Can the UK reform the EU from within?

[SpringingIntoAction]

On Newsnight this evening Kirtsy Long asked Shadow Chancellor and Labour MP John O'Donnell why he wanted to follow the recommendations of bankers Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, to stay in the EU.

He replied that he thought there was a lot wrong with the EU but felt we had to remain in the EU to reform it from within.

Didn't Cameron try that and fail?

Is the EU actually capable of reform and is the UK capable of bringing about reform of the EU by staying in the EU?

Maybe part of a superstate is the best way for UK to be protected. Lots of scariness out there.

...said the EU has become "so complicated, so secretive, so impenetrable that it's way beyond the ability of any British government to make it work to our advantage".

Echoes my thoughts. The EU's a huge, unwieldy one-size-fits-all leviathan. With some distinctly dodgy behind-the-scenes stuff going on. Gradually taking over more and more of our lives. I don't think being part of a superstate makes sense for anything.

But does "Ever closer union" mean one massive, federal superstate? I don't know of a single EU nation that wants that. It's certainly not recognised as a stated aim of the EU today.

gastropod, if you Google 'the Five President's Report's you can see the aim is quite clearly explained. It is the creation of a ‘genuine Economic Union’, a ‘Financial Union’, a ‘Fiscal Union’ and a ‘Political Union’ by 2025. It has always been the intention to replace nations with a supranational power.

I don't disagree that they EU has long pushed for closer union. However, I don't agree that the term Union = 1 superstate, that's all.

Well, I don't take "ever-closer union" to mean anything other than one superstate.

What structure do you think the EU is aiming for?

Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the EU said in 1952:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Sums it up to me.

Apparently there is not much solid evidence that Monnet ever said that.

But even if he did say it (over 60 years ago) the political climate in post-war Europe in the 50s was very different from today's. The ECSC can't really be compared to today's EU. The structure, members and institutions have changed significantly.

Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the EU said in 1952:

The quote is fake, fabricated in the 1970s by a British newspaper

How about some quotes from EU Commission President Juncker?

"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."

In what way do those suggest a reformable, open, democratic EU?

I believe British energy would be far better rewarded if we leave the EU and concentrate on getting things right in our own country without interference and the frustration of trying to reform the unreformable EU.

it's Groundshog day, we've had this exact conversation before -

a Brexiter pulled out the fake Monnet quote, it was pointed out to them that it was fake, so they brought in Juncker instead, so someone else pointed out how the new quotes were out of context...

rinse, repeat

by the way Juncker was elected by democratically-elected representatives, if Europeans don't like him they can lobby their MEPs to get rid of him (or actually vote in the next European elections). That's how democracy works.

I think the quotes are similar in meaning even when surrounded by their context. Anyone who wants the greater context around Juncker's quotes can click on the link I gave.

The same questions come up on different threads, by different people who may not have read the other threads, so I think are worth answering.

Cameron didn't want Juncker to become EU president; look how much difference that made...

Juncker is wrong person for European commission job, says David Cameron

"I will tell you why it is so important. The European elections showed that there is huge disquiet about the way the EU works and yet the response, I believe, is going to be wrong on two grounds. Wrong on the grounds of principle: it is not right for the elected heads of government of the European countries to give up their right to nominate the head of the European commission – the most important role in Europe. That is a bad principle."

"And it is the wrong person. Jean-Claude Juncker has been at the heart of the project to increase the power of Brussels and reduce the power of nation states for his entire working life. He is not the right person to take this organisation forward. So, I am very clear about the right thing to do."

The EU leaders voted 26-2 to nominate Juncker, and he was then elected by a majority of MEPs.

Think what you will about Juncker as a person (and I'm certainly no fan of his), but he was elected democratically.

Mumsnet questions to which the answer is: NO

Can you back this up with any evidence?

It doesn't tally with my understanding of what the EU is working towards

I'd be interested to know what you think the EU is working towards?

Stability, prosperity, growth.

Stability, prosperity, growth.

Someone needs to tell Angela Merkel. Her open borders policy has done plenty to undermine all three of these in the last year.

Can the UK reform the EU from within?
No