Good point. Foreign diplomats must be soiling themselves at the prospect of “sounding uneducated” in their dealings with this administration… 
I’m sorry, but the essence of Juncker’s was an expression of anger at Trumpian meddling. Call it “scolding”, “warning”, “indicating displeasure”, or whatever euphemism you prefer.
To be fair, though, I wasn’t too happy when Obama was making pro-Remain statements last spring. Trump’s remarks on Brexit go much further than Obama’s, however.
I went to UT Austin, so I know aaaaaall about that. I’d still take weird Austin over swampy Houston (where my brother lives) any day. Barton Springs FTW!
Thank you, this is basically what I was getting at with my OP.
Moreover, in relation to the USA, the current situation is even more ironic, since not only would the USA certainly strongly object to attempts to splinter off parts of its territory, in a statement of breathtaking scope and audacity, it has also asserted for the past two centuries that it wouldn’t tolerate European meddling anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, let alone its own national territory.
Well, except the US isn’t trying to ‘splinter off parts of its territory’ (unlike the Europeans who always had their thumb in the pie over here, especially when the Monroe Doctrine was written). So like the OP, this is an apples to bananas comparison. The EU certainly has some aspects of a government, and the sovereign nations that join it give up some of their sovereignty when they join…but they are still fully sovereign nations, and there is a mechanism for them to leave if they so choose. They aren’t synonymous with US states in any meaningful way.
That’s exactly what Trump was doing as candidate and continues to support doing as President. The UK is currently EU territory - in a few years it won’t be. This seems pretty clear to me.
Synonymous? No. Analogous, especially in light of historical trends toward centralization in both Europe and America? Certainly.
[QUOTE=Fuji]
That’s exactly what Trump was doing as candidate and continues to support doing as President. The UK is currently EU territory - in a few years it won’t be. This seems pretty clear to me.
[/QUOTE]
And seems equally clear to me that this isn’t the case. The UK is in no way part of the EU’s ‘territory’. It was a MEMBER of the EU, to be sure, but you seem to be taking that a few steps farther. All members of the EU are sovereign nations in their own right. They have their own militaries, which they general use in concert with organizations like NATO or the UN, not the EU. The EU also doesn’t create fiscal or set tax policy that each nation must abide by…those are functions set by each individual nation in the EU.
Also, the US isn’t carving off the UK for our own nefarious purposes…Trump, who is admittedly an idiot, is simply crowing about the UK getting out from under the EU’s thumb (from his perspective). It’s totally different. I realize there is a serious disconnect here between how you are seeing this and how I am, and I think it stems from the fact that you seem to think the EU is more than it is, and that the nations in the EU are more like states in the US. But they aren’t.
They aren’t analogous either, not unless you want to look at states as they were before the union in the US. The key difference is that of a supreme central federal power. The EU doesn’t have that. They can’t set tax or fiscal policy, don’t control a centralized military (the US government even has ultimate control over things like the National Guard and Reserves in the US…the EU doesn’t have any sort of control over, say, the UK’s military). There are more differences, of course, but those I think are the key ones wrt this debate. EU members are sovereign NATIONS, US states are, well, states. They certainly retain some powers, but the Federal Government is supreme and individual states in the US are part of one nation. Additionally, there IS no mechanism for a state to leave the US union, short of outright rebellion…and the one time a group of states tried that they pretty much lost the argument. The UK, on the other hand, had but to file the proper papers to start the process of leaving the EU, once their people voted on the issue…something the EU had no say over because in the end, the UK is a sovereign nation in it’s own right.
Hard to disagree with this interpretation. Though I do think Juncker hid some of the seriousness of his comments behind naming Texas as the state he would back for independence. Had he said California I believe the level of perceived seriousness of his comment/threat would have increased within the US administration.
Hell, Trump et al would probably be HAPPY if California wanted to secede. Not that there is any more realistic chance of that happening than Texas seceding, of course…no one with half a brain is going to take it seriously or perceive it as a threat…
Er…well, on further reflection, Trump and his merry men MIGHT react badly after all. 
A claim entirely disproved by the fact that when Obama dared to comment on the Brexit referendum last year the Leave campaign went into loud conniptions.
I’m pretty sure the correct term is “trolling”. Juncker occasionally drops some decent bon mots for a guy with such a phenomenally dull job.
I thought it was entirely reasonable. The Leave campaign were actively claiming that the US would give the UK favourable trade deals (thanks to the “special relationship”) if the UK left the EU. Obama was perfectly entitled to point out that Nigel Farage doesn’t get to decide what kind of deals the US offers its trading partners. Farage, of course, immediately started spouting off about how foreign politicians shouldn’t meddle in domestic affairs… and then promptly went off to campaign for Donald Trump.
That’s all well and fine. Countries are part of any number of regional alliances. Belgium and Spain remain sovereign states. They maintain diplomatic relations with the United States as sovereign nations. If you to go 3300 Garfield Street, Washington, DC, you will find the embassy of the Kingdom of Belgium. When a new ambassador arrives from Belgium, he or she goes to the White House (or, God help us, Trump might make them go to his stupid club in Mar-A-Lago) and presents their credentials.
Idaho doesn’t do that. Idaho doesn’t have embassies and ambassadors and no one would take them seriously if they tried to, and the law forbids it. Were the governor of Idaho to enter into a treaty with a foreign government, she would be in violation of the Constitution.
The EU is a little bit more than just a “regional alliance”, given that it has a fully-fledged government of its own. And while the US can negotiate with individual members of the EU, any agreements made cannot violate EU law.
The EU is not a union of federated states, but neither is it a loosely-attached trading bloc.
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
The EU is a little bit more than just a “regional alliance”, given that it has a fully-fledged government of its own.
[/QUOTE]
Yet it can’t do many of the functions normally associated with a ‘fully-fledged government’. I agree it’s a bit more than just a trade alliance, but it’s short of a central government as well. The members are full sovereign nations able to set their own policies, even though they give up some aspects of their sovereignty when they join. But that’s really the key…they JOIN, and they can take back their full sovereignty any time by simply leaving the EU.
But US states can’t even do that. And, as noted, all a member of the EU has to do in order to negotiate a trade agreement that is in violation of EU law is…leave.
On the matter of trade you are correct…that’s what the EU originally was, and while it’s broadened, somewhat, its powers over time (or, more accurately, members have agreed to give more of their powers to the EU), at its core it’s a trade union. In this respect it’s similar to the US in that wrt internal trade and movement, citizens of a member (or state) have a freedom of movement without tariffs or restrictions.
The issue isn’t that the United States is different from the EU; we all agree that the US is a more tightly bound confederation of polities, especially after 1787 (and definitely after 1865). But to dismiss the EU as if it were in no way a governmental entity in its own right is wrong. It IS a governmental entity, and the people in Europe know that (see the post above from the Irish poster). So dismissing what Juncker did on the basis that the EU isn’t a government, or any sort of nation-state, is misleading. Dismissing it on the basis that Texas cannot legally secede from the Union is, of course, very accurate.
Yeah, “at its core it is a trade union” really downplays it too much. How many trade unions have general elections to send representatives to trade parliament? And while not much has happened on this front, the treaty includes article 42 which discusses common defense and security of member states- not many trade agreements touch on that subject.
That didn’t seem to be the OPs take, but I agree…except the part where you say the EU is nation-state…they aren’t. The EU certainly has many aspects that are government like, but until and unless they take the step of granting the EU the power to set tax and fiscal policy and control the individual nations who are members military, to have a federal police force (and several other things), they won’t be a true nation state. The key difference, wrt this discuss, is that the members are sovereign nations who have joined the EU and given up some aspects of their sovereignty as part of their membership. And have the choice to leave if they so choose and a mechanism to do so. They aren’t part of the ‘EU territory’ because the EU has no territory…it has members who are nation-states in their own right. Texas, however, IS part of the ‘US territory’. So, while I think Trump is an idiot on general purposes, and that the Brexit isn’t a great thing, ISTM that his comments about the UK or others leaving the EU isn’t the same as comments from Juncker about supporting a Texas secession movement or whatever.
So, you seem to be implying that the EU actually has no geographic territory at all? This is nonsensical.
:dubious: This comes as news to those of us in Ireland whose electoral options at the polls over the last decade of economic crisis and recovery were in fact severely constrained by EU rules and agencies.
Yeah, I guess there is a serious disconnect here. The exact nature of the structures of the European Union and their analogues in the USA are not of primary importance to me, and I think not to Mr. Juncker as well. What counts is that a foreign leader is encouraging the dissolution of a political entity that both myself and Mr. Juncker inhabit.
Wars have started over meddling like this. Of course, in the real world, the worst likely fall-out would be a trade war, not a shooting war, between the EU and the USA. But that’s still not good, either.
That’s why I mentioned historical trends towards centralization on both continents.
EU members are NOT fully sovereign nations, and never can be as long as they are EU members.
Secession was a regular topic of discussion in US history from 1787 to 1861. In hindsight, of course, it all appears inevitable that a tighter federal union would be formed, but that was far from evident at the time. Similarly, the future nature of Europe’s federal union is far from certain. It can certainly be argued that over the last 40 years, the EU has become powerful and centralized (necessarily at the expense of its member states). The trend may continue or reverse.
I won’t argue that his comments were unreasonable, or necessarily even inappropriate. But they left a sour taste in my mouth.
I look at it as a “spectrum of interference”, if you will, where the likes of Putin and his buddies at RT and the FSB are towards one end, and then you’ve got Obama’s Brexit comments lying towards the other. The Donald would, evidently, be much closer to Vlad’s side of the spectrum than Barry’s. I’d still prefer if Obama hadn’t spoken about it last year, but it’s not a big deal to me.
Does a country own its citizens or do its citizens own the country. If the citizens own the country I see nothing wrong with someone seeking to persuade them that one course of action is preferable over another. It doesn’t matter where the persuader is from.
[QUOTE=Fuji]
So, you seem to be implying that the EU actually has no geographic territory at all? This is nonsensical.
[/QUOTE]
Which specific parts of the UK are ‘EU territory’, IYHO? Maybe that’s the place to start on our mutual disconnect. If you have cites showing exactly what parts of the UK are controlled by the EU as sovereign territory that would be helpful. AFAIK, none of it is, but hell, I’m not claiming to be any sort of expert on the EU so I’m willing to learn.
Can you show me where fiscal and tax policy were dictated to Ireland by the EU? Again, afaik the EU can’t MAKE fiscal or tax policy…that’s up to individual nations, such as Ireland. Granted, there are some constraints in there…members have to abide by mutually accepted EU policy…but they can’t and don’t dictate these things to the member states. Or, perhaps I’m wrong. Feel free to show me.
Well, it should be of importance to both you and Mr. Juncker as it’s a distinction that makes a difference. Encouraging a member nation to leave a union that they voluntarily joined and have a mutually accepted mechanism to leave is different than encouraging a part of a sovereign nation to leave when there is no such mechanism. Not sure how Ireland works, exactly, but it would be like someone encouraging, say, Munster to secede and form its own nation. Assuming I understand how the provinces of Ireland work this would be roughly equivalent to someone encouraging Texas or California to secede from the US union. In the case of the US, at least, it’s not the same as the UK leaving the EU…and in no way, shape or form is it tantamount to war, while I’m thinking that encouraging an outright rebellion in another country kind of would be (if anyone took it seriously).
Again, AFAIK, the EU is not going towards this…I seriously doubt that any of the member nations would be willing to give up their sovereignty and accept a truly federal EU that can set tax and fiscal policy, assumes control of the various nations military arms for the common good, has a true federal police system, etc etc. The US, on the other hand, had pretty much done this wrt the states long before 1865, which was the original point I was responding too.
Let’s just cut to the chase. Cite? How are they not? In what way do you think they are not? Let’s just leave aside the apples to orangutans comparison to US states and focus on this. The UK, in your mind, is not a sovereign nation. Why? What do you base that on?
It was. And there was a question as to whether states COULD secede…a question that was finally settled in 1865. But long before that the states had given up most of their sovereign powers to a central federal government. This has yet to happen in the EU.
:dubious: That’s not the US history that I’m familiar with.