EU State of the Union address

[-:Undertaker:-]

EU State of the Union address

Unelected President Juncker of the European Commission delivers annual US-style address to MEPs

- Calls for European army by 2025
- Wants to merge the EU presidencies into a single powerful post
- Commits to further EU expansion
- Vows to make the Euro currency compulsory for all EU member states
- States intention to expand Schengen to Romania and Bulgaria


http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/22/590x/jean-claude-juncker-587603.jpg

https://order-order.com/2017/09/13/juncker-eu-will-expand-and-have-its-own-army/

907894995516055552

907916315230457856


Jean-Claude Juncker has confirmed the EU will pursue a policy of ever-continuing expansion, create its own army, and force constituent countries to open their borders and join the beleaguered Euro in an speech which will only serve to confirm the decision of every Brexit voter. In his ‘State of the Union’ address to the European Parliament this morning, Juncker restated the EU’s commitment to an expansionist set of policies to further erode the sovereignty of member states; a platform which Remainers will find difficult to explain away.

He explicitly re-stated his ambition to see the European Union continue to expand:

“We must maintain a credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans… the European Union will be greater than 27 in number.”

On immigration and free movement, Juncker said the Schengen passport-less area would be extended “immediately” to Bulgaria and Romania:

“If we want to strengthen the protection of our external borders, then we need to open the Schengen area of free movement to Bulgaria and Romania immediately. We should also allow Croatia to become a full Schengen member once it meets all the criteria.”

He confirmed that the EU will create a ‘European Defence Union’ by 2025 – that is, an EU army:

“And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.”

On the Euro, Juncker pushed towards compulsory membership for member states:

“The euro is meant to be the single currency of the European Union as a whole. All but two of our Member States are required and entitled to join the euro once they fulfil all conditions. Member States that want to join the euro must be able to do so. This is why I am proposing to create a Euro-accession Instrument, offering technical and even financial assistance.”

And he called for a single European president (merging his job with Donald Tusk’s) and an end to national vetoes.

He then amusingly went on to say Britain will “regret” Brexit. Remainers wondering why the polls haven’t swung back their way should watch Juncker’s speech this morning…

As one comment put it...


"In short:

Everything the Remainers told us before the referendum that the EU wasn't planning - it was planning all along."

Over to Mr Farage this morning.

907907860230754304

How's this for a power grab? @dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789);

[scottish]

Army one is old news, it was around before Brexit in quite a few articles.

Currency is already compulsory isn't it, with us being the exception?

Weird that, a politician wanting more power though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Army one is old news, it was around before Brexit in quite a few articles.

Well Nigel Farage told us about it but Nick Clegg in the debates said it was a fantasy and wasn't going to happen, kind of like how David Cameron and Remain told us in the referendum that we were now exempt from ever closer union despite no treaty change.

You don't mean to say they were lying, do you?


Currency is already compulsory isn't it, with us being the exception?

Compulsory at the moment yet but without a time limit.


Weird that, a politician wanting more power though.

Yet you voted Remain which would have given them it? Weird indeed.

[scottish]

I'm not talking about articles about forage, it was Juncker made a speech or something about the army like a month or two before the referendum.

Every politician is a liar, you should know this by now.

So currency makes no change as it's already compulsory?

I didn't vote remain though.

[Neversoft]

Currency is already compulsory isn't it, with us being the exception?

There are actually something like eight or nine EU countries which don't use the Euro.

[dbgtz]

A government which has the power to introduce law without the consent of parliament vs a government which has the power to introduce law with the consent of the member states?
The only particularly bad part is the end of national vetoes, but that's not something exactly enshrined in a document compared to the Euro or expansionism. I'm also guessing it needs approvals from said member states, too.
An EU army in the sense described in the article isn't necessarily a bad thing either, if it simply serves to act as defence for smaller states.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A government which has the power to introduce law without the consent of parliament vs a government which has the power to introduce law with the consent of the member states?

Introducing THE SAME LAWS that were introduced by the EU WITHOUT THE CONSENT of Parliament.


The only particularly bad part is the end of national vetoes, but that's not something exactly enshrined in a document compared to the Euro or expansionism. I'm also guessing it needs approvals from said member states, too.

"Ever closer union" first page of the first EU Treaty.


An EU army in the sense described in the article isn't necessarily a bad thing either, if it simply serves to act as defence for smaller states.

Ohhh so you do want a federal Europe after all? Then why all the pretending, like the politicians, that you did not.

[dbgtz]

Introducing THE SAME LAWS that were introduced by the EU WITHOUT THE CONSENT of Parliament.


Implicit consent through treaties approved by parliament... Unfortunately, as far as I have read, the repeal bill has the potential to go far beyond its initial power.



"Ever closer union" first page of the first EU Treaty.


Not really sure how this is replying to my point



Ohhh so you do want a federal Europe after all? Then why all the pretending, like the politicians, that you did not.

No? I never said "abolish member state militaries". I was saying something which is set up purely to aid the smaller states who perhaps can't do so much on their own wouldn't be a bad thing. Wouldn't be an awful thing for us too since a UK defence supplier probably would have been involved.
I reserve judgement until I see what it entails.

[Firehorse]

I thought his speech was hilarious. If you take it out of the context of today's media influence and look back on it as a moment in history from a neutral standpoint, all you will see is a fascist dictator making a power grab and creating a superstate against the will of its citizens.
This is LITERALLY what the remainers were deluded about in believing would not happen, and that conference is now happening the very day after brexit :rolleyes::clap:

[-:Undertaker:-]

I know you've replied but it isn't showing the post for some reason, only my last post!!!

(Wondering if posting this will fix it)

edit: nope

[scottish]

Fixed, I quadruple posted when forum was offline for updates so it broke.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Implicit consent through treaties approved by parliament... Unfortunately, as far as I have read, the repeal bill has the potential to go far beyond its initial power.

Yes, and The Great Repeal Bill - passed by Parliament - allows ministers to transplant *existing* EU law into British law. At least with The Great Repeal Bill it is our own government and parliament who will be able to amend and change these laws in the future, under the previous system (EU) Parliament had absolutely zero say over EU laws. It is also worth bearing in mind that the royal Henry VIII powers given to ministers for this task will come with a 'sunset' clause - ending when the task is completed during 2019.

The sudden worry about laws bypassing Parliament from diehard Remainers is laughable. Nobody buys it.


Not really sure how this is replying to my point

You're going on about approval. Like all EU integration history, what the EU wants it eventually gets - whether that is by ignoring national referendums or simply abolishing national vetoes as it has *already* done in a number of areas (QMV).


No? I never said "abolish member state militaries". I was saying something which is set up purely to aid the smaller states who perhaps can't do so much on their own wouldn't be a bad thing.
I reserve judgement until I see what it entails.

But that is what you are saying - either you don't realise it or realise it is an extremely unpopular position to hold so won't say it willingly just like Remain-supporting politicians. An EU army de facto means the end of national armed forces, because why would we have two armies? There's no Scottish army anymore than there is English army since the Acts of Union. For an EU army to work also, there would then have to be political union at the same time as well - a United States of Europe.

And as for aiding smaller countries, erm that's known as NATO? It's not an army, it is a loose alliance.


Wouldn't be an awful thing for us too since a UK defence supplier probably would have been involved.

So hand over control of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to the European Commission in return for defence contracts for BAE shareholders?

Do you value *anything* when it comes to our country other than money?

[dbgtz]

Yes, and The Great Repeal Bill - passed by Parliament - allows ministers to transplant *existing* EU law into British law. At least with The Great Repeal Bill it is our own government and parliament who will be able to amend and change these laws in the future, under the previous system (EU) Parliament had absolutely zero say over EU laws. It is also worth bearing in mind that the royal Henry VIII powers given to ministers for this task will come with a 'sunset' clause - ending when the task is completed during 2019.

The sudden worry about laws bypassing Parliament from diehard Remainers is laughable. Nobody buys it.


"Appropriately time limited" is their choice of words in the white paper. Vague enough they could just keep it going indefinitely. I don't care about laws bypassing parliament, I care about laws modified without proper scrutiny for the gain of one party who will happily **** out £1 billion for what isn't even a coalition so they can retain power after recklessly calling an election which was only called with the intention of grabbing more power. Are you so blind to see how scummy a result there could be if a bill like this is passed without proper scrutiny?



You're going on about approval. Like all EU integration history, what the EU wants it eventually gets - whether that is by ignoring national referendums or simply abolishing national vetoes as it has *already* done in a number of areas (QMV).


Referendums like which? Ireland where the initial no vote ended up in a treaty change to address Irish concerns? Hardly ignored.
Even so, on approval a QMV is still better than the horse shit tiny arse majority that was this referendum :)

Just to be clear on my general position, I'm not really annoyed at leaving but just how everything was conducted just made it an abomination as far as I'm concerned, and the fact I don't believe peoples issues even lying in the EU but more in our own government.



But that is what you are saying - either you don't realise it or realise it is an extremely unpopular position to hold so won't say it willingly just like Remain-supporting politicians. An EU army de facto means the end of national armed forces, because why would we have two armies? There's no Scottish army anymore than there is English army since the Acts of Union. For an EU army to work also, there would then have to be political union at the same time as well - a United States of Europe.

And as for aiding smaller countries, erm that's known as NATO? It's not an army, it is a loose alliance.


If that is the case then UN peacekeepers have basically replaced our military.......................... oh
I see the move as a push away from US reliance, which I'm sure you'll somehow spin that to be negative.



So hand over control of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to the European Commission in return for defence contracts for BAE shareholders?

Do you value *anything* when it comes to our country other than money?

Never did I even suggest that. I mentioned defence contracts under the assumption of a small force designed primarily for the smaller states, since yes having investment, meaning jobs, would be a positive thing. Weird thing for you to criticise really since you seem to be a staunch capitalist. You talk about valuing the country but you couldn't really give a shit about anyone inside of it all in the name of a "small state". You even said/implied you'd have voted for Brexit even if it sent the country into depression. Some people are literally on the breadline yet you'd happily shit on them more and for what exactly? Some intangible identity you are scared of losing? Great, some people are scared of losing tangible things like their home or even things like their health (it's almost as if you need money to live). So perhaps don't talk to me about my values and question your own.

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Appropriately time limited" is their choice of words in the white paper. Vague enough they could just keep it going indefinitely. I don't care about laws bypassing parliament, I care about laws modified without proper scrutiny for the gain of one party who will happily **** out £1 billion for what isn't even a coalition so they can retain power after recklessly calling an election which was only called with the intention of grabbing more power. Are you so blind to see how scummy a result there could be if a bill like this is passed without proper scrutiny?

Don't you understand how incoherent you sound? You're worried about the *potential* of laws being modified (reality is that they are only transplanting them) by our elected government but you're supportive of 27 foreign governments and an unelected Commission telling our elected government what to do. Why not just admit you're a federalist?


Referendums like which? Ireland where the initial no vote ended up in a treaty change to address Irish concerns? Hardly ignored.

I'm sure it was... even though EU leaders all made clear nothing had changed vis a vis the constitution/Lisbon.


Even so, on approval a QMV is still better than the horse shit tiny arse majority that was this referendum :)

27 foreign governments overruling our own is better than a 72% turnout referendum? You're so bitter.


Just to be clear on my general position, I'm not really annoyed at leaving but just how everything was conducted just made it an abomination as far as I'm concerned, and the fact I don't believe peoples issues even lying in the EU but more in our own government.

Funny enough we live in a democracy and the majority happened to disagree with you, that is how it goes. 52% of us on a 72% turnout looked at the European Union and decided we didn't like it or what it has done.

Like the EU itself and many diehard remainers, even though you lost it doesn't dawn on you to think as to why you lost. Instead, you push for even more Europe as Juncker did in his speech. Like with the Irish, French and Dutch why should what the people want stop your grand project? You *know better* don't you? Full steam ahead over the cliff.


If that is the case then UN peacekeepers have basically replaced our military.......................... oh
I see the move as a push away from US reliance, which I'm sure you'll somehow spin that to be negative.

The UN is not an army and UN peacekeepers are token charity workers.

As for US reliance, ah yes I hear that one a lot. It's an interesting argument - that in order to not be reliant on one country for defence (sovereignty) we ought to instead become reliant on 27 countries via a political union for defence many of whom have totally different defence objectives compared to Britain and America. Yes, anything to get away from that American influence - even if it means landlocked Czech Republic having a say over our naval policy. Clever!


Never did I even suggest that. I mentioned defence contracts under the assumption of a small force designed primarily for the smaller states, since yes having investment, meaning jobs, would be a positive thing. Weird thing for you to criticise really since you seem to be a staunch capitalist. You talk about valuing the country but you couldn't really give a shit about anyone inside of it all in the name of a "small state". You even said/implied you'd have voted for Brexit even if it sent the country into depression. Some people are literally on the breadline yet you'd happily shit on them more and for what exactly? Some intangible identity you are scared of losing? Great, some people are scared of losing tangible things like their home or even things like their health (it's almost as if you need money to live). So perhaps don't talk to me about my values and question your own.

Firstly, why would Britain want to pay for and provide the defence for Estonia, Latvia and Romania?

My values are solid on this. Sovereignty and democracy - the ability of the people in this country to make and decide their own laws - have taken centuries to achieve; from the Magna Carta curtailing the powers of the King, Habeas corpus, to the Reformation, fighting off the Spanish Armada, to the English Civil War, to Common Law, the Battle of Waterloo, to the Suffragettes and the Great Reform Acts extending the voting franchise - British independence has been paid for a thousand times over in blood and i'll be damned if we hand it over.

It was all worth every drop of blood and it'll be worth every penny (if need be).

[Firehorse]

No point in arguing with people who defend something blindly despite the facts.

Fact: EU laws we do not like cannot be removed or changed through democratic process. The EU is structured in order for change to only be possible from the top down. MEPs can only vote on what the commission allows them to vote on, no person elected by the UK general population has a say in what can be voted on. There is 1 UK member, that's 1 per 65.6 million UK citizens, in the European Commission, and they are not voted into position by the general public. EU commission members are bound by oath to represent the interest of the EU and not their member state.

Fact: EU laws that we want to be created cannot be commissioned through democratic process. The EU is structured in order for change to only be possible from the top down. MEPs can only vote on what the commission allows them to vote on, no person elected by the UK general population has a say in what can be voted on. There is 1 UK member, that's 1 per 65.6 million UK citizens, in the European Commission, and they are not voted into position by the general public. EU commission members are bound by oath to represent the interest of the EU and not their member state.

Fact: EU laws are being transposed into British law. ALL primary-legislative EU laws which applied to us before Brexit remain in place after Brexit day in the form of UK legislation.

Fact: UK laws we do not like can be removed or changed through democratic process. The UK is structured in order for change to be possible from the bottom up. Any MP can propose a Bill which then gets debated in Parliament, and once approved by the house of Parliament is put through the legislative process to become law. There are 650 MPs, 1 per 92,000 UK citizens, all of which have been voted into power by the general public.

Fact: UK laws that we want to be created can be commissioned through democratic process. The UK is structured in order for change to be possible from the bottom up. Any MP can propose a Bill which then gets debated in Parliament, and once approved by the house of Parliament is put through the legislative process to become law. There are 650 MPs, 1 per 92,000 UK citizens, all of which have been voted into power by the general public.

Any person that claims this transposal of law to our jurisdiction is in any way negative is indirectly saying that they believe the appointed EU commissioners are right to have a say but others are not, and no number of ways they try to spin it will change this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lord Pearson explains the hypocrisy pretty well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNFAVQZrxPg