And you thought the UK was a country

[Suff]

Suff, what I do know is that the EU is not a country. It does not sit anywhere as a country, not in the G7 nor in the G20 nor the UN. It is not recognised as a country and it does not operate as a country. The treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon did not make it country. It is no more a country than EFTA or NAFTA or NATO.

<Sigh>

Have you had a look at the treaties precison the EU website?

Let me give you some highlights....

Treaty on European Union - Maastricht Treaty

Signed: 7 February 1992
Entered into force: 1 November 1993

Purpose: to prepare for European Monetary Union and introduce elements of a political union (citizenship, common foreign and internal affairs policy).

Treaty of Lisbon

Signed: 13 December 2007
Entered into force: 1 December 2009

Purpose: to make the EU more democratic, more efficient and better able to address global problems, such as climate change, with one voice.

Main changes: more power for the European Parliament, change of voting procedures in the Council, citizens' initiative, a permanent president of the European Council, a new High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a new EU diplomatic service.

Now I'm just a novice at these things. BUT.

Citizenship? OK to me you can only be a Citizen of a country. A political entity which has citizens is the absolute definition of "Country". You may note that our passports and birth certificates are now EU documents which entitle us to Citizenship of the EU in our "member" state.

How many Citizens does Nato have? Or Nafta? Although, interestingly the UN has a few....

That was Maastricht.

A representative for foreign affairs? A diplomatic service? Nato may have representatives but it does not have a foreign affairs service. It doesn't need one because it's member "Nations" all have their own.

Given all of that, the UK has every right to its seat on the SC, unless and until it gets voted off, at which time it would invoke the veto.

Given that people who have UK citizenship are actually citizens of the EU, domiciled in a member state called the UK, I don't think so.

It's hard to argue with the words. Note that the EU may be using words such as Nation now, since Lisbon, but at the time of the Constitution there was no "Nation" other than the EU. Also, I note, that the Lisbon treaty does not have the phrase "Nation State" in it anywhere. Everywhere is "Member State" and it talks about the political entity of the European Union. I've read it. Although, very interestingly, the full text of the treaty is the only one not represented on this page....

What people may believe, what the EU is currently writing or what the press report; is not necessarily what is actual fact.

[Workingman]

Yes I have skimmed the Treaties and nowhere do any of them turn the EU into a country. All the members of the EU are still independent sovereign countries as defined by the UN.

I am a citizen of Leeds and of West Yorkshire and of England and of the UK and of the EU. Citizenship is not the preserve of nation states, countries, it can be conferred on any member of a political community and where such members have rights and duties.

Yes, the EU does have a High Representative for Foreign Affairs, that is in order for member countries to show a united front. However, any member country can withdraw from the process if the EU's stance is counter to that country's own dealings in a region. Member countries can also act independently of the EU and without its permission, as with the UK and the Falkland's War.

In a similar way the EEAS (Diplomatic service) also acts as a focal point in countries outside the EU through its Missions, or if you like, Embassies. It allows foreign based bussnesses a one-stop-shop to clarify EU rules and laws rather than them having to go to 28 national embassies. I see no cause for concern there, in fact, it is a sound idea.

The above mentioned organisations might well carry out (duplicate) a small set of the functions of their national equivalents, but no country in the EU has lost any of those functions. It is also to be noted that those organisations do not have their own police force, army, navy, air force, customs and excise or border force to back them up.

Why would they - the EU is not a country?

[Suff]

I read the Lisbon treaty in some detail when it was being discussed. It does not contain the words Nation States. It does however contain the words Member States lots of times.

When talking about the EU as a Nation, the operative word is not IF but WHEN.

To anyone who follows EU news this is clear. Even the EU ministers are open about this. The treaties to enact it are already in place. All they need to do is mandate. So, the UK and all the other EU member states are countries in name only today.

The reason the EU has not gone any further so far is because of the French and Dutch rejection of the constitution.

You can explain these things the way that the politician's do if it keeps you happy. I prefer the unvarnished reality.

[Workingman]

When talking about the EU as a Nation, the operative word is not IF but WHEN.

I am not sure if there ever will be a "WHEN". I am pro-EU and I would not vote for it; and I honestly do believe that many Europhiles feel the same way. It is one thing for the executive to bind businesses, economies and industry together; it is entirely another to attempt to bind the people - for them to lose their nationalities, and that is how many people will see things.

If such a thing was ever tried to be imposed upon us there would be blood in the streets. The fall of the modern EU would be swifter than that of the last EU, the Roman Empire.

[Suff]

I believe that there is a good reason that the full text of the Lisbon Treaty is not there with the rest of the precis.

You can get it here.

You might want to look very closely at

‘TITLE III
PROVISIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS’.
Article 9D
Item 5

5. As from 1 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members,
including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the
European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.

The members of the Commission shall be chosen from among the nationals of the Member
States on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting
the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. This system shall be
established unanimously by the European Council in accordance with Article 211a of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

So tell me, in this wonderful world of "greater influence", when do we take our turn at not having a seat on the Commission???? You know it's going to come. Then we're going to have what say exactly?


Then there is

‘CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION
Article 10 B

1. On the basis of the principles and objectives set out in Article 10 A, the
European Council shall identify the strategic interests and objectives of the Union.
Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union shall
relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of
the Union. Such decisions may concern the relations of the Union with a specific country or
region or may be thematic in approach. They shall define their duration, and the means to be
made available by the Union and the Member States.
The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted
by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the
European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in
the Treaties.

This little Gem says they can interfere in our foreign affairs based on a QMV on the Council. Remember our veto vanished in all but direct UK centric areas like taxation.

I'm not going to put any more in it, but read the rest of Article 10. It sets out the foreign policy of the EU, controlled by the Council and mandated on the "Member States".

I'm not making it up, go download it from their bookstore. Brown signed it, the Queen ratified it.

Feeling sold out yet?

It is not my imagination. Neither were the riots at the parliament in Paris when they ratified this document against the wishes of the people.

As far as I'm concerned, the action has been taken and we're no longer a country in reality, only in name. Remember the Commission and the council, under the conditions of the Lisbon Treaty, only came into full power after the last Commission election. Hence the EU is now representing itself at the Climate talks. It is only the very tip of the iceberg.

Yet nobody is talking about it, nobody is telling the people the truth.

[Suff]

Small public health warning to keep your sanity.

To be able to read this 480 odd page monstrosity it is necessary to open the document 3 times. In that way you can have all three referenced sections open at the same time and can read the real meaning of the sections. It is impossible to fully understand the document otherwise....

[Workingman]

Brown and Elizabeth II did sign it, yes, but it ties us not one jot. We are still able to operate foreign policy, our economy, and how we run our country to our rules. All that Maastricht and Lisbon did was open the door for closer integration in some areas. They did not make the EU a country.

We, the EU, try to formulate foreign and internal policies acceptable to all, or the majority, especially in trade. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sort of cooperation. They are good policies and would be hard to achieve in an unconnected Europe.

However, the Europhobes think this is a bad thing.

Did I hear that some prospective Independent nations are failing over themselves to join this United States of Europe? Surely not, given all the negatives.

[Suff]

Ah yes, WM, the constant argument. I got that from the idiot Lib Dems in Scotland when talking to them about the independence referendum.

They quoted me Estonia and Latvia as indications of loss of influence......

Yes some countries are vying to join the EU. The only large one is Turkey. Turkey would stand to gain "Hugely" in terms of trade and open borders for it's teeming millions who do not have access to open labour markets.

If I look at the GDP tablesfor 2013, Turkey sits at #17 in the world and Britain sits at #6. Just behind France.

Much more interesting is the "estimate" for 2014followed by the projection for 2019. The 2019 projection shows France growing significantly less than the UK and the UK retaking it's #5 place in the world.

At #5 in the world the UK has absolutely nothing to fear on it's own. If anyone cares to note, that is ahead of both Brazil and Russia. If anyone were to state that these two countries could not stand on their own or that they needed to be in a union to help them grow, they would be laughed out of the room.

YET, everyone can say that the UK needs to be in the EU to retain it's position in the world. Patently it's ridiculous. In fact it holds us back in almost every way. Because the EU is biased towards Germany being the economic engine and so does not reward the UK in growing. Hence the UK is growing outside of the EU and stagnating within it.

These are hard facts. The rest is nothing more than sound bites.

Where is Croatia in 2013? 74. Where is Serbia? 86.

Making a case for EU membership based on the aspirations of piffling little nations does not bolster the case for the UK to remain in the EU.

Were Russia hammering the door down to join the EU, then I could see your case. Funnily enough, they don't seem to be keen