The Student Room Group

EU referendum/Brexit 2016

Scroll to see replies

Original post by newpersonage
One of the principle effects of a chronic balance of payments deficit…


I think you are failing to understand the cause and effect here. The UK's balance of trade in manufacturing is in deficit because we have very little manufacturing. Successive governments have told us that we can rely upon a service economy, but that's only true if you're rich enough to have all your money in the City. So it's ok for some, but won't work for most.

Who started off this nonsense (and incidentally who signed us up to all of those nasty EU treaties you despise)? The Thatcherist Tories through the 1980/90s. They ran down the industry in this country, and/or failed to protect it. So now we have none.

This is not the fault of the EU, this is the fault of our own national governments.
Original post by typonaut
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.


The human rights argument is used to support the idea of global government but you did not say you supported global government, just a single government for the continent of Europe.

The acceptability of the human rights argument depends upon two points, the first is whether you believe in it and the second, more important point, is whether you think it is grounds for combining states. My own view is that the EEC was an organisation where the members all signed up to human rights but operated as independent, cooperating states. I think this is a much better option than the EU.

I would propose another human right that trumps the others. A right that was fundamental to the original UN Charter: Each Nation State has the right to govern its own economy and make its own laws without direct interference from other states and, because this right applies to multiple generations, no referendum shall remove this right without a 66% majority.
Original post by typonaut
I think you are failing to understand the cause and effect here. The UK's balance of trade in manufacturing is in deficit because we have very little manufacturing. Successive governments have told us that we can rely upon a service economy, but that's only true if you're rich enough to have all your money in the City. So it's ok for some, but won't work for most.

Who started off this nonsense (and incidentally who signed us up to all of those nasty EU treaties you despise)? The Thatcherist Tories through the 1980/90s. They ran down the industry in this country, and/or failed to protect it. So now we have none.

This is not the fault of the EU, this is the fault of our own national governments.

Manufacturing employment fell dramatically under Thatcher but manufacturing total output (in £s) reached a steady peak level in the early 1990s. It has been falling as a percent of GDP ever since Maastricht.

euimbalance.png
Notice that the fall was most intense after 1997.

BTW I am not a Tory or UKIP, but I am anti-EU. It is a big step too far and a mistake.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
The human rights argument is used to support the idea of global government but you did not say you supported global government, just a single government for the continent of Europe.


I never wrote that either. I believe that "ever closer union" is the reality of the situation, because that is what is required for greater economic integration. I also believe that "ever closer union" is actually the reality globally, because commerce and politics are more intertwined than they have ever been, and that process will continue.

The acceptability of the human rights argument depends upon two points, the first is whether you believe in it and the second, more important point, is whether you think it is grounds for combining states. My own view is that the EEC was an organisation where the members all signed up to human rights but operated as independent, cooperating states. I think this is a much better option than the EU.


I don't recognise this argument at all and I don't really have a clue why a human rights argument means combining states - these are daydreams in your own head. I also don't recognise the human rights element in the EEC/EC/EU treaties prior to Lisbon, so perhaps you can elucidate.

I would propose another human right that trumps the others. A right that was fundamental to the original UN Charter: Each Nation State has the right to govern its own economy and make its own laws without direct interference from other states and, because this right applies to multiple generations, no referendum shall remove this right without a 66% majority.


Every nation has the right to govern its own economy. It starts giving-up that right when it allows trade with other states and signs treaties with them. This is the fundamental thing you seem not to understand, all international trade and treaties indicate a loss of sovereignty. You think that a free trade agreement would solve all our problems, but it just puts us in a worse position with less power.

As to the majority vote... in the 1975 EC referendum 67% of the votes cast voted to remain in the EC (and its successors).
Original post by newpersonage
Manufacturing employment fell dramatically under Thatcher but manufacturing total output (in £s) reached a steady peak level in the early 1990s. It has been falling as a percent of GDP ever since Maastricht.


That chart shows balance of trade, not output.
Original post by typonaut
I don't recognise this argument at all and I don't really have a clue why a human rights argument means combining states - these are daydreams in your own head. I also don't recognise the human rights element in the EEC/EC/EU treaties prior to Lisbon, so perhaps you can elucidate.


My point was indeed that human rights have nothing to do with combining states, even though the concept of human rights is used in this context. The member states of the EEC were all signed up to the ECHR before Maastricht but this was not a condition of EEC membership, mutual respect for human rights did not imply Union.

...This is the fundamental thing you seem not to understand, all international trade and treaties indicate a loss of sovereignty. You think that a free trade agreement would solve all our problems, but it just puts us in a worse position with less power.


What is sovereignty? It is the ability of a government to make its own laws and regulations regarding its own people and land. A Free Trade Agreement is about the tariffs and degree of direct assistance and type of obstacles that a government applies to exported and imported goods to and from another country. A Free Trade Agreement does not mean loss of sovereignty at all.

The EU reaches into every area of government over the people and land. In fact the EU can assume competence for almost any area of government.

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

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:

The Treaties as amended by Lisbon define the following areas as controlled by the EU but with authority delegated to member states if the EU so desires. This includes almost every aspect of government:

a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological
resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

(Quoted from Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, TITLE 1: Categories and Areas of Union Competence. Article 4. ).

The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States’ social
policies.

The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or
supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at
European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
That chart shows balance of trade, not output.


My point that manufacturing output reached a stable level in the nineties onwards is well known:



The important feature of manufacturing is that it has a constant value and is not growing along with the rest of the economy and has not done so since Maastricht. The growth in consumption of manufactures is satisfied by imports, particularly from the EU, especially Germany (not just China).
(edited 8 years ago)
Hi Everyone,

This has been a really interesting conversation thread to read.

Many of the comments that have been posted would be suitable for submitting to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into the Costs and benefits of EU membership for the UK's role in the world.

The Committee want to hear the public's thoughts on any of the following points:

Whether and how EU collective action helps or hinders the UK in achieving its key foreign policy objectives and/or adds value to UK foreign policy

Whether the EU’s priorities for its common foreign policy align or conflict with the UK's foreign policy goals, and how influential the FCO and UK Government are in directing EU common action

How the UK’s standing in multilateral organisations (e.g. the UN, NATO, OSCE and WTO) might change if it were to leave the EU

The impact, if any, that leaving the EU would have on the UK's foreign relations including, but not limited to, the transatlantic relationship, the Commonwealth, and relations with the BRIC countries

The extent to which the UK could continue to participate in EU collective action on an ad-hoc basis if it left the EU, and the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach

The international legal implications of a UK exit from the EU, including the scope and cost of renegotiating the international treaties to which the UK is a signatory as an EU member state (including the likelihood of securing favourable terms in such negotiations)

The foreign policy implications of any changes to trade treaties resulting from a UK withdrawal from the EU

The impact on other EU states and EU institutions of UK withdrawal from the EU

The implications of leaving the EU for the Union (that is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and their foreign policy consequences

This is a chance for you to get involved in the work of Parliament and help the Committee scrutinise the work of the Government.

Thanks
Original post by newpersonage
My point was indeed that human rights have nothing to do with combining states, even though the concept of human rights is used in this context. The member states of the EEC were all signed up to the ECHR before Maastricht but this was not a condition of EEC membership, mutual respect for human rights did not imply Union.

This is a totally irrelevant observation. There was no link between the ECHR and joining the EEC/EC/EU, and many member states were signatories to the ECHR many years prior to joining the EU. I have never seen any "joining states" argument that is supported through a human rights element. I think you are finding one plus one equals 15.

What is sovereignty? It is the ability of a government to make its own laws and regulations regarding its own people and land. A Free Trade Agreement is about the tariffs and degree of direct assistance and type of obstacles that a government applies to exported and imported goods to and from another country. A Free Trade Agreement does not mean loss of sovereignty at all.


You are merely repeating the same points over and over without putting forward any substantive argument. You are also failing to recognise my central point here that any treaty agreement implies loss of sovereignty - whether that is signing the EU treaties, signing a free trade agreement with the EU or some other combination of obligations.

You don't seem to comprehend the issue here, so I won't pursue it any further with you.
Original post by newpersonage
My point that manufacturing output reached a stable level in the nineties onwards is well known:

Again you are taking one plus one and finding 15. The Maastricht treaty was signed in 1992 and came into force in 1993. What this chart shows is strong growth immediately after Maastricht, which slows to no growth since the early 2000s. So 10 years of so after Maastricht you are claiming that there is an affect!?

What this chart also shows is that you can take many different 10-15 year periods that show no growth, or a reduction in output. I believe you are just looking at this over too short a time scale to make any real sense.

You keep making claims about the balance of payments with various states, but you don't seem to be able to substantiate these with actual data.
I established above that the EU has a huge impact on sovereignty and that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) do not. There is an example of a Free Trade Agreement that removes pretty well all tariff barriers between the EU and South Korea at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148303.pdf This deals entirely with the obligations of exporters to the EU and has little effect on the rest of South Korean life.

FTAs do not relinquish sovereignty but the EU Treaties do relinquish sovereignty.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Official House of Commons
Hi Everyone,


This has been a really interesting conversation thread to read.

Many of the comments that have been posted would be suitable for submitting to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into the Costs and benefits of EU membership for the UK's role in the world.

The Committee want to hear the public's thoughts on any of the following points:

Whether and how EU collective action helps or hinders the UK in achieving its key foreign policy objectives and/or adds value to UK foreign policy

In cases such as the Russian or Iranian sanctions i do believe that the EU is capable of enhancing our foreign policy objectives. The caveats here are that EU governance is weak (Greece and Hungary engage with Russia) and that in many instances our goals do not allign.

Whether the EU’s priorities for its common foreign policy align or conflict with the UK's foreign policy goals, and how influential the FCO and UK Government are in directing EU common action

I would say that while we have strong allies (France, Poland) the EU as a whole has a different set of priorities and all too often there are too many states who shirk responsibility or like Germany, refuse to do what they could.

Our ability to direct action is weak.

How the UK’s standing in multilateral organisations (e.g. the UN, NATO, OSCE and WTO) might change if it were to leave the EU

Our position in the UN i believe would be weakened somewhat, especially if the EU continues to integrate.
Our position within NATO is weakening however that is because of a government unwilling to spend substantive amounts on defense, not the EU.
Our position within the WTO would likely be stronger. We could still align with the EU at times but we could also peruse our own goals.
Our position within the OSCE would likely be weaker.

The impact, if any, that leaving the EU would have on the UK's foreign relations including, but not limited to, the transatlantic relationship, the Commonwealth, and relations with the BRIC countries

Our relations with the rest of the world would not be significantly enhanced or damaged with an EU exit.

The extent to which the UK could continue to participate in EU collective action on an ad-hoc basis if it left the EU, and the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach

I believe it to be unlikely that the EU would refuse cooperation on a mirade of issues and therefore i see no downside to this except on issues where our priorities differ.

The international legal implications of a UK exit from the EU, including the scope and cost of renegotiating the international treaties to which the UK is a signatory as an EU member state (including the likelihood of securing favourable terms in such negotiations)

While i believe that the UK should in theory have a weaker negotiating position, i have in the past seen evidence which suggested that other nations had gotten more comprehensive trade agreements for example than the EU. This may suggest that the EU is not using all the leverage it can.

The foreign policy implications of any changes to trade treaties resulting from a UK withdrawal from the EU

I think it unlikely that our foreign policy would be significantly different with an EU exit, especially given our allegiance to the US already.

The impact on other EU states and EU institutions of UK withdrawal from the EU

Minimal - I believe that the economies which favour the market over government may be weakened somewhat by the withdrawal of an ally (Germany, Austria, Netherlands) however i believe that the EU will cope fine without us.

The implications of leaving the EU for the Union (that is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and their foreign policy consequences

While i see little threat of Wales or Northern Ireland being rallied against the union because of this, the timing in Scotland is unfortunate and this will be another blow for the chances of sustaining our union.

This is a chance for you to get involved in the work of Parliament and help the Committee scrutinise the work of the Government.
I'm all for the EU but considering recent events and how the migrant crisis has transpired and the disorganisation of the EU response, is there any benefit in us being the EU when it comes to strategic responses?

Anti EU sentiment has been growing steadily in the UK and the migrant crisis has done nothing to curb it

Can anyone see any other result than the UK leaving the EU?
(edited 8 years ago)
Maybe, though it'll also depend if the migrant crisis is still in the news in 2017 (when the referendum is expected to take place). People don't seem to care about something unless it's actively being reported.
Original post by SHallowvale
Maybe, though it'll also depend if the migrant crisis is still in the news in 2017 (when the referendum is expected to take place). People don't seem to care about something unless it's actively being reported.


Yeah that's true but this issue is unlikely to stop in time as the migrants/refugee numbers keep on increasing and im sure it'll be a big talking point when the referendum takes place.
Original post by A level sufferer
I'm all for the EU but considering recent events and how the migrant crisis has transpired and the disorganisation of the EU response, is there any benefit in us being the EU when it comes to strategic responses?

Anti EU sentiment has been growing steadily in the UK and the migrant crisis has done nothing to curb it

Can anyone see any other result than the UK leaving the EU?


Are you serious? I will vote to leave but am well aware people will choose to stay. People are scared of change. They will choose the current system as opposed to verging into the unknown.

We have 11 million Tories who will sing Cameron's tune and vote for the EU. Cameron is pro EU through and through, his voters will lick his *** if he asked them to. Then we have 4 million Plaid/SNP/Green/Liberal voters who will vote to stay. Then we have around 5 million Lavour voters who will vote to stay. The remaining Labour voters will jump between UKIP and Labour.

The project fear tactic will be employed by the Tories and the tory sheep will listen. Sadly they hold the balance of winning or losing the referendum but they lack the brain cells to make their own decision.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The Donut Maker
Are you serious? I will vote to leave but am well aware people will choose to stay. People are scared of change. They will choose the current system as opposed to verging into the unknown.

We have 11 million Tories who will sing Cameron's tune and vote for the EU. Cameron is pro EU through and through, his voters will lick his *** if he asked them to. Then we have 4 million Plaid/SNP/Green/Liberal voters who will vote to stay. Then we have around 5 million Lavour voters who will vote to stay. The remaining Labour voters will jump between UKIP and Labour.

The project fear tactic will be employed by the Tories and the tory sheep will listen. Sadly they hold the balance of winning or losing the referendum but they lack the brain cells to make their own decision.


Perhaps i wasnt clear in my statement, I am for the EU and would like to stay but all the media attention that has been 'spewed out' recently has all been in negative light of the EU, Migrant crisis, Merkel being a dictator over europe, greece's woes etc. All those crises have been (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the EU.

I think the electorate sometimes focuses on these issues and just goes with the media flow just like they did with Ed vs David for example. It was a massive irrelevant digression yet was a basis for him not being a good leader in some peoples eyes.
No I can see no other outcome. We are going to leave the EU.
Original post by william walker
No I can see no other outcome. We are going to leave the EU.


Not happening.
Original post by United1892
Not happening.


It is either we leave. Or the EU breaks apart and we leave. Either way we will be out of it. Finally and thank the Lord.

Quick Reply

Latest