- 11 Jan 2019 16:05
#14979036
What point was that exactly?
That will not work long term for reasons that are obvious to anyone.
The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution (a MAJOR act of centralization), not by 1 by 1 falling, but majority consent of the states, Hence my point stands.
It can happen and likely will. Which lends credence to those wanting to get out of fear of future consolidation.
Why does sovereignty require a "mechanism of participation?"
I don't understand how those ideas are related. Perhaps you could explain?
I guess I need to see why such even matters.
So? Why does a nation need to be part of a different union after leaving the European union? This argument seems to be saying that someone shouldn't leave the EU because their are no approximate alternatives out there, have you even considered that might be the point?
In any event, this may not be entirely true long term anyway. if the UK left the EU its entirely possible that an anglo-sphere union could emerge (which I would still oppose) uniting the U.S. with the UK and former commonwealth nations.
However, even if such did not emerge, I still don't see how the UK would somehow be "less-sovereign" over its affairs than had it stayed in the EU.
This has been your claim, but I still don't understand it even after this latest round of qualifications.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
noemon wrote:Once again you are avoiding the actual point of the conversation just because my analogy was not of your gusto.
What point was that exactly?
noemon wrote:Of course it would.
That will not work long term for reasons that are obvious to anyone.
noemon wrote:But for us to centralise we all have to agree, we cannot hand over power individually over the course of years, 1 by 1 falling.
The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution (a MAJOR act of centralization), not by 1 by 1 falling, but majority consent of the states, Hence my point stands.
It can happen and likely will. Which lends credence to those wanting to get out of fear of future consolidation.
noemon wrote:my actual point is that the EU nation-states will not be more sovereign outside the EU because there is no mechanism that can offer them any more direct participation than currently on offer
Why does sovereignty require a "mechanism of participation?"
I don't understand how those ideas are related. Perhaps you could explain?
noemon wrote:Such a mechanism does not even exist in the abstract or philosophical plane let alone in the practical one.
I guess I need to see why such even matters.
noemon wrote:You are confused, it is not because they are "big-bad-states" or whatever you want to call it but because they do not offer the other states an equal vote and direct participation in all the decision-making.
So? Why does a nation need to be part of a different union after leaving the European union? This argument seems to be saying that someone shouldn't leave the EU because their are no approximate alternatives out there, have you even considered that might be the point?
In any event, this may not be entirely true long term anyway. if the UK left the EU its entirely possible that an anglo-sphere union could emerge (which I would still oppose) uniting the U.S. with the UK and former commonwealth nations.
However, even if such did not emerge, I still don't see how the UK would somehow be "less-sovereign" over its affairs than had it stayed in the EU.
This has been your claim, but I still don't understand it even after this latest round of qualifications.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry