- Status
G
gam197
Guest
Since you and others have already proclaimed you are already on other forums and keep reminding us how wonderful it will be when the CAF forums close down. What’s the point!
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
Haven’t you already done that?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It’s Italy for me.
R
Rau
Guest
Who has been discussing advantages vs disadvantages? I’ve not suggested a comparison based on pros and cons. I’ve simply observed the fact that there is a degree of loss of sovereignty attached to being a member of the EU, and it’s larger than that which occurs for other (non-EU) nations joining trade agreements and defense pacts.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
It is hard to think of an instance in which some kind of union or confederation has not been stronger and more successful than its separate constituent parts. Examples would include the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada,* the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa, Italy, Germany, Romania, Greece, the Netherlands, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire were highly successful for, respectively, Russians, Turks, Austrians, and, with qualifications, Hungarians, although perhaps less so for the various other peoples of Europe and the Middle East (by “Germany” I mean the unified German-speaking states, not the annexed Polish territory). Even those which ultimately failed, such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia (originally the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), and Czechoslovakia achieved notable successes within their historical context and could perhaps have enjoyed permanent success under different circumstances.
*It is worth a reminder that Newfoundland continued to exist as an independent country until 1949, when it voluntarily relinquished its sovereignty and became part of the Canadian confederation.
Last edited:
B
BohemianBrother
Guest
I’d disagree with the absolute inability of success for Yugoslavia. Yes, the state had to deal with centuries of hatred, but with time it generally gets harder and harder to see a different ethnicity as your enemy, when you have those people as your colleagues, friends, or even family members.
Essentially, it all came crashing down only after Milošević played the nationalism card. If there were few more decades of more or less peaceful coexistence, this would not happen.
In the end, it is hard to destroy a political bond when the common folk have a personal interest in it. I can say that as a Czech, 70% of people still resent the breakup of Czechoslovakia and this is only alleviated by the EU providing a single market and no borders.
Essentially, it all came crashing down only after Milošević played the nationalism card. If there were few more decades of more or less peaceful coexistence, this would not happen.
In the end, it is hard to destroy a political bond when the common folk have a personal interest in it. I can say that as a Czech, 70% of people still resent the breakup of Czechoslovakia and this is only alleviated by the EU providing a single market and no borders.
Completly agree!Salibi:
Quotes The Guardian.
it’s cynical to call for unbiased source and quote the Guardian as a reference!!
The Guardian is known for his progressives positions
on societal matters, that are not compatible with Catholicism.
True. But their position is not sustainable on the long run, as their veto will prevent the budget to be vote, and their national electors will eceonomically badly impacted. It seems that both parts have made concessions and have concluded an agreement with the UE. (If i understand correctly).
The EU said they want all countries respect the right wing State. It’s true there are problems in these countries that are described as “authoritarist democracies”. But as a consequence those countries may be punished for the politics such as for LGBT and abortion. In fact they are constantly punished in a way or another.
Yes and… no.
Each countries is entitled to her own legislation. But in reality the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights impact the national legislation. Their ruling are generally more liberal than some national policies. If a country is condamned by the ECHR, they have to modify their law.
Many countries have been condamned for being too conservatives on topics such as surrogacy, same sex “filiation”, abortion. Countries were Poland, Italy, France, Austria to name a few.
On the other hand, Germany had been confirmed she was in her rights to ban homeschooling.
Note: the Court juridiction is not limited to the members of the European Union members, so It’s not strictly the problem to be part of it.
It’s only one exemple, as some things around these questions are also made on a European level.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Are you rightly point out, the EU and its member states have acceded to the ECHR, and the ECHR is therefore considered to be part of the law of the EU and is enforceable by the ECJ. In the UK, the ECHR is part of British domestic law.
The UK Supreme Court did find that Northern Ireland’s abortion law was incompatible with the ECHR, but did not formally declare the law to be incompatible because the issue was already under consideration by the Westminster Parliament (due to the Northern Ireland Assembly being suspended at the time).
It would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened if the case had ended up in the ECtHR rather than being settled domestically. I don’t think that it is a given that the European judges would have reached the same conclusion as the British judges. The Supreme Court was divided on the issues in the case to the extent that the seven justices authored five judgments. Two justices found the law to be incompatible with articles 3 and 8 of the EHCR; three justices found the law to be incompatible with article 8, but not with article 3; two justices found the law to be incompatible with neither article 3 nor article 8; of the five justices who found the law to be incompatible with article 8, four found it to be incompatible in cases of rape, incest, and fatal foetal abnormality, but one found it be to so only in cases of foetal abnormality. Clearly this is a question which has no simple answers.
It depends whether you are talking about The Guardian as a news source or as a source of opinion pieces. The opinion pieces undoubtedly are left-wing and liberal. However, the news reporting is extremely reliable. I’ve been interviewed by Guardian journalists several times and have always been impressed by their attention to accuracy and their ethics. On the handful of occasions when they’ve quoted me, somebody has always run the final copy past me to make sure that I am happy with the way the quotation has been presented.
Last edited:
- Status