that it’s a path to One World Government? Is it a competitive threat to the US? Something else? It does seem to come mostly from the right end of the political spectrum as far as I’ve seen. I’d be interested if any on the left have voiced concerns with the EU…I’ve not seen any myself.

 

[Kaninchen]

Something else?

“Follow the money,” as the saying goes. Which people behind American Conservatism would benefit most from the destruction of the EU?

 

[Vouthon]

“Follow the money,” as the saying goes. Which people behind American Conservatism would benefit most from the destruction of the EU?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Maybe they’been takin’ some tips from Mogg’s dad.

 

[Kaninchen]

William Rees-Mogg was into the whole disaster capitalism, disruptive technology question in the late 90s - his ‘Sovereign Individual’ was an early classic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you have a customs union with Canada and Mexico involving a uniform system of customs duties on goods imported from outside; where workers, capital, services and goods can move freely across the border? A borderless zone of free movement for labour without passports and all other types of border control? A single currency? What about complete harmonisation of standards and a common economic zone that shares the same trade policies?

We actually do have most of those things. We do not, however, allow every foreigner who wants to work here to do so. Perhaps that’s reasonable as between, say, the Netherlands and Germany, but not when it would empty out one country’s population into another. That simply makes no sense.

As to studying in one country or another, that’s pretty much free to the whole world in the U.S. As to investments, there is nothing to keep me from investing in Canada. Mexico alone has restrictions on investing by foreigners.

The main barriers to trade are not tariffs. They are regulatory barriers arising from a lack of harmonisation in standards and laws arising from completely sovereign states, understandably, legislating differently.

When it comes to trade among the USMCA countries (NAFTA is gone) mandating standards is not necessary because that’s done voluntarily. In addition, Canada in particular has virtually the same Uniform Commercial Code (by a different name) as does the U.S. Many, many lawyers in the northern U.S. also take the Canadian Bar exam and practice in Canada as well because there is so little difference in the laws and the commerce is so great between the countries. Neither country prevents lawyers from the other (or Mexico for that matter) from practicing in our courts so long as they pass the exam.

None of that requires that we take in a million self-described refugees from alien cultures because of orders from some artificial “capitol” like, say, Monterrey, Texarkana or Moose Jaw, against the wishes of our own people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m an American and I don’t understand it, either.

I actually don’t think Americans care whether there is an EU or not, although it most certainly excludes American products unfairly and practically invites trade wars. A “free trade” devotee it ain’t.

I think Americans simply have difficulty understanding why Europeans would be so sanguine about giving up their national sovereignty to some bureaucracy that has the power, e.g., to punish them for not allowing millions of refugees into their countries.

 

[Vouthon]

although it most certainly excludes American products unfairly and practically invites trade wars

So is it divide and rule then?

I could certainly see why certain people might want Europeans to be weaker and less able to defend our own trade interests, than is the case when we are acting from a bargaining position of relative equality as one large EU bloc.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So is it divide and rule then?

I could certainly see why certain people might want Europeans to be weaker and less able to defend our own trade interests from a bargaining position of relative equality.

There’s no “equality” to it. American products are virtually banned, depending on what they are. And regional, not supernational, interests dictate that. American agricultural products, for example, are subject to heavy tariffs in order to subsidize French farmers. That’s part of the reason Europeans’ cost of food is about double that in the U.S., relative to income.

There are indirect barriers that are really just prohibitions on imports. I see Europeans on here act like “chlorine chicken” is some great hazard. Anybody who has actually ever been in an American state-of-the-art poultry plant (which nearly all are) knows that’s a joke.

The EU wants to exclude trade competition from America. That’s okay. We have lived with it for decades; centuries actually. But I still don’t see why you would give up your national right of self-determination. Whatever happened to the principle of subsidiarity?

But again, that’s up to Europe, or up to Germany and France, I guess. They can do what they want. But I still don’t see how that helps trade except, I guess, that France can keep Italy, for example, from importing less expensive American wheat for its pasta. Reminds one of Napoleon’s “continental system”.

 

[Vouthon]

We actually do have most of those things.

You do not have a customs union, nor free movement of labour or a single borderless-passport free zone or the same trade policies. I would like to see proof on the labour issue / your right to invest / set up business in Canada. My understanding, as stated above, had been that NAFTA affords temporary arrangements for business visitors, not an indiscriminate and inviolable freedom to live, work and establish enterprise on either side.

Its just an extensive free trade area.