The Student Room Group

The Remain Argument

I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:

On sovereignty: Hardly any EU laws affect the UK
On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them

On migration: We can protect our borders, we are not members of Schengen
On migration: All EU citizens have a right to come to the UK just as we have the right to go there, yes refugees will become EU citizens

On the eurozone: The Eurozone will succeed when it achieves political union and shares out the wealth fairly and is about to enter Stage 2 of political union
On the eurozone: The Eurozone will never operate as a single political union and so govern the EU

On defence: We need to be part of the EU so that we can stand up to the large countries such as Russia and guarantee the Baltic, Balkans and Ukraine. The EU Defence force is already being formed
On defence: Dont worry, the UK will never let the EU have an EU army.

The average Remain supporter has self contradictory arguments. Time and again they will say "It will never happen" and then give examples of how they want it to happen. Oh for an honest debate where the Remain supporter says "in 30 years we will be a political union in the EU, they will make nearly all the laws and we'll be spending Euros". Are they hoping to catch people out and make them vote for the EU when they do not really want to? How creepy.
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

The Leave Argument:

The EU is literally Hitler. Trillions of jihadis are on their way to the UK RIGHT NOW and all we can do to stop them is leave the EU. In 2 years we'll be part of the United States of Europe. Is this what our ancestors died for?!?!?!

On a more serious note, I don't really understand why "the EU might be a political union in 30 years" is a reason to leave the EU now. We could leave at any point. If we didn't want it to become a political union we could single-handedly prevent it. But you want to pre-emptively leave because of something that just might happen in 30 years.
Original post by JordanL_
The Leave Argument:

The EU is literally Hitler. Trillions of jihadis are on their way to the UK RIGHT NOW and all we can do to stop them is leave the EU. In 2 years we'll be part of the United States of Europe. Is this what our ancestors died for?!?!?!

On a more serious note, I don't really understand why "the EU might be a political union in 30 years" is a reason to leave the EU now. We could leave at any point. If we didn't want it to become a political union we could single-handedly prevent it. But you want to pre-emptively leave because of something that just might happen in 30 years.


I think you can look at this from another perspective. As each EU legislation passes into law, the EU is increasing its power and influence over its member states. Therefore it is only natural that its member states become increasingly integrated and dependent on the union over time.

Some people are worried that we will reach a 'point of no return' in the future when we can no longer have the option of leaving the union without major economic and social impacts. Right now there are already warnings of potential impact to the economy, and this is only going to be worse if we choose to delay the referendum.

There is no right or wrong answer and the logic behind this concern is not flawed. Which side to support will very much depend on one's judgement of the EU's current state and direction, and the implications upon leaving.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 3
What percentage is still undecided?
Reply 4
Original post by CherishFreedom
I think you can look at this from another perspective. As each EU legislation passes into law, the EU is increasing its power and influence over its member states. Therefore it is only natural that its member states become increasingly integrated and dependent on the union over time.

Some people are worried that we will reach a 'point of no return' in the future when we can no longer have the option of leaving the union without major economic and social impacts. Right now there are already warnings of potential impact to the economy, and this is only going to be worse if we choose to delay the referendum.

There is no right or wrong answer and the logic behind this concern is not flawed. Which side to support will very much depend on one's judgement of the EU's current state and direction, and the implications upon leaving.


Interesting.

From having discussed this on here and talked to people, the bottom line for many Leave people is simple - nationalistic. It's all about we want more freedom, we want to decide for ourselves, we want to control immigration, it's not even that the EU is too undemocratic, it's the fact that Britain just has too little a say in it. And I could go on.
Original post by newpersonage
I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:

On sovereignty: Hardly any EU laws affect the UK
On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them

On migration: We can protect our borders, we are not members of Schengen
On migration: All EU citizens have a right to come to the UK just as we have the right to go there, yes refugees will become EU citizens

On the eurozone: The Eurozone will succeed when it achieves political union and shares out the wealth fairly and is about to enter Stage 2 of political union
On the eurozone: The Eurozone will never operate as a single political union and so govern the EU

On defence: We need to be part of the EU so that we can stand up to the large countries such as Russia and guarantee the Baltic, Balkans and Ukraine. The EU Defence force is already being formed
On defence: Dont worry, the UK will never let the EU have an EU army.

The average Remain supporter has self contradictory arguments. Time and again they will say "It will never happen" and then give examples of how they want it to happen. Oh for an honest debate where the Remain supporter says "in 30 years we will be a political union in the EU, they will make nearly all the laws and we'll be spending Euros". Are they hoping to catch people out and make them vote for the EU when they do not really want to? How creepy.


Or (and it's painful having to point this out) people have different ideas as to what the EU should do/ be about- the same way that a ukipper's going to have a different idea of what should be done post brexit than say a Eurosceptic green voter. Christ alive you people have no concept of nuance.
Original post by newpersonage
I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:

On sovereignty: Hardly any EU laws affect the UK
On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them


???

No EU laws affect us.

Apart from these important ones?

Is this the strength of the remain argument out in full force?

Oh, I get it
(edited 7 years ago)
I've noticed that a lot of people who are unsure (especially those who are older) are more inclined to vote leave... I can't figure out why
Original post by inhuman
Interesting.

From having discussed this on here and talked to people, the bottom line for many Leave people is simple - nationalistic. It's all about we want more freedom, we want to decide for ourselves, we want to control immigration, it's not even that the EU is too undemocratic, it's the fact that Britain just has too little a say in it. And I could go on.


I've made the point a few times- essentially they think that the nation state is the end point of civilisation and anything outside that is heresy. Globalisation and environmental pressures are making this idea more and more absurd.


States should serve the interests of the people and not vice versa
Original post by inhuman
Interesting.

From having discussed this on here and talked to people, the bottom line for many Leave people is simple - nationalistic. It's all about we want more freedom, we want to decide for ourselves, we want to control immigration, it's not even that the EU is too undemocratic, it's the fact that Britain just has too little a say in it. And I could go on.


I don't think you can include so many areas under 1 umbrella like that. I would say concerns about immigration, trade regulations, membership contributions are completely separate from Nationalism.

It is true that the UK has the 2nd highest population per MEP figure in the EU of 875,289, whereas the average figure is 673,370. It will depend on your definition of 'democracy' to judge if this qualifies as democratic. To many people it is not.

With the utmost respect, I feel that branding these legitimate concerns under a term as abstract and idealistic as 'Nationalism' is somewhat of an attempt to degrade the argument of the Leave's side. I hope that we can agree that this is a personally judgement issue but there is no need to distort the opposition's arguments.
Reply 10
Original post by CherishFreedom
I don't think you can include so many areas under 1 umbrella like that. I would say concerns about immigration, trade regulations, membership contributions are completely separate from Nationalism.

It is true that the UK has the 2nd highest population per MEP figure in the EU of 875,289, whereas the average figure is 673,370. It will depend on your definition of 'democracy' to judge if this qualifies as democratic. To many people it is not.

With the utmost respect, I feel that branding these legitimate concerns under a term as abstract and idealistic as 'Nationalism' is somewhat of an attempt to degrade the argument of the Leave's side. I hope that we can agree that this is a personally judgement issue but there is no need to distort the opposition's arguments.


I said nationalistic. Not nationalism. I am well aware that that makes it sound, unfavorable.

I mean look at that guy who just posted the 10 arguments to leave. All started with "freedom to".
Original post by inhuman
I said nationalistic. Not nationalism. I am well aware that that makes it sound, unfavorable.

I mean look at that guy who just posted the 10 arguments to leave. All started with "freedom to".

What is the difference between Nationalism and Nationalistic by definition? They are the same.

Also what is wrong with freedom, and what exactly does it have to do with Nationalism?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 12
Original post by CherishFreedom
What is the difference between Nationalism and Nationalistic by definition? They are the same.

Also what is wrong with freedom, and what exactly does it have to do with Nationalism?


If you argue that leaving the EU is good because it gives your country more freedom to do what it wants, that implies you don't want to decide on things with other countries. You want to be independent from these other countries. Is that not nationalistic?

I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Just that's how it is.
Original post by inhuman
If you argue that leaving the EU is good because it gives your country more freedom to do what it wants, that implies you don't want to decide on things with other countries. You want to be independent from these other countries. Is that not nationalistic?

I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Just that's how it is.


I don't think not wanting to influence the politics, and not meddling with the business of other countries solely qualifies as Nationalistic. I think this is entirely reasonable, and naturally we have no rights to decide on what is best on another country. Nationalism implies a tendency to control a country's culture, ethnicity and beliefs, often using violent approaches given its history. Freedom implies the capacity to allow citizens to exercise their actions, ideas, beliefs and speeches freely without oppression under a rule of law decided by democratically elected representatives.

I don't think his intention is not to isolate the UK culturally and economically, but to free it from external influence on areas that should be reasonably excluded. He also clearly is not suggesting a violent approach. If you compare Freedom and Nationalism, you will find that they are on separate ends of the political spectrum. I think his beliefs are best described as Libertarianism.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 14
Original post by CherishFreedom
I don't think not wanting to influence the politics, and not meddling with the business of other countries solely qualifies as Nationalistic. I think this is entirely reasonable, and naturally we have no rights to decide on what is best on another country. Nationalism implies a tendency to control a country's culture, ethnicity and beliefs, often using violent approaches given its history. Freedom implies the capacity to allow citizens to exercise their actions, ideas, beliefs and speeches freely without oppression under a rule of law decided by democratically elected representatives.

I don't think his intention is not to isolate the UK culturally and economically, but to free it from external influence on areas that should be reasonably excluded. He also clearly is not suggesting a violent approach. If you compare Freedom and Nationalism, you will find that they are on separate ends of the political spectrum. I think his beliefs are best described as Libertarianism.


From Wikipedia:

"Nationalism is a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together. "

Maybe you have a different idea of what nationalistic means here?

I also disagree how you use freedom here. Yes what you said is true. But in general terms. Not when it is explicitly used as "if we leave the EU we have the freedom to".
Original post by inhuman
From Wikipedia:

"Nationalism is a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together. "

Maybe you have a different idea of what nationalistic means here?

I also disagree how you use freedom here. Yes what you said is true. But in general terms. Not when it is explicitly used as "if we leave the EU we have the freedom to".


I should clarify by 'a tendency to control a country's culture, ethnicity and beliefs, often using violent approaches given its history.', I mean controlling one's own country, not on other countries. I think my description of Nationalism matches the one on Wikipedia.

As I said, I don't think his intention is to isolate the UK culturally and economically, however I would ask him to expand on his points. There really isn't any other way for him to articulate his position other than '"if we leave the EU we have the freedom to...", because this is exactly what the Leave side is arguing for. You may disagree with their beliefs, and it's perfectly fine draw a line here.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:…


Seemingly you were not really paying attention.
Original post by CherishFreedom
Some people are worried that we will reach a 'point of no return' in the future when we can no longer have the option of leaving the union without major economic and social impacts. Right now there are already warnings of potential impact to the economy, and this is only going to be worse if we choose to delay the referendum.


I don't think it is really sensible to worry about things in the future and base your current decisions upon them - if there is no real method to forecast what the future may hold.

I also think that the tipping point where the UK will suffer from exit, economically and socially, has already past - it happened in 1973 when we joined. The whole purpose of joining was to improve the UK economy, and that's what membership has achieved. If the UK leaves the EU it will be damaged economically, and that damage will never be made up for.
Original post by M14B
What percentage is still undecided?


I saw a poll from a few days ago that said 20%.

The FT has a listing here of polls, undecided ranges from 4-21%. Most recent says 7%:

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
I don't think it is really sensible to worry about things in the future and base your current decisions upon them - if there is no real method to forecast what the future may hold.

I also think that the tipping point where the UK will suffer from exit, economically and socially, has already past - it happened in 1973 when we joined. The whole purpose of joining was to improve the UK economy, and that's what membership has achieved. If the UK leaves the EU it will be damaged economically, and that damage will never be made up for.


Then how do you propose one should plan for the future? I think for some people, they do not agree with the direction the EU is heading for whatever reason, and it has reached a point in which they feel they should act upon it. I think this is perfectly reasonable, and personal judgement is required in this situation given that there is no definite way to know what the outcome will be if we leave the union, or what the future of the EU will be like if we stay.

Quick Reply

Latest