I am a supporter of the movement "pro-life" and at the same time I am a supporter of the EU, but I noticed that most of the pro-life is anti-EU

[Vouthon]

. But it’s not as easy as tearing up a treaty. Leaving NATO is a lot easier than leaving the EU.

Of course not. NATO is merely an intergovernmental association for military cooperation, whereas the EU is a supranational union with its own political and legal system.

This means that exiting the EU entirely results in significant legal and economic consequences, owing to pulling out of an integrated common market, customs union and legal standards regime.

If one wishes to retain close regulatory alignment or partake of a customs arrangement outside the EU, then this has to be negotiated.

As does a trade deal as a third party outside.

But you are still free to leave, whereas a U.S. state cannot unilaterally choose to start a process of secession.

However, NATO and the EU are still both treaty-based. Nations join them by treaty, and nations revoke their membership by removing their accession to the founding treaties in their national parliaments.

 

[Pattylt]

I just want to quickly thank @Vouthon and @phil19034 for a very reasonable and very enlightening discussion. I’m learning so much!

 

[phil19034]

But you are still free to leave, whereas a U.S. state cannot unilaterally choose to start a process of secession.

I disagree here. As I said in the post above, there is nothing in the US Constitution which specifically bars a state from secession. Therefore, according to many Constitutional lawyers, they have the right.

The spark that caused the Civil War’s fighting was when South Carolina & other confederate troops attacked Fort Sumter, months after South Carolina seceded from the Union.

So again, since the right of states to secede was never challenged in the Supreme Court & because the US Constitution doesn’t outlaw it, states have the right to secede. (But that doesn’t mean the US govt can’t declare war on them for doing so)

 

[Vouthon]

I just want to quickly thank @Vouthon and @phil19034 for a very reasonable and very enlightening discussion. I’m learning so much!

You are most welcome @Pattylt

 

[PickyPicky]

states have the right to secede. (But that doesn’t mean the US govt can’t declare war on them for doing so)

Well done, Phil.

there is nothing in the US Constitution which specifically bars a state from secession.

Whereas machinery is established, of course, for leaving the EU (Article 50, Lisbon Treaty).

 

[phil19034]

Of course, such parallels have also been drawn between the EU and Canada

Canada is very different.

All power not specified by their constitution thus defaults to the central government.

In the EU and USA all power not specified defaults to the member states

 

[PickyPicky]

Sorry for this small diversion, but these remarks from a Brexit Party MEP

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

give me the chance to point out that they are the political wing of English football tourism

( (c) @Kaninchen, 2019)

 

[Vouthon]

As I said in the post above, there is nothing in the US Constitution which specifically bars a state from secession.

On this, given that I’m not an American myself and only studied US constitutionalism at undergraduate level as part of comparative constitutional law, I must defer to your much greater knowledge.

That said, the two concessions noted by our hawk-eyed @PickyPicky really do weaken your point of legal comparison here, I should think.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M050

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Through the Art. 50 TEU process, the EU has a legally recognised and binding procedure for state secession, whereas the US constitution not only doesn’t but the last time a significant number of states attempted to break away, the Union fought a war with them on the basis that the secession was illegal because the US was a “union indivisible”.

The EU is not a union ‘indivisible’ but rather one in which every member state accedes voluntarily and has the right to withdraw if it sees fit, in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

By contrast, the US Constitution simply does not provide a way for states to secede. In terms of legal precedent, I have this vague recollection that in the 1869 case of Texas v. White, the Chief Justice said a state might be able to secede with the consent of the other states. Well, that isn’t an exercise of sovereignty if you need the consent of other states and the Confederacy’s termination seems to put that rather on very shaky ground.

As such, the EU can never and will never ‘declare’ war on a state for leaving ((a) because secession is a constitutional right of the states in Art. 50 & (b) it doesn’t have an army but even if it did in future it couldn’t suppress a free decision to secede).

 

[Vouthon]

Canada is very different.

All power not specified by their constitution thus defaults to the central government.

True, but the point I made was that because the Canadian federation includes a state that has a national identity, of a kind that US states don’t, it is a better comparative example (though very limited) for a supranational union like the EU in that respect more so than the U.S.

In other respects, the U.S. is better. In other respects, the German Bundesrat and Basic Law, or the Swiss model.

No model, though, is identical to the other or coheres in every respect.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

As I said in the post above, there is nothing in the US Constitution which specifically bars a state from secession.

On this, given that I’m not an American myself and only studied US constitutionalism at undergraduate level as part of comparative constitutional law, I must defer to your much greater knowledge.

That said, the two concessions noted by our hawk-eyed @PickyPicky really do weaken your point of legal comparison here, I should think.

EUR-Lex - 12012M050 - EN - EUR-Lex

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Through the Art. 50 TEU process, the EU has a legally recognised and binding procedure for state secession, whereas the US constitution not only doesn’t but the last time a significant number of states attempted to break away, the Union fought a war with them on the basis that the secession was illegal because the US was a “union indivisible”.

The EU is not a union ‘indivisible’ but rather one in which every member states accedes voluntarily and has the right to withdraw if it sees fit, in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

By contrast, the US Constitution simply does not provide a way for states to secede. In terms of legal precedent, I have this vague recollection that in the 1869 case of Texas v. White, the Chief Justice said a state might be able to secede with the consent of the other states. Well, that isn’t an exercise of sovereignty if you need the consent of other states and the Confederacy’s termination seems to put that rather on very shaky ground.

Makes sense. I’m not saying that the EU is exactly the same as pre-Civil War US. But they are very similar.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Canada is very different.

All power not specified by their constitution thus defaults to the central government.

True, but the point I made was that because the Canadian federation includes a state that has a national identity, of a kind that US states don’t, it is a better comparative example (though very limited) for a supranational union like the EU in that respect more so than the U.S.

In other respects, the U.S. is better. In other respects, the German Bundesrat and Basic Law, or the Swiss model.

No model, though, is identical to the other or coheres in every respect.

Well, we have Hawaii. Hawaii has a national identity. And is Puerto Rico even becomes a state, they will too.

 

[Vouthon]

Well, we have Hawaii. Hawaii has a national identity. And is Puerto Rico even becomes a state, they will too.

Hmm, Hawaii is an interesting case I’ll admit. It was technically annexed by the US in 1898 but I can’t deny that it was an independent, sovereign nation-state prior to its absorption in the Union, one with international relations vis-a-vis other states since roughly 1798.

So, you got me there - the US has at least one proper nation in its federation

Puerto Rico is, of course, an unincorporated territory - so while it is a nation, it can’t really be used as an example (YET!).

The Quebecois secession issue in Canada, which flares up from time-to-time, is somewhat analogous to Brexit, hence the reason why it has been used as a paradigm for comparison by certain scholars.

In the EU case, though, every member is a country in its own right that acceded as a sovereign state.

 

[Kaninchen]

Sorry for this small diversion, but these remarks from a Brexit Party MEP

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

give me the chance to point out that they are the political wing of English football tourism

( © @Kaninchen, 2019)

He really is one of our star knuckle-draggers, isn’t he?

(Wasn’t really a diversion, we left the EU’s plans to abort everybody to extinction ages ago, we’re on to the intricacies of the American Constitution now because it’s much more important for Europeans)

 

[Brendan_64]

With Brexit it and Northern Ireland may vote to leave.

The overriding issue in Northern Ireland is about remaining in the UK or being part of the Republic of Ireland and is split on this along old ‘tribal’ lines. Brexit does not change tribal loyalties on this.

I cannot see Unionists in Northern Ireland (regardless of whether or not they voted to leave the EU or remain in the EU) voting to leave the UK become part of the Republic of Ireland just so they can remain in the EU. The core issue in Northern Ireland is a conflict between wanting to stay part of the UK or become part of a United Ireland, leaving or staying in the EU is a side issue.

I think that thinking that sections of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland would vote, in a border poll, to become part of a United Ireland, just so they can remain in the EU, is to really misunderstand the communities of Northern Ireland.

 

[Vouthon]

(Wasn’t really a diversion, we left the EU’s plans to abort everybody to extinction ages ago, we’re on to the intricacies of the American Constitution now because it’s much more important for Europeans)

I guess that’s just the logic of “America First” extended to forum discussions

 

[Aquinas11]

Unless the Unionists see it as first step of a 2 step strategy
(1) vote to leave UK so to have United Ireland
(2) at later date: vote for United Ireland to leave EU

 

[Kaninchen]

I guess that’s just the logic of “America First” extended to forum discussions

They like to play American games and every one at home.

 

[Kaninchen]

Unless the Unionists . . .

They’re well known for their depth of thought and strategy.

 

[Kaninchen]

All my British relatives despise the EU due to the loss of British sovereignty to Brussels.

Of course they do, all my American relatives consider telling other people what to do/think is called “Imperialism.”

 

[Vouthon]

All my British relatives despise the EU due to the loss of British sovereignty to Brussels.

And yet we gave the powers over in the first place.

One of the most bizarre and inane of all arguments in favour of Brexit is the one that Britain has somehow "lost" sovereignty to the EU.

Uh, no. Britain transferred the exercise of its sovereignty (which has never been ‘lost’ or annulled) in a limited number of areas to the EU institutions, as agreed in tandem with the other member states.

Every Treaty change from Maastricht in 1992 to Lisbon in 2009 has been approved by the UK.

And it did that as a sovereign country, not from compulsion. If it had said ‘no’, then none of the treaty changes would have passed because it had a veto.

But it didn’t, so how can anyone blame the EU for exercising the competences that Member States have decided, freely, to confer upon it?