I support the death of the current EU (part 1)
Yeah, I said it. AND WOT?
K, Imma chill now. Basically, I am very surprised at the number of people that support the EU. It is an excellent example of how with the right amount of propaganda and scaremongering, governments or political groups can get a huge proportion of the public to support something that is actually bad overall for the nation(s).
As you'd already know by now, I am against the EU and I'll be creating a series of threads, explaining my opposition to it. Sometimes, I'll be criticising the EU from the perspective of the UK and at other times, I'll looking at it from the perspectives of other countries.
I admit that the EU has done a few good things which I will point out in later threads. One of those is the free trade agreement between the members of the EU, enabling fairer and a higher number of trades between the countries involved. But I believe that the cons of the EU outweigh the pros of the EU (many of which aren't very significant) overall.
But let's start with the first and one of the most important problems of the EU.
1) The cost
You know, if we're gonna spend around £7.4 billion (net) to be part of an economic and political group, I expect plenty of good benefits at the end of it. Wait, I didn't quite catch that. Did you say 7.4 billion pounds? 7.4 BILLION POUNDS?!?! Boy, u mad? Nah, I ain't mad, fam. The UK is currently paying around £7.4 billion to the EU. For real, bro. For real.
Of course, compared to what the gov't spends on other things in our economy, I admit that £7.4bn doesn't sound like much. But in these economic times, £7.4bn is big money and I expect good returns for that money. If we're not getting good returns, then surely we should just withdraw that money, leave the EU and spend that money in better areas.
Obviously I don't think we're getting good returns for £7.4bn, so I think it's a big waste of money. But we'll review the cost later after we've seen the pros and cons of the EU.
2) Not very democratic
One of my biggest beefs with the EU is that the leaders are not held accountable to their mistakes by the public. Hence not matter what big mistakes they make (which I'll point out in later threads), their jobs are safe as long as others in EU are backing them up and they follow their orders. I admit one of the problems with democracy is that if the general public aren't educated enough in economics to understand what is best for the country in the short term and long term, then democracy could backfire. They could end up being swayed easily by propaganda or people around them, instead of forming sound conclusions on economic matters from their own brain.
However, I'd say they deserve a chance. And it's better than those nobodies in upper levels of the EU being able to continue their gradual destruction of several EU countries because they cannot be voted out by the public for not doing their jobs properly. And the public should be able to vote for who would be the president for each EU department and have more of a say in the direction of the EU.
So...these are just the first two of my issues with the EU and I point out other issues in later threads. What are your opinions on the issue of democracy in the EU?
And please stay on topic (i.e. stick to discussing only the issue of democracy). We will discuss the other issues in later threads.
K, Imma chill now. Basically, I am very surprised at the number of people that support the EU. It is an excellent example of how with the right amount of propaganda and scaremongering, governments or political groups can get a huge proportion of the public to support something that is actually bad overall for the nation(s).
As you'd already know by now, I am against the EU and I'll be creating a series of threads, explaining my opposition to it. Sometimes, I'll be criticising the EU from the perspective of the UK and at other times, I'll looking at it from the perspectives of other countries.
I admit that the EU has done a few good things which I will point out in later threads. One of those is the free trade agreement between the members of the EU, enabling fairer and a higher number of trades between the countries involved. But I believe that the cons of the EU outweigh the pros of the EU (many of which aren't very significant) overall.
But let's start with the first and one of the most important problems of the EU.
1) The cost
You know, if we're gonna spend around £7.4 billion (net) to be part of an economic and political group, I expect plenty of good benefits at the end of it. Wait, I didn't quite catch that. Did you say 7.4 billion pounds? 7.4 BILLION POUNDS?!?! Boy, u mad? Nah, I ain't mad, fam. The UK is currently paying around £7.4 billion to the EU. For real, bro. For real.
Of course, compared to what the gov't spends on other things in our economy, I admit that £7.4bn doesn't sound like much. But in these economic times, £7.4bn is big money and I expect good returns for that money. If we're not getting good returns, then surely we should just withdraw that money, leave the EU and spend that money in better areas.
Obviously I don't think we're getting good returns for £7.4bn, so I think it's a big waste of money. But we'll review the cost later after we've seen the pros and cons of the EU.
2) Not very democratic
One of my biggest beefs with the EU is that the leaders are not held accountable to their mistakes by the public. Hence not matter what big mistakes they make (which I'll point out in later threads), their jobs are safe as long as others in EU are backing them up and they follow their orders. I admit one of the problems with democracy is that if the general public aren't educated enough in economics to understand what is best for the country in the short term and long term, then democracy could backfire. They could end up being swayed easily by propaganda or people around them, instead of forming sound conclusions on economic matters from their own brain.
However, I'd say they deserve a chance. And it's better than those nobodies in upper levels of the EU being able to continue their gradual destruction of several EU countries because they cannot be voted out by the public for not doing their jobs properly. And the public should be able to vote for who would be the president for each EU department and have more of a say in the direction of the EU.
So...these are just the first two of my issues with the EU and I point out other issues in later threads. What are your opinions on the issue of democracy in the EU?
And please stay on topic (i.e. stick to discussing only the issue of democracy). We will discuss the other issues in later threads.
(edited 11 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
1. How can you analyze the cost without benefit? If you want a serious discussion, you're going to have to analyze where all the money is going into and whether it should be going into there. Then, analyze whether the EU has been effective with it's aims for it's budget, factoring in the effects of external factors like financial crisis by measuring it's effectiveness pre-crisis.
2. This applies to the house of lords. Should the public have a chance at electing them? What is the average length of service for member of European parliament? If you want to state there's a problem, show it, instead of this "I'll get to it next thread" **** which is pretty pointless considering it's important to this thread. I don't see why you couldn't just wait until you wrote everything out then made a big thread on it. Do you realize that just because the public don't have official powers to sack someone they can still sack someone through mass-protesting?
Also, you talk about propaganda but that's just bull****. A YouGov poll recently showed that 33% support EU as opposed to 47% who oppose it. The big name Newspapers (Daily Mail - Guardian [although some highly rated pro-EU views] - The Sun - Telegraph) comment sections are filled with anti-EU comments and three of these Newspapers have a anti-EU stance. EU advocates have also called propaganda. If you call a Newspapers stance and people being influenced by these stance propaganda then there's definitely a anti-EU propaganda going on that's influencing a much larger proportion of society.
2. This applies to the house of lords. Should the public have a chance at electing them? What is the average length of service for member of European parliament? If you want to state there's a problem, show it, instead of this "I'll get to it next thread" **** which is pretty pointless considering it's important to this thread. I don't see why you couldn't just wait until you wrote everything out then made a big thread on it. Do you realize that just because the public don't have official powers to sack someone they can still sack someone through mass-protesting?
Also, you talk about propaganda but that's just bull****. A YouGov poll recently showed that 33% support EU as opposed to 47% who oppose it. The big name Newspapers (Daily Mail - Guardian [although some highly rated pro-EU views] - The Sun - Telegraph) comment sections are filled with anti-EU comments and three of these Newspapers have a anti-EU stance. EU advocates have also called propaganda. If you call a Newspapers stance and people being influenced by these stance propaganda then there's definitely a anti-EU propaganda going on that's influencing a much larger proportion of society.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
1. How can you analyze the cost without benefit? If you want a serious discussion, you're going to have to analyze where all the money is going into and whether it should be going into there. Then, analyze whether the EU has been effective with it's aims for it's budget, factoring in the effects of external factors like financial crisis by measuring it's effectiveness pre-crisis.
That's a fair point. I should only have brought up the cost after I discussed the benefits.
2. This applies to the house of lords. Should the public have a chance at electing them? What is the average length of service for member of European parliament? If you want to state there's a problem, show it, instead of this "I'll get to it next thread" **** which is pretty pointless considering it's important to this thread. I don't see why you couldn't just wait until you wrote everything out then made a big thread on it. Do you realize that just because the public don't have official powers to sack someone they can still sack someone through mass-protesting?
The house of lords don't have that big an impact on our lives and economy in comparison to the EU. The lords just check the bills and either approve them or ask the house of commons to reconsider on certain matters if they disagree with some bills. Whereas the EU actually impose laws and rules on all country members which can impact our economy/lives greatly.
Also, you talk about propaganda but that's just bull****. A YouGov poll recently showed that 33% support EU as opposed to 47% who oppose it. The big name Newspapers (Daily Mail - Guardian [although some highly rated pro-EU views] - The Sun - Telegraph) comment sections are filled with anti-EU comments and three of these Newspapers have a anti-EU stance. EU advocates have also called propaganda. If you call a Newspapers stance and people being influenced by these stance propaganda then there's definitely a anti-EU propaganda going on that's influencing a much larger proportion of society.
I expected the number of europhiles to be lower. I wasn't trying to insinuate that there were more europhiles than euroskeptics.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Also, you talk about propaganda but that's just bull****. A YouGov poll recently showed that 33% support EU as opposed to 47% who oppose it. The big name Newspapers (Daily Mail - Guardian [although some highly rated pro-EU views] - The Sun - Telegraph) comment sections are filled with anti-EU comments and three of these Newspapers have a anti-EU stance. EU advocates have also called propaganda. If you call a Newspapers stance and people being influenced by these stance propaganda then there's definitely a anti-EU propaganda going on that's influencing a much larger proportion of society.
You talk about Eurosceptic propaganda from the press. We should talk about the media in general and the BBC is where most get there news from, it is overwhelmingly biased in favour of the EU.
BBC, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, FT. All pro EU.
Original post by Cable
That's a fair point. I should only have brought up the cost after I discussed the benefits.
The house of lords don't have that big an impact on our lives and economy in comparison to the EU. The lords just check the bills and either approve them or ask the house of commons to reconsider on certain matters if they disagree with some bills. Whereas the EU actually impose laws and rules on all country members which can impact our economy/lives greatly. E.g. The EU are backing a quota for more women to be in the company boardrooms. This is positive discrimination and it contradicts what they supposed to be achieving (battle against sexism). Another example is our control of our borders.
I expected the number of europhiles to be lower. I wasn't trying to insinuate that there were more europhiles than euroskeptics.
The house of lords don't have that big an impact on our lives and economy in comparison to the EU. The lords just check the bills and either approve them or ask the house of commons to reconsider on certain matters if they disagree with some bills. Whereas the EU actually impose laws and rules on all country members which can impact our economy/lives greatly. E.g. The EU are backing a quota for more women to be in the company boardrooms. This is positive discrimination and it contradicts what they supposed to be achieving (battle against sexism). Another example is our control of our borders.
I expected the number of europhiles to be lower. I wasn't trying to insinuate that there were more europhiles than euroskeptics.
It's not like the EU were the only ones, Labour had that whole all-women shortlist so it's not some foreign idea that's been imported to Britain. It doesn't necessarily contradict that. Positive discrimination has been shown to alleviate inequality hence can, in fact, further the goal of battling against sexism. It does however contradict the principle of anti-sexist. But, then so does allowing female-only/male-only organizations like gyms, running events, sports, toliets, schools etc etc. Anyway, what's the average length of service? It's important because if it's only one or two terms then this could equally apply to any elected official. The public are easily swayed and won't have much control of the politician. Tony Blair got elected twice despite mass opposition from public to the war.
Yeah but if it's propaganda to watch X then be influenced by X's stance as the the huge proportion of who are europhiles do then the euroskeptics are also failing for even bigger and more successful propaganda.
Original post by ukip72
You talk about Eurosceptic propaganda from the press. We should talk about the media in general and the BBC is where most get there news from, it is overwhelmingly biased in favour of the EU.
BBC, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, FT. All pro EU.
BBC, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, FT. All pro EU.
Clearly not as good as propaganda as Eurosceptic considering the majority of the public oppose it.
Original post by ukip72
You talk about Eurosceptic propaganda from the press. We should talk about the media in general and the BBC is where most get there news from, it is overwhelmingly biased in favour of the EU.
BBC, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, FT. All pro EU.
BBC, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, FT. All pro EU.
I would actually love there to be a referendum on our continued membership of the EU just to see eurosceptic faces when they lose it.
Original post by Cable
The EU actually impose laws and rules on all country members which can impact our economy/lives greatly.
The stereotype (which I will assume for now is true) is that we slavishly implement each EU directive to the letter, while people like the French just blithely ignore them. This is because the EU isn't institutionalised enough that it can back up its legislation with meaningful sanctions.
It's also because the French can get away with it, they are heavily invested in the EU so they're the ones making the rules. Had we shown more enthusiasm in the early days of Europe, we could enjoy a position of power within the union, similar to France. Arguably, if we sought to integrate ourselves further in future, we could achieve this position, so ironically greater integration into the EU could lead to greater freedom to defy it.
This might be complete rubbish but just some ideas.
Original post by Llamageddon
Sometimes, when there is an overwhelming majority of educated elites against you, it's because what you're in favour of is wall to wall lunacy.
I would actually love there to be a referendum on our continued membership of the EU just to see eurosceptic faces when they lose it.
I would actually love there to be a referendum on our continued membership of the EU just to see eurosceptic faces when they lose it.
Well, I look forward to hearing your reasons for supporting the EU in my later threads. See you then.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Clearly not as good as propaganda as Eurosceptic considering the majority of the public oppose it.
Has it ever occurred to you that people are Eurosceptic because the EU is a pointless, wasteful, bureaucratic, expensive, anti democratic mess, not because they've been brainwashed?
Original post by Llamageddon
Sometimes, when there is an overwhelming majority of educated elites against you, it's because what you're in favour of is wall to wall lunacy.
I would actually love there to be a referendum on our continued membership of the EU just to see eurosceptic faces when they lose it.
I would actually love there to be a referendum on our continued membership of the EU just to see eurosceptic faces when they lose it.
What makes you believe we'd lose it?
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Anyway, what's the average length of service? It's important because if it's only one or two terms then this could equally apply to any elected official.
The average length is not very long. So yes, it's usually a term or two. But that's not what I really meant to be directing at in the OP. I should have expanded the democracy part of my OP to fully explain my views.
The point is that regardless of who is put in charge of the departments of EU, the goals change little. In a UK election, you have different MPs and parties promising different things to the public if they win the election. With the EU, no one gets that choice. And they don't get to vote in who would be president for whatever department. Surely if people are allowed to vote for the president/prime minister of their country, then they should also be allowed to vote for the president of a department of the EU? I don't think it's fair for the public to have little say on who runs things in the EU and how they run it.
For example, the common agricultural policy (CAP) was a disastrous move by the EU in the past. After coming under heavy criticism for it, there have been reforms to the policy. But the reforms haven't been good enough. They're still wasteful. What if the general public in the EU don't want the CAP? What if they want it scrapped?
You see? The public generally have no say in the direction of the EU and its goals. And remember that the rules/laws/policies from the EU may not benefit every country but instead, do damage to some countries. Can the public do anything about that? (Generally) no. Is that fair? I don't think so.
So it's not so much being able to vote out the leaders of the EU since they don't stay long anyway (although it's still quite important). But it's more the fact that the public don't have much influence on who's president in certain EU departments and don't have much say in the direction of the EU.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Arekkusu
The stereotype (which I will assume for now is true) is that we slavishly implement each EU directive to the letter, while people like the French just blithely ignore them. This is because the EU isn't institutionalised enough that it can back up its legislation with meaningful sanctions.
It's also because the French can get away with it, they are heavily invested in the EU so they're the ones making the rules. Had we shown more enthusiasm in the early days of Europe, we could enjoy a position of power within the union, similar to France. Arguably, if we sought to integrate ourselves further in future, we could achieve this position, so ironically greater integration into the EU could lead to greater freedom to defy it.
This might be complete rubbish but just some ideas.
It's also because the French can get away with it, they are heavily invested in the EU so they're the ones making the rules. Had we shown more enthusiasm in the early days of Europe, we could enjoy a position of power within the union, similar to France. Arguably, if we sought to integrate ourselves further in future, we could achieve this position, so ironically greater integration into the EU could lead to greater freedom to defy it.
This might be complete rubbish but just some ideas.
Get a grip, further integration will do nothing for the UK. Just because we have an awkward relationship with the EU that doesn't prevent us from ignoring absurd EU rulings as we should.
Original post by ukip72
What makes you believe we'd lose it?
I know lol. He clearly has no idea how many euroskeptics there are in the UK.
+1.
Original post by Cable
I know lol. He clearly has no idea how many euroskeptics there are in the UK.
+1.
+1.
Well that's Europhiles for you, deluded.
Original post by Arekkusu
The stereotype (which I will assume for now is true) is that we slavishly implement each EU directive to the letter, while people like the French just blithely ignore them. This is because the EU isn't institutionalised enough that it can back up its legislation with meaningful sanctions.
It's also because the French can get away with it, they are heavily invested in the EU so they're the ones making the rules. Had we shown more enthusiasm in the early days of Europe, we could enjoy a position of power within the union, similar to France. Arguably, if we sought to integrate ourselves further in future, we could achieve this position, so ironically greater integration into the EU could lead to greater freedom to defy it.
This might be complete rubbish but just some ideas.
It's also because the French can get away with it, they are heavily invested in the EU so they're the ones making the rules. Had we shown more enthusiasm in the early days of Europe, we could enjoy a position of power within the union, similar to France. Arguably, if we sought to integrate ourselves further in future, we could achieve this position, so ironically greater integration into the EU could lead to greater freedom to defy it.
This might be complete rubbish but just some ideas.
Could be true. But as ukip said, maybe we can ignore some of their rules without needing to integrate further. However, after my threads on the EU, further integration with the EU would be the last thing on our minds. We need to get the hell away from the EU (but maintain a free trade agreement).
Original post by Morgsie
The EU will never die, since the founding of the ECSC 62 years ago with the Schuman Declaration and the Treaty of Paris the EU has evolved and enlarged.
I admit reforms are needed but to say the EU will Die is preposterous
I admit reforms are needed but to say the EU will Die is preposterous
Not any more. A European state is being created, people must accept the country they know and (hopefully) love will cease to exist. The political problems of this means the EU could just disintegrate.
Original post by ukip72
Not any more. A European state is being created, people must accept the country they know and (hopefully) love will cease to exist. The political problems of this means the EU could just disintegrate.
European Federalism will happen but is a long way off. It is a way to compete internationally with the changes on the global stage.
Original post by Morgsie
European Federalism will happen but is a long way off. It is a way to compete internationally with the changes on the global stage.
Why can't European countries be competitive without being mere regions of a sovereign Europe? Lets not pretend the European project is about 'competing internationally', whatever the motivation behind it, it went too far years ago and frankly has become a bit sick.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Widowed - death of parent
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Student finance Oversight - ineligible Appeal
- Eligibility
- Eligibility for student finance if I was in the EU for a period of the last 3 years
- MSc loan by SFE
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Married to Brit with British Child, from Kenya originally, lived here 9 years
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Migrant loan 2023/2024 for 3rd year EU pre-settled student
- What do I need - I've a UK passport but live in EU
- Maintenance Loan
- Mature Student - Number of years eligible for Student Finance
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
- SFE loan
- LNAT Essay
- Supporting evidence
- maintenance loan
- From employed to self employed on migrant worker loan
- Dentistry in Georgia as a Muslim student
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 2 minutes ago
Failed 3rd year, had a gap year, repeat or stop?Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingLast reply 9 minutes ago
Student Finance for non-UK/EEA spouse of UK NationalLast reply 9 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 10 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
did bristol make a mistake in giving me a conditional offerLast reply 10 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 11 minutes ago
what is the 5 marker (practical question) of ocr as chemistry 2023 was onLast reply 15 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 16 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 20 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadTrending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
