The Student Room Group

EU referendum/Brexit 2016

Scroll to see replies

I ask you to give examples of racism promoted by the EU and you start talking about economics and regulation!?

Original post by newpersonage
One Economy, one law, one culture, one reich for all of Europe is the most obvious example. This single rule replaces the diversity of national governments. I know that the standard pro-EU response is to flatly deny that it is happening but consider the areas of government that the EU can assume "competence" over:

The following areas are under the exclusive control of the EU:


Well, for a start you are wrong, because the UK is not part of the eurozone, as other member states are not, and the UK is not part of Schengen, so we maintain control of our borders (as other member states do).

The essential reason for these areas of control, that the member states have agreed to, is to create a level playing field, to aid trade and commerce. If you do not have common regulation you cannot have proper competition. You want to promote a free trade agreement over membership of the EU - I have written that this would just mean adopting this regulation in other ways. You have not denied this.

customs union, the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy, common commercial policy.

It also has competence over Frontiers, Foreign Policy and Security.


The EU does not have competence in these areas, and in particular "security" is one of the many derogations open to member states if they wish to use them. ie France could enforce border controls for reasons of security.

From wind turbines on the Cheviots to the price of milk the EU is controlling our culture. Yes, it is cultural from the fact that the Cheviots will never look the same again to the British landscape being shorn or its dairy farms because no transitional arrangements were made by the EU.


If there are wind farms in the UK this is a matter for UK government and planners. While we are committed to EU targets for the reduction of carbon emissions it is up to the UK authorities to decide how to implement those cuts. I think most people support the reduction of greenhouse gasses. While this might spoil the view for a few people, I think a few windmills on the horizon is a better option than more nuclear power stations and global warming.

On the one hand you are arguing against the EU, and on the other you seem to be arguing for EU-based subsidies for UK dairy farmers. I can't really see the logic in this position.
Original post by typonaut
You have this entirely wrong. There is nothing in the word "tolerate" that implies "send in the drones". We absolutely should not tolerate behaviour that we find reprehensible, we should condemn it in the strongest terms:

Incarceration without trial
Discrimination against women
State-sanctioned executions
Exploitation of child labour
Discrimination of minorities

Are you seriously saying that we should "respect" such practices, because they are linked to "culture" and we should accept other people's culture? Your thinking goes completely against modern equal rights discourse.


And your thinking is bang on the centre line of Western secular extremism. You don't have all the answers about how to lead a good life. If we do not respect their right to have their own culture we are tyrants. As I said, we can make it known that we disagree with their cultural norms, we can even refuse to trade but otherwise it is essential that we respect their independence.

Your argument for monoculture in the world because you are convinced that a particular line of argument that has worked here should be applied everywhere is the old argument of imperialism and fanaticism.
Original post by newpersonage
No, I just provided a link to an article that argues persuasively that the UK gets no advantage from being in the EU.


You did not.

The EU has to also abide by the conditions of the FTA, its not a one-way street! We are already adopting all of those regulations and much much more so how is this a problem?


So, you are accepting that, within a free trade agreement, the UK would have to abide by the same, or similar regulation in order to gain access to the EU market? What then would be the advantage?

Original post by newpersonage
And your thinking is bang on the centre line of Western secular extremism. You don't have all the answers about how to lead a good life. If we do not respect their right to have their own culture we are tyrants. As I said, we can make it known that we disagree with their cultural norms, we can even refuse to trade but otherwise it is essential that we respect their independence.

Your argument for monoculture in the world because you are convinced that a particular line of argument that has worked here should be applied everywhere is the old argument of imperialism and fanaticism.


This is just such nonsense. I do not respect their cultures, if these include the elements I have listed above (plus others). I tolerate them, I don't say we should go to war over it, if they happen outside the UK. But if they happen in the UK then the full weight of the law should be used to stamp them out.

Who can say if the norms we have come to respect in the "west" are correct? No one, definitively. But we have come to this position over thousands of years of cultural interaction, and our laws reflect this. If we are wrong, then logical argument can be built to say that. But I don't think many people are putting forward those arguments?

What are the logical arguments for discriminating against women:

Men are stronger?
Women lack the moral strength?
Women are mentally deficient?

Please, tell me the ways in which this form of discrimination is logically supported?
Original post by typonaut

You are just deliberately ignoring the points that don't suit your argument.


Well, no. I have presented data that shows that our trading relationship with the EU is deeply in deficit and that with the rest of the world it is in surplus. Your answer to this problem: we should get even deeper into bed with the EU.

I can see that you truly believe this answer but it makes no sense. Just look at the latest Balance of Payments graph:


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bop/balance-of-payments/q1-2015/stb-balance-of-payments--quarter-1--jan-to-mar--2015.html#tab-Current-account-with-EU-and-non-EU-countries--Table-C-

The deficit is now over 25% of the total export value! Ever closer trade with this gaping black hole is an obvious mistake. You might say that "in principle" being part of a single currency and removing every "barrier" between the UK and EU will lead us to economic heaven but this flies in the face of the real data.
Original post by typonaut
This is just such nonsense. I do not respect their cultures, if these include the elements I have listed above (plus others). I tolerate them, I don't say we should go to war over it, if they happen outside the UK. But if they happen in the UK then the full weight of the law should be used to stamp them out.

Who can say if the norms we have come to respect in the "west" are correct? No one, definitively. But we have come to this position over thousands of years of cultural interaction, and our laws reflect this. If we are wrong, then logical argument can be built to say that. But I don't think many people are putting forward those arguments?

What are the logical arguments for discriminating against women:

Men are stronger?
Women lack the moral strength?
Women are mentally deficient?

Please, tell me the ways in which this form of discrimination is logically supported?


The point I am making is that you believe that you are absolutely in the right because of "thousands of years of cultural interaction" - sounds like an ISIS video.
Original post by newpersonage
Well, no. I have presented data that shows that our trading relationship with the EU is deeply in deficit and that with the rest of the world it is in surplus. Your answer to this problem: we should get even deeper into bed with the EU.


No, I don't doubt that there is a balance of trade deficit with the EU. So what?

On the other hand, you are trying to argue that by leaving the EU this balance of payments deficit with the remaining member states will improve (just because we are not longer in the EU). You have presented no evidence to that end, and I have pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument, with which you refuse to engage.
Original post by newpersonage
The point I am making is that you believe that you are absolutely in the right because of "thousands of years of cultural interaction" - sounds like an ISIS video.


Well, try reading what I have written. I don't say that we are absolutely right. But, I think with thousands of years of debate, free debate not constrained by absolute monarchs or gods, we're more likely to have the right answer than, for example, ISIS or Saudi Arabia.

So, I ask you again, what are the logical arguments for the forms of discrimination that you claim we should respect?
Original post by typonaut
Well, try reading what I have written. I don't say that we are absolutely right. But, I think with thousands of years of debate, free debate not constrained by absolute monarchs or gods, we're more likely to have the right answer than, for example, ISIS or Saudi Arabia.

So, I ask you again, what are the logical arguments for the forms of discrimination that you claim we should respect?


The Human Rights list of what a post-Christain population votes highest sounds like a good idea. Most tyrants begin with such a list and then they realise that this form of morality has no foundation. It is just a list. The tyrant thinks "so what if I just wipe out this rival and all their family?", and so it begins.....
Original post by newpersonage
The Human Rights list of what a post-Christain population votes highest sounds like a good idea. Most tyrants begin with such a list and then they realise that this form of morality has no foundation. It is just a list. The tyrant thinks "so what if I just wipe out this rival and all their family?", and so it begins.....


I'm sorry to say that your response makes no sense to me.

These fundamental rights that we have come to believe in are not just items on a list, they form the basis of our laws and international treaties.
Original post by typonaut
No, I don't doubt that there is a balance of trade deficit with the EU. So what?

On the other hand, you are trying to argue that by leaving the EU this balance of payments deficit with the remaining member states will improve (just because we are not longer in the EU). You have presented no evidence to that end, and I have pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument, with which you refuse to engage.


No, what I am saying is that you seem to agree with me that the current position is horrendous. Trade with the EU is endless deficit. Your solution seems to be more of the same or worse, greater union.
Original post by typonaut
I'm sorry to say that your response makes no sense to me.

These fundamental rights that we have come to believe in are not just items on a list, they form the basis of our laws and international treaties.


Why shouldn't someone just steal or kill? What is the foundation for morality? The human rights list is what a post-christian society has agreed as the objective of law but it has no moral or philosophical status.

A Muslim might look at the items for women on the list and just laugh.

How can you agitate for a global society when you can expound laws but have no idea of right and wrong? You sir, who live without any doubt, are a secular extremist.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
No, what I am saying is that you seem to agree with me that the current position is horrendous. Trade with the EU is endless deficit. Your solution seems to be more of the same or worse, greater union.


No, I am not agreeing with you on that point. I am saying that a deficit in one area can be made up for by a surplus in another. I would guess that if you broke the EU data down state by state you'd find that there were those we had surpluses and those we don't. I think greater union is inevitable, but that isn't the cure for a trade deficit, more investment, particularly in manufacturing, would help.
Original post by newpersonage
Why shouldn't someone just steal or kill? What is the foundation for morality? The human rights list is what a post-christian society has agreed as the objective of law but it has no moral or philosophical status.

A Muslim might look at the items for women on the list and just laugh.

How can you agitate for a global society when you can expound laws but have no idea of right and wrong? You sir, who live without any doubt, are a secular extremist.


You should really try to read what I write. I clearly wrote above that I was not certain, but it seems likely, that the fundamental freedoms we value in Europe are in fact universal. These freedoms are exactly based on morality and philosophy - that's how they were first discussed, and they later became encoded in law.

I take this view, because, on the whole, people are willing to adopt these measures - whatever their cultural background or ethnicity. I also think that it is true, that 100% of women, given the real freedom to choose, would adopt these fundamental freedoms. So the only thing preventing that is a male hegemony oppressing women.

At this point I think I have done as much as I can to counter the senseless arguments you make on this issue, so I will not respond to further points from you on this matter. I also believe that the issues you raise are outside the boundaries of this thread.
Original post by typonaut
No, I am not agreeing with you on that point. I am saying that a deficit in one area can be made up for by a surplus in another. I would guess that if you broke the EU data down state by state you'd find that there were those we had surpluses and those we don't. I think greater union is inevitable, but that isn't the cure for a trade deficit, more investment, particularly in manufacturing, would help.


One of the principle effects of a chronic balance of payments deficit is to imbalance the economy because it is usually a particular sector that constitutes the foreign trading loss. In the case of of UK trade with the EU it is manufacturing that is the loss maker:

euimbalance.png

Click on graph to enlarge. As you can see, post Maastricht there was a huge imbalance developed between sevices and manufacturing. Germany rigged Maastricht so that the social costs of a common currency were not shared, this meant it could use a currency that had a lower exchange rate than the Deutsch Mark and so be anomalously competitive. Much of the UK's manufacturing deficit is with Germany, not China.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
At this point I think I have done as much as I can to counter the senseless arguments you make on this issue, so I will not respond to further points from you on this matter. I also believe that the issues you raise are outside the boundaries of this thread.


It was you who introduced the "human rights argument" for global government. It has no foundation in moral philosophy and is what, at this time in the 21st century, western politicians think they will gain popularity by supporting.

Although you wish to drop it, the human rights argument is wheeled out over and over again to support the Internationalist cause - that everyone should accept a single moral order and hence a single government.

The "human rights argument" should be dropped because a world of diverse nations allows the continued development of society and economy whereas a single government will stultify us, it will become corrupt within decades or centuries and will oppress mankind for a millennium.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 76
Original post by newpersonage
And your thinking is bang on the centre line of Western secular extremism. You don't have all the answers about how to lead a good life. If we do not respect their right to have their own culture we are tyrants. As I said, we can make it known that we disagree with their cultural norms, we can even refuse to trade but otherwise it is essential that we respect their independence.

Your argument for monoculture in the world because you are convinced that a particular line of argument that has worked here should be applied everywhere is the old argument of imperialism and fanaticism.


I read once that the far left and right are either utopian idealists or utter moral relativists- I guess you'll be in the latter camp then.

'Western secular extremist' and proud- if you ever get tied up in the illegal shave trade, just remember that it is a cultural norm and you should respect it! Of course, I'm sure you're very safe behind your key board sprouting off your ludicrous views, I'm sure you can't stand the injustice of it!
Reply 77
Original post by newpersonage
It was you who introduced the "human rights argument" for global government. It has no foundation in moral philosophy and is what, at this time in the 21st century, western politicians think they will gain popularity by supporting.

Although you wish to drop it, the human rights argument is wheeled out over and over again to support the Internationalist cause - that everyone should accept a single moral order and hence a single government.

The "human rights argument" should be dropped because a world of diverse nations allows the continued development of society and economy whereas a single government will stultify us, it will become corrupt within decades or centuries and will oppress mankind for a millennium.


What do you mean by moral philosophy, or by that do you mean religious Philosophies? Batting in mind that most religious doctrines hold theirs to be the true faith- and that across the world there is a cultural foundation that reappears as The Golden Rule. In any case, there is a difference between a European Union and a world Union.

A world government at some point is al it's certainly inevitable- I'd rather have one based on European values of liberty building up on th success of the enlightenment.
Original post by Davij038
I read once that the far left and right are either utopian idealists or utter moral relativists- I guess you'll be in the latter camp then.

'Western secular extremist' and proud- if you ever get tied up in the illegal shave trade, just remember that it is a cultural norm and you should respect it! Of course, I'm sure you're very safe behind your key board sprouting off your ludicrous views, I'm sure you can't stand the injustice of it!


You have created a fallacious dichotomy between absolute moral relativist and secular extremist. There is an entire universe of intermediate views.

The belief that you are absolutely right In matters of moral philosophy has been, and is, the source of most major social catastrophes.

Just to recap a bit of philosophy, the absolute moral relativist can never be right because all views are equivalent, the secular extremists cannot be right because, if they think it through they will find that there is no moral content in nineteenth century materialism. This type of materialism construes the world as due to an endless succession of events where one thing presses on another to cause further action. Such mechanical events are entirely disconnected from moral purpose - or any meaningful purpose. In fact moral relativism is the logical end point of nineteenth century materialism - nothing matters and it is all equivalent. The Western secular extremist is just a materialist who hasnt understood the implications of materialism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
It was you who introduced the "human rights argument" for global government.


I have never made any argument for "global government".

My only argument on the human rights angle is that these concepts have been dissected through philosophy and adopted in law. It may be that they are not universally acceptable, but to those given the option they are far more acceptable than the alternatives.

Quick Reply

Latest