> Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.
And as your quote shows, it's a long stretch to take the aspiration of a "united Europe" to mean inexorably leading to the problematic; often anti-democratic, institutions we have today. The aspirations were from the beginning economic, and there is no reason at all to think that this can instead take an intergovernmental, rather than supranational form. There was, contrary to what you suggest, no "single plan" that was always in place that governments have subsequently had to, in your words, "lie" about.
> And the common agriculture policy. And the fisheries policy. And the customs union. And the human rights. And Ireland. The British government had a lot of incompatible red lines from the beginning. This was obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
No, it's freedom of movement, that's the main thing. There wouldn't have been Brexit without the European migrant crisis that shortly preceded it. Brexiters like Farage want a return to economic, not political, union, even if there is grumbling around certain policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQrUFrnW1R4
> That is not going to happen, at least in the foreseeable future
And the weaker member states who have adopted the Euro will continue to pay for it.
> More undemocratic than the Parliament in Westminster? You must be joking. And how accountable is the Bank of England? But yeah, rule Britannia.
Please read hackernews comment guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Also please read Yanis Veroufakis's "Adults in the Room" on how the democratic deficit resulted in undemocratic austerity being forced upon Greece, resulting in a humanitarian crisis. There is no comparison between the ECB and Greece and the Bank of England and Parliament.
A return to a European Economic Community, with additional, optional, further integration around freedom of movement, for those who want it, would benefit the citizens of Europe. I don't expect that to happen, however.
Right, I’ll quote it here for you:
“The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.
Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.
With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.”
The CECA was from the begining the first step towards “a United Europe”, however close that unification might be. They just realised that they needed gradual steps. You can disagree with the steps, their size, and their frequency, but the end goal was explicit from the beginning.
> The red line for the UK government is freedom of movement.
And the common agriculture policy. And the fisheries policy. And the customs union. And the human rights. And Ireland. The British government had a lot of incompatible red lines from the beginning. This was obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
> If the EU remained someething akin to ASEAN, ie. prior to Maastricht, the UK would rejoin, and everyone would enjoy sensible trading amongst similarly economically developed countries again.
That was a position (participation in the EEA but not the EU) the UK did not want to take. Besides, it was not even realistic in the first time. We are not in the 1980s anymore and Europe has changed quite a bit since then.
> The EU's dream of German and Greek citizens voting together as "EU citizens" in powerful European Parliament on fiscal issues such as a shared pension age and sharing taxes
That is not going to happen, at least in the foreseeable future, for several reasons. The first one being that the member states consider that their national sovereignty and they are the one pulling strings in the council. The Parliament cannot do that on its own, it’s just a convenient straw man.
> will never happen, so we have to wait until that folly is over and peoples using the Euro will continue to find out that they have ceded their democracies to undemocratic institutions.
More undemocratic than the Parliament in Westminster? You must be joking. And how accountable is the Bank of England? But yeah, rule Britannia.
Also, you forget that the British government pushed all the way along this drift towards a more neo-liberal, insulated from the whims of its populations, Europe.