K
Kaninchen
Guest
Difficult to break the habit of a lifetime (well, on CAF, anyway).
Europe must rediscover 'its own identity, its own unity', says Pope Francis
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
About what? Whether the EU can legislate regarding abortion and homosexual marriage? We already know homosexual marriages have to be accepted by all member states, because I found authority fo rthat. Nobody has yet proved it cannot legislate regarding abortion. And just saying it and calling me a liar is not proof.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Perhaps @Kaninchen is right and I must learn to resist the bait.
I struggle…breathe Vouthon, breathe…
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
And US states have to recognize marriages contracted in other states even when, say, there isn’t alignment on laws surrounding age of consent for marriage.
You’ve been wrong on every point, RR. You have betrayed a deep ignorance of EU lawmaking and competence, of the history of the EU, indeed of the history of Europe, and heck even of the Church’s longstanding history as an advocate of a unified Europe.
You’ve been wrong on every point, RR. You have betrayed a deep ignorance of EU lawmaking and competence, of the history of the EU, indeed of the history of Europe, and heck even of the Church’s longstanding history as an advocate of a unified Europe.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You are an adult and are not compelled to respond to me or to anyone else. All you have to do is make a decision.
N
niceatheist
Guest
And you can make a decision to be honorable and admit you were wrong
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
U.S. states are not the subject here. The subject is whether the EU can legislate concerning homosexual marriage and/or abortion. We were told that it could not legislate concerning homosexual marriage, only to find that the EU has done so. I have repeatedly called for proof that the EU cannot legislate concerning abortion and nobody has yet demonstrated that.
It’s not honorable to falsely admit to such a thing. Where is your proof that the EU cannot legislate or rule on abortion? Where? Just saying I’m wrong proves nothing.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You’re the lawyer, ‘vexatious litigants’ can be profitable but a masochistic experience for professionals on both sides of the case, I expect.
Ridgerunner has been doing this sort of thing for years, he’s very good at it - if incredibly long-winded at times, it’s also entirely irrelevant.
N
niceatheist
Guest
The evidence has repeatedly been provided. What conclusion should I draw from you constantly making claims that have been demonstrated to be false?
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I have to disagree with this thought.
It presupposes respondents read posts and learn from them. Evidence for that is sadly lacking.
V
Vouthon
Guest
@Ridgerunner
My decision is to (against my better judgement) try one last time to get you to admit that the EU has no legislative competence in the area of abortion and family law more widely.
Firstly, the present EU Commissioner for Věra Jourová for Justice and Gender Equality:
Now, its Court the “ECJ” just this month:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12003T/PRO/07
The evidence, in this post and my last, is amply sufficient.
My decision is to (against my better judgement) try one last time to get you to admit that the EU has no legislative competence in the area of abortion and family law more widely.
Firstly, the present EU Commissioner for Věra Jourová for Justice and Gender Equality:
That’s the clear statement of its executive (government) which alone has legislative initiative (right to propose laws).
Now, its Court the “ECJ” just this month:
Now, here is an example from a protocol attached to the Accession Treaty of Malta with the EU in 2003 that explicitly stated the following in regards to abortion in Malta (which is banned entirely):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12003T/PRO/07
And finally:
I will debate this with you no more because denial of evidenced facts is not an opinion but an evasion. It’s misdirecting the thread.
The evidence, in this post and my last, is amply sufficient.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Well I think there are two parts to American scepticism of the EU. On the one hand, it is a useful bogeyman for a certain kind of American Conservative, hence the outrageous claims about how the EU is some evil taskmaster, some sort of statism-gone-mad. The other part of it, at least for a certain group of Bannon-esque nationalists, is that a supranational government like the EU defies their worldview entirely. The idea that nations would pool their sovereignty for a greater goal of economic and social gain defies the idea of the nation state as some sort of perfect entity; that sovereignty is a means and end unto itself.
Part of it, I think, comes from the fact that the New World, by and large, was shielded from the series of European crises beginning in the 17th century and only really ending in the mid-20th century. Sure, the Americas were at times battlefields in these titanic struggles between the Old World powers; a French and Indian Wars here, a Napoleonic invasion of Mexico there, but by and large the Americas defined themselves by rebellion against the Old World powers. When American nations entered the major conflagrations, in particular the two World Wars, it was as allies who were under no significant threat to themselves. There’s a profound lack of understanding on two continents where, even in the 21st century, one can easily walk out one’s door and within a day or two of travel, literally disappear into the woods, and countries that are densely populated, bound together by longstanding rivalries, conflicts, alliances and interdependency, and where culture zones can be found within a few hours walk of each other.
Part of it, I think, comes from the fact that the New World, by and large, was shielded from the series of European crises beginning in the 17th century and only really ending in the mid-20th century. Sure, the Americas were at times battlefields in these titanic struggles between the Old World powers; a French and Indian Wars here, a Napoleonic invasion of Mexico there, but by and large the Americas defined themselves by rebellion against the Old World powers. When American nations entered the major conflagrations, in particular the two World Wars, it was as allies who were under no significant threat to themselves. There’s a profound lack of understanding on two continents where, even in the 21st century, one can easily walk out one’s door and within a day or two of travel, literally disappear into the woods, and countries that are densely populated, bound together by longstanding rivalries, conflicts, alliances and interdependency, and where culture zones can be found within a few hours walk of each other.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
I think a lot of people in the US, and indeed in the Americas in general, just don’t understand what Europe has been through, what the centuries long competition and conflict between France and Germany meant in blood and coin. Sure, American soldiers bravely stormed the beaches of Normandy, and bless them for it, but it was as an ally with the resources and the relative safety that it could dedicate almost all its military and economic might to battling the Axis Powers, whereas the Old World allies had to think defensively just as much as they did offensively.
It was Churchill who was the first significant proponent of a unified Europe. He was the fundamental Old World Man, but with the New World vision, and he could gaze at the series of escalating conflicts that had ravaged the Continent beginning with the Thirty Years War, and had forced Britain to intervene constantly to maintain balances of power. For him the answer was obvious. A united Europe, bound together by inextricable economic, political and social links, would be an entity where it would be impossible for Germany and France to go to war, where a European identity would be forged, not to replace the identity of the constituent states, but as a compliment to it. He looked at the United Kingdom, at the United States and at Canada, where sovereign states had built upon the English constitutional framework to build great nations where a man could proudly call himself a Texan or a Scotsman or an Albertan. and yet just as quickly proudly declare himself an American, a Briton or a Canadian.
The European Union is in many ways a very English idea; a meeting of nations, a parliament for the peoples, regular courts and meaningful jurisprudence, all tied by two thousand years of cultural mingling and the rule of law.
It was Churchill who was the first significant proponent of a unified Europe. He was the fundamental Old World Man, but with the New World vision, and he could gaze at the series of escalating conflicts that had ravaged the Continent beginning with the Thirty Years War, and had forced Britain to intervene constantly to maintain balances of power. For him the answer was obvious. A united Europe, bound together by inextricable economic, political and social links, would be an entity where it would be impossible for Germany and France to go to war, where a European identity would be forged, not to replace the identity of the constituent states, but as a compliment to it. He looked at the United Kingdom, at the United States and at Canada, where sovereign states had built upon the English constitutional framework to build great nations where a man could proudly call himself a Texan or a Scotsman or an Albertan. and yet just as quickly proudly declare himself an American, a Briton or a Canadian.
The European Union is in many ways a very English idea; a meeting of nations, a parliament for the peoples, regular courts and meaningful jurisprudence, all tied by two thousand years of cultural mingling and the rule of law.
V
Vouthon
Guest
And to remember why this whole sorry sideshow began, @Ridgerunner claimed the following earlier in the thread:
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Great point.
The above was the earliest call for the establishment of a full political-economic union between Scotland and England, grounded in a shared monarchy and supranational identity. And yes, the initiative for a ‘United Kingdom’ of Great Britain was originally Scottish in origin and, indeed, the first monarch of all of Britain was the Scottish King James Stuart, son of Mary Queen of Scots, in 1603.
One of the greatest ironies of the Brexit drama is that the UK is like the EU in miniature - and this has frequently been noted by historians:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41428540?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.coggs.polis.cam.ac.uk/news/simms-mendoza-article
And just like Britain in the EU (going from ‘sick man of Europe’ in 1973 to the fifth largest economy in 2016), Scotland went from being a generally poor and isolated country in the 15th century to becoming the “ Athens of the North ” in the 18th century, an intellectual powerhouse far outstripping its small population in significance.
N
niceatheist
Guest
And one of the most egregious of possibilities that Brexit represents is the severing of the England and Scotland, one of the most successful political unions in history.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You could provide what was asked for. You haven’t yet. Show me that the EU parliament CANNOT legislate regarding abortion, and that it can’t just change whatever rules it has at present in order to do so.
Nobody has done that yet.
And the EU proponents here ought to finally admit that the EU has, indeed, determined the law on homosexual marriage by requiring that all states recognize their validity if contracted anywhere in the EU where marriage laws allow for it.
There might be plenty of wonderful things to say about the EU but saying it has irrevocably banned legislating on abortion and homosexual marriage is not one of them.
Nobody has done that yet.
And the EU proponents here ought to finally admit that the EU has, indeed, determined the law on homosexual marriage by requiring that all states recognize their validity if contracted anywhere in the EU where marriage laws allow for it.
There might be plenty of wonderful things to say about the EU but saying it has irrevocably banned legislating on abortion and homosexual marriage is not one of them.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And like the others, this is not responsive. I would have thought EU proponents would be able to speak about their own laws without dodging the subject. EU requires that member states have to accept the validity of homosexual marriages. Why deny that it has the power to do what it clearly did?
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Your allegation was that the EU made it such that to have “few” or “no” barriers, “you have to accept laws relating to abortion, homosexual marriage”.
No member state has to change its law relating to abortion or gay marriage.
Recognising “equivalence” of benefits and residence for civil partners or gay people married in states where this is allowed, does not mean that gay marriage is actually legal in that state i.e. you still couldn’t get married there or be recognised as such. Here’s the actual state of play:
Civil marriages in the EU: national and cross-border rules - Your Europe
How EU-wide and national rules on marriages affect you if you are moving within Europe (recognition, rights and obligations in different countries).
And here:
LGBT rights in the European Union - Wikipedia
According to European Court of Justice case law based on the Employment Equality Framework Directive, employees in a civil partnership with a same-sex partner must be granted the same benefits as those granted to their colleagues upon their marriage, where marriage is not possible for same-sex couples. The Court established this principle in 2008 in the case of Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen with regards to a German registered life partnership. In December 2013, the Court confirmed this in the case of Frédéric Hay v. Crédit agricole mutuel (C-267/12) with regards to a French civil solidarity pact, which is significantly inferior to marriage than a German registered life partnership.[19][20]
Also, according to the European Court of Justice in the case of Coman and Others , by judgement of 5 June 2018, a “spouse” (or partner or any other family member) in the Free Movement Directive (2004/38/EC) includes a (foreign) same-sex spouse; member states are required to confer the right of residence on the (foreign) same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union.[[21]]
And as for abortion, your claim was entirely groundless
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
What a joke this is! No, the EU parliament cannot (yet, anyway) compel, e.g., Poland to allow homosexual marriages to be performed according to Polish law. But it can and does compel Poland to honor homosexual marriage contracted elsewhere.
The “non-requirement” is a total sham. The EU requires that homosexual marriage be deemed legal in every member state. And if a state wants the trade preferences afforded by the EU, it has to accept homosexual marriage.
Now, do you want to demonstrate how the EU CAN’T EVER legalize abortion in every state? Nobody else has done so, though being repeatedly asked to do it. Maybe you can.
- Status