Declan Ganley to appear on The Late Late Show tonight

[west'sawake]

There's a thing, see - it was never intended to be only a free trade area. It was stated from the very start that it was intended to be a political union. That was the point of it, not a free trade area.

The UK sold it to its citizens as just a free trade area, but that was a lie. To be fair to the UK governments since, they've done their best to turn that lie into the truth, but it was a lie.

I think you will find that the Spiritual fathers, if I can use such a phrase, were in favour of a federal political union, but the official line was never as such. Is such a vision explicit in the main Treaties from Rome to Amsterdam to Maastricht to Nice to Lisbon? Were we not told it was simply to make the community, market and union more efficient.

I stand to be corrected, but with ourselves, the Danes and the British, and later possibly the Greeks and some East European States, the balance definitely shifted towards an extensive as opposed to deepening process but that the technocrats went ahead anyway.

The drivers for it were from within the Institutions and not the bottom up, not from the demos within each nation state.

[sondagefaux]

I think you will find that the Spiritual fathers, if I can use such a phrase, were in favour of a federal political union, but the official line was never as such. Is such a vision explicit in the main Treaties from Rome to Amsterdam to Maastricht to Nice to Lisbon? Were we not told it was simply to make the community, market and union more efficient.

I stand to be corrected, but with ourselves, the Danes and the British, and later possibly the Greeks and some East European States, the balance definitely shifted towards an extensive as opposed to deepening process but that the technocrats went ahead anyway.

The drivers for it were from within the Institutions and not the bottom up, not from the demos within each nation state.

The beginnings and process of change hasn't been nearly as simple as that. This site is a useful place to start exploring the history of European integration: Accueil - cvce.eu

[ibis]

I think you will find that the Spiritual fathers, if I can use such a phrase, were in favour of a federal political union, but the official line was never as such. Is such a vision explicit in the main Treaties from Rome to Amsterdam to Maastricht to Nice to Lisbon? Were we not told it was simply to make the community, market and union more efficient.

It doesn't really matter what you were told, though. Ireland, while traditionally showing on the polls as the most europhilic country in the EU, has never had a great interest in anything other than the money.

It's there in the Schuman Declaration:

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions.

By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.

And it's likewise there in all the discussions of intent at that period.

I stand to be corrected, but with ourselves, the Danes and the British, and later possibly the Greeks and some East European States, the balance definitely shifted towards an extensive as opposed to deepening process

True. That was, in fact, the argument against letting those countries join.

but that the technocrats went ahead anyway.

The drivers for it were from within the Institutions and not the bottom up, not from the demos within each nation state.

And false. The driver is not the institutions, and I have no idea what leads you to that idea. The drive is from the top down, but from the political level within each country, as with pretty much all political projects. Again, you're led astray, I think, by your inability to imagine anyone outside the EU institutions actually wanting more EU - you reflexively see it as something that has to be imposed on the member states by a central force, which is contrary to the history of the process.

[SilverSpurs]

There's a thing, see - it was never intended to be only a free trade area. It was stated from the very start that it was intended to be a political union. That was the point of it, not a free trade area.

The UK sold it to its citizens as just a free trade area, but that was a lie. To be fair to the UK governments since, they've done their best to turn that lie into the truth (much to the annoyance of some other members), but it was a lie.

And fair enough, that makes your opposition entirely justified by your lights, but the EU isn't a "common market" that's run amok. I don't think we'll get to a USE, either the way originally intended by the EU's founders or by Ganley's route, not for at least another 50 years, but in the meantime I have no objection in principle to either the current EU or to closer union. I appreciate others do, and I have no objection to their objection (value it, even), but I can't really respect objections based on misunderstandings or falsehoods.

I think you will find that that same lie was spun everywhere to gain public aquiescence and as we speak that lie is being spun to nth degree to the Croatian people.
The reality is the european project was a reaction to the changed global power structures post WW2. The european colonial powers were militarily exhausted and were faced with the loss of their colonies which provided them with cheap natural resources. They then realised that they had to gang together into a superpower if they wanted their cut of the pie, without which their "social democracies" would collapse.
What annoys me is the perpetuation of the myth that the european project had some noble ideal behind it, it didn't it was simply pragmatic self-preservation by europes ruling classes.

[ibis]

I think you will find that that same lie was spun everywhere to gain public aquiescence and as we speak that lie is being spun to nth degree to the Croatian people.
The reality is the european project was a reaction to the changed global power structures post WW2. The european colonial powers were militarily exhausted and were faced with the loss of their colonies which provided them with cheap natural resources. They then realised that they had to gang together into a superpower if they wanted their cut of the pie, without which their "social democracies" would collapse.
What annoys me is the perpetuation of the myth that the european project had some noble ideal behind it, it didn't it was simply pragmatic self-preservation by europes ruling classes.

It's lucky we have you, then.

[Manstein]

No it does not. Washington's statement is an eloquent plea for the isolationist policy which was so influential in the USA after independence. There is a touch of De Valera in the statement. With the US's post-war international engagement and subsequent hegemony the notion that the US was a nation essentially different and apart from every other country continued. The US is an enormous country with huge natural resources and isolationism was both a statement of the nature of the US economy and the belief of the average US citizen that they are a people apart. The globalized economy is impacting on this and , in my opinion, 911 brought home painfully to Americans just how not apart they actually are.

I would agree that people, for example Irish people, who are inordinately "West-Brit", Francophile or pro-German have questions to answer in terms of their allegiance to Ireland. But being pro-European through the institutions of the EU is a different thing altogether. First, the EU is a rules based institutional organization where a country regularly finds that it has to seek support on an issue from countries who were its opponents on another issue the previous week. There are 27 countries in the EU and a vote in a qualified majority in the Council is a vote whether it comes from Spain or Latvia. Votes in the European parliament, which has co-decision on most legislation, are votes unconnected with countries.

Second, it is in the nature of Europe based on its history that there are intricate political and economic ties between countries that go back centuries, often pre-dating the countries themselves which in many cases are of somewhat recent origin (us for example and our travel area with Britain). Ireland and Britain whose recent history was very much tied to the British Empire are somewhat apart from this continental network.

Third, Ireland has a population of less than Atlanta. It is tiny. Isolationism for us would be catastrophic. There is no comparison.

For these reason's Washington's statement is not helpful. I also wish that people would stop bringing up the word corruption in relation to European politics. Politics with its constant mediocre but necessary compromises falls short of what an individual or interest group may desire. But that does not mean that it is corrupt. Lets not equate politics with corruption.

I assume you are joking?