Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 45      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #16 
DM, what will you do in 10 or 20 years time, when the EU decides that the concept of monarchy violates the equality laws and dethrones the remaining monarchs of the regions of the United States of Europe?
#BREXIT

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
 I don't deny the EU now helps, but I don't think it is the major reason for peace on the continent. I also don't think this has much to do with Britain. Britain's presence in the EU will make little difference to whether it maintains peace on the continent.

The Union will eventually be dissolved I'd we remain in the EU. The Scots had their vote. They are unlikely to be officially granted one any time soon. If they have one, though, it will just speed up what Brussels will do in the end.



I agree that Britain's presence in the EU makes little difference for the matter of peace in Europe. We are basically discussing two related issues at the same time now, the Brexit issue and the existence of the EU in general which Royalcello and DavidV referred to. 

In response to your point and Royalcello's point about the Scots, I hope you are right that there's little chance they will get another chance to leave. They are still being led by a separatist party which strives for independence and which will use any argument it can to further that cause, and I am afraid this divisive issue will drive more Scots to support them. That's undesirable even if there is no referendum in the short term.

The argument that the EU support Scottish separatism is a ghost story. EU leaders specifically tried to scare the Scots away from voting to leave by saying that Scotland would have to go through the entire accession process if the country would leave the UK. The EU is not looking for more small member countries - it is already difficult enough to make policies with twenty-eight countries. 


DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
DM, what will you do in 10 or 20 years time, when the EU decides that the concept of monarchy violates the equality laws and dethrones the remaining monarchs of the regions of the United States of Europe?
#BREXIT


The EU simply can't decide that, as I think you know. The structure of national governments is outside the scope of its powers. 

You basically say that monarchy contradicts the principle of equality which is leading in the EU. Well, look at the Dutch constitution - its first article states that equality is our most important value! You won't find the equality principle in the first article of any EU treaty. If there's a contradiction of values there, I don't see why we should single out the EU.

There is no such thing as the United States of Europe. Some people in the EU may wish it existed, but it doesn't. A state is defined by having a monopoly on violence, and there is no European army or police force (Europal only being an organization for exchanging information between national police forces). Any further authority granted to the EU has to be approved by every single member state.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,405
Reply with quote  #19 
The EU guarantees "peace"? Next you'll tell me the UN guarantees "peace" even though failed states and refugee crisis have proliferated under its all-benevolent watch.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #20 
...none of which has happened in countries which were part of the EU, so the comparison is nonsense. 

And the EU doesn't guarantee peace, but contributes to it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,701
Reply with quote  #21 
While I hope (though it is not a terribly confident hope) that Britain will vote to leave on Thursday, I wish no harm to either the EU or what would be its remaining member nations. Indeed, my desire would be for the inevitable shake-up to benefit the EU and change its course from the ever-closer union policy (which often seems all too like ever-deeper submergence) to the Europe of Nations concept which would never have been objectionable. As for Scotland and the relentlessly irresponsible and power-hungry SNP, any British government worthy of the name would tell the latter 'You had your chance, you blew it, don't come whining for another every few years. You are not going to be allowed to keep on asking the same question over and over until you get what you think is the right answer.' We have, of course, had quite a few British governments that weren't in fact worthy of the name, for example the Blair/Brown-led shambles that created the whole devolution mess in the first place. So nothing can be guaranteed, but this particular dog is tired of the tail wagging it. Let Scotland stay if that is what happens, so long as England leaves.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #22 
Peter, I'm glad to hear that. I also hope the ever closer union phrase will disappear. I wonder what the Europe of Nations concept would mean besides that, however. Would it simply mean the return to unanimity voting on every issue as was the case before 1992 or something else?

I was indeed thinking about a situation where a labor government would enter office and be tempted to give the Scots another vote, maybe to gain support of the SNP, especially with the leadership of labor being so left-wing right now. I don't think the conservatives will give the Scots another chance soon. 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,405
Reply with quote  #23 
Europe of Nations will mean no EU, and cooperation among member states with shared interests.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #24 
I think Peter meant something differently though, as he spoke of a change of a course to the benefit of the EU.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,405
Reply with quote  #25 
Melanie Phillips says that the referendum is a choice between freedom and serfdom:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/were-choosing-between-freedom-and-serfdom-2m06g6vd2
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,701
Reply with quote  #26 
I would read the piece, but The Times has a paywall. Got to be a bit of an exaggeration, though. Yes, I understand a Europe of Nations as meaning a group of countries in formal association, joining together in pursuit of common interests and caring about the whole as well as the sovereign parts. The odd bilateral agreement between countries would not be the same thing at all.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
There is no such thing as the United States of Europe. Some people in the EU may wish it existed, but it doesn't. A state is defined by having a monopoly on violence, and there is no European army or police force (Europal only being an organization for exchanging information between national police forces). Any further authority granted to the EU has to be approved by every single member state.



It is true that there is no United States of Europe now, but the idea of something like it is not marginal to the European project. It was behind the very idea of a super governmental organisation, as opposed to the intergovernmental goal pursued by Britain in the late 40s to early 60s. The Monnet Method, which has been the guiding principle of the Eurocrats, aims at something very close to a superstate. Now, there has always been a diverse range of voices pushing the EU in many directions, but it is still the case that a quasi-superstate is the implicit aim at the heart of the institution.

It is true that technically the EU still does nothing without the leave of member states. But already there is a vast amount of delegated powers and competencies (including over some police and military matters) the EU has primary say so over. The EU always works to increase these areas. Even where member states have an input it is often through members of parliament who do not have the time or inclination to scrutinise what the EU is doing or through compliant civil servants.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,405
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I would read the piece, but The Times has a paywall. Got to be a bit of an exaggeration, though. Yes, I understand a Europe of Nations as meaning a group of countries in formal association, joining together in pursuit of common interests and caring about the whole as well as the sovereign parts. The odd bilateral agreement between countries would not be the same thing at all.


The problem is that the EU brings together countries with very little in common although you can say there was/is a shared European civilisation. Organisations like the Commonwealth, the Arab League and the GCC make more sense because there is far more common ground culturally among the member states, although the first two don't work the way they should.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 821
Reply with quote  #29 
Wessexman, I agree that the idea of a supranational state has been endorsed by many founding fathers of the EU and is still found in the phrase of an 'ever closer union'. I hope that can be changed someday without blowing up the whole EU. I think there is no logical reason the EU could not exist without it.

I would be interested to hear what these military matters are that the EU has primary say over - I don't know any. 

The input of the EU by the member states mostly goes through the national ministers in the Council and European Council, I would say, and not so much through parliaments. Major decisions are not taken without the agreement of national leaders. I think that the EU does have a tendency to create too many regulations, but like many of the previous issues we discussed that's also a problem that exists at the national and the local level. 

The more fundamental issue here is at what level people should be governed. For me, absolute freedom for nations implies that nations also have the freedom to harm and exploit each other through their policies, meaning war in its mostly ultimate form. Therefore, I believe that the freedom of nations must be limited in some way, even if most decisions can be taken at the national level.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #30 
The old terminology is supergovernmental and intergovernmental.

The former is the route pursued by the EU, and it is meant to be more than an agreement between governments. It was thought this could not overcome nationalism and nation self-interst. Instead, a supergovermental body was to wield some powers, a body to a degree separate from and above the national governments. This is why getting rid of the need for unanimous decision making (and national vetos) in ever more areas is so important to the EU ( and the average Brit, even an informed one would be astounded how far this has gone).

Britain, contrary to some pro-EU propaganda, was very interested in Europe after WWII. But we pursued intergovernmentalism, through institutions like the Council of Europe, in which nations would deal with each other only as nations. If the EU could be turned into an intergovernmental body I would not object to it. But that would be like trying to get the US today to switch the Constitution for the Articles of Confederation.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.