Hacker News Reader

> However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2]

This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(!) establishing the European Economic Community already contained the phrase "ever-closer union" in its preamble (though admittedly only in French, German, Dutch and Italian).

> If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now.

This is exactly what the British voted to join after de Gaulle died and couldn’t keep up the resistance any longer.

> It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body.

This is another lie. The commission has to be accepted by the European Parliament, which directly represents the people and the council is made up of the governments of the member countries. If the people in your country have "little democratic control" over your government, there’s your problem. Hint: blaming the EU won’t help.

We really don’t need the whole concept of ‘alternative facts’ over here now, too, do we?

You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere.

> This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(!) ....

The treaty of Paris 1951 [1] was established on the basis of economic trade in coal and steel, which was followed by The Treaty of Rome 1957 which established the European Economic Community which aimed to to do just that create an economic community. [2] Now, you can argue about what the people who set this up wanted and I'd agree many (Churchhill, Jean Monnet, etc) [3,4] did want a United States of Europe with a centralized European Army [4]. You could possibly say people voted on this since some of their leaders believed in this idea, and some of those leaders were elected in a democratic process (notably not Churchhill or Monnet) [5], but its a pretty long stretch.

> This is exactly what the British voted to join after de Gaulle

If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6].

That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty.

I'd like to provide you with more facts about your other assertions but I don't have the time. Maybe someone else will.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

3. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_K...

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...

7. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2...

> You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere.

I also didn’t cite sources for my assertion that de Gaulle died and that the UK joined the EEC, all of these things are well-known facts. But do allow me to cite my source, namely from the preamble of the 1957 treaty, here in its English translation:

    HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

    DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

for an (unofficial, of course) translation, see for example: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_Europ... or http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html, the primary source at eur-lex.europa.eu seems to be down at the moment.

> If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6]. > That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty.

The EEC was founded by the Treaty of Rome and literally the first sentence of the preamble of that treaty contains the phrase "ever-closer union". Please do explain how any reasonable person could think it was not about laying the foundation for a United States of Europe? You may argue that the UK-internal politics and media misrepresented the whole thing horribly, but you don’t fix that by leaving the EU.

> It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body.

Both the European Commission and the European Council are just the democratically elected national governments. So I do not get why you want more national sovereignty, but see problems with the Commission and the Council. They are basically the organs in the EU that ensure that national sovereignty is kept. Without them the directly democratically elected European Parliament cannot do anything (which I think should be changed).

> The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] > If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now.

But people can democratically vote for it. You can elect your MEPs directly and you can elect the rest (council, etc) by voting in your national elections. Don't want the United States of Europe? Fair enough, vote for parties that oppose it. People are doing it.

> But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences.

That would be an assault on freedom if it was true, but it's not. If any, the EU reinforces democracy and enhances personal freedom. People rule the EU.

> It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body.

People have full control of it. Vote in your country for a party that will support your ideals in the EU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission - Formed by one member of each state (each Commissioner is first nominated by their member state in consultation with the Commission President, although the President holds little practical power to force a change in candidate).

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ - The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.

> Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU.

Happy to see people bringing up these topics, I however think you might be misinformed. The EU is one of the most democratic organisations out there and, if actions speak louder than words, the EU has got a very decent track of upholding people's rights against lobbies and big corps.

> IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law.

No one is trying to punish the UK, but I think op might have worded his point rather confusingly.

The UK is of course free to copy and paste the EU law. Anyone can do it (and I hope they do) - there is however a problem: How do you enforce it?

Is the UK strong enough of a market to force Netflix or Amazon to change?

Should the EU press Netflix to include the UK in the no-borders streaming zone? If you think the answer to this latest question is yes, then the UK has to contribute.

And, by the way, how different is your "refusing to cooperate" than op's "refusing to contribute to the recurring enforcement costs" - should contribution with the UK be free? Can you have your cake and eat it?