[joe_mamba]

>The EU was always designed to be an "ever closer union".

Wow, isn't it convenient that such a vague all-encompassing paper from the past that you never voted for, can be used a justification for anything being done to you today?

What are the boundaries for that "ever closer union"? At which point it it just close enough? Or is it open ended? Would you sign an open ended contract with the bank? That wouldn't be legal.

>It's literally in the Treaty of Rome from 1957 (!)

How many Europeans alive today voted for that in 1957? Were they aware when they signed it of what it would lead to or were they duped into signing something so vague and all-encompassing that will be used to do anything against them in the future?

>This is explicitly what was signed up for.

That's the problem, it's vague and not explicit at all.

> This was always the goal.

Really? In 1957 people back then already knew that in the future they would cede their national sovereignty to a unelected bureaucrat in Brussels who would make decisions against their nation's best interest?

>It is specifically what everyone signed on to.

Who exactly is that "everyone"? I never voted for this. Neither did my parents.

[vrganj]

There's no boundaries to "ever closer union". That's what ever closer means, definitionally.

Nobody was duped into anything, countries exercised their sovereignty to come to an agreement.

The rest of your concerns is just how literally any legislation and treaty ever works. When did you sign on to your country's constitution? What about the treaty of Bern establishing the Universal Postal Union in 1874?

Key concept here is legal succession.

[joe_mamba]

>There's no boundaries to "ever closer union".

Ok, but you haven't told me what exactly the end goal of that "ever closer union" is. Aren't we already fully unified?

Nor have you disputed the vagueness of the "ever closer union" which is used to undemocratically bully countries in the union to do what unelected corrupt Brussels bureaucrats want them to do.

>Key concept here is legal succession.

Which is not set in stone.

[throwawayffffas]

> Aren't we already fully unified?

Clearly we are not fully unified. We still have 27 different budgets for example. We are still mostly borrowing as 27 different independent sovereigns for example.

> Ok, but you haven't told me what exactly the end goal of that "ever closer union" is.

That's what the legislative process of proposals, rejections and counter-proposals is all about figuring out what the end goal looks like, that's why we don't have an EU constitution and instead have the Treaty of Lisbon. The constitution was rejected in popular processes in France and the Netherlands withdrawn and an alternative proposal was made that actually made it into agreement.

You can frame that as they went around our back to do evil things. Or you know as a negotiation where both sides of an argument compromise. The key clue that this is a compromise between two sides is that no one is actually happy with the result.

[Idesmi]

To think that we almost decided on a common army in 1959… EU integration has slowed down massively since then.

[vrganj]

"Ever" can never be fulfilled. That's what the word means.