64% of TSR want to remain in the EU... share your vote
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hydeman
Which do you consider an existential risk to humanity, national sovereignty or workers' rights?
The absence of an international body with the capability of imposing legislation on countries significantly increases the risk of the catastrophic risks I listed above.
Original post by Hydeman
Which do you consider an existential risk to humanity, national sovereignty or workers' rights?
please dont tell me youre a pro leaver...
Original post by Plagioclase
The absence of an international body with the capability of imposing legislation on countries significantly increases the risk of the catastrophic risks I listed above.
I see. So am to take it that you don't credit the common Remain argument about an overnight loss (and non-replacement of) workers' (and other) rights that are currently guaranteed by EU legislation?
Original post by Senile Stranger
please dont tell me youre a pro leaver...
I'm undecided.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
I'm undecided.
How disappointing.
I am sure you will come to your senses eventually.
Original post by Hydeman
I see. So am to take it that you don't credit the common Remain argument about an overnight loss (and non-replacement of) workers' (and other) rights that are currently guaranteed by EU legislation?
If you're asking whether I think leaving the EU will be a catastrophe for workers' rights, probably not?
Original post by Senile Stranger
How disappointing.
I am sure you will come to your senses eventually.
I am sure you will come to your senses eventually.
Oof, mate, that was uncalled for. That's the attitude that will turn off a potential Remainer.
Original post by Senile Stranger
How disappointing.
I am sure you will come to your senses eventually.
I am sure you will come to your senses eventually.
You're giving a hostage to fortune there.
Original post by Plagioclase
If you're asking whether I think leaving the EU will be a catastrophe for workers' rights, probably not?
Ah. So that makes my earlier example slightly redundant, because you don't believe that commonly-espoused argument from the Remain side. Consider it a case of two mistaken caricatures.
Original post by gladders
Oof, mate, that was uncalled for. That's the attitude that will turn off a potential Remainer.
It's fine.
He's a friend of mine.(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by gladders
Oof, mate, that was uncalled for. That's the attitude that will turn off a potential Remainer.
Meh. He's not stupid enough to vote to leave, and if he does so just to spite me then the country deserves to suffer outside of the EU.
Original post by dannyscott7
It is a strong suggestion not a guaranteed fact. It's funny how youth unemployment throughout Europe is spiraling and over 40% in Spain, Italy and Greece but yet many young people in the UK think being in the EU is the best way forward. Thank god we never got the Euro. Much contradiction.
Poor poor argument.
The fact that these countries have such high youth unemployment rates is the best evidence that the EU does not have that big an influence as people make.
All these countries you mentioned are in this mess because their own governments failed them. Not the EU.
Original post by dannyscott7
I'm no expert but I just found this. Our farming industry is currently dying.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/uk-will-need-to-import-over-half-of-its-food-within-a-generation-farmers-warn
Say NFU? The same NFU telling us to stay in the EU? Errrmm...right okay.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36078112
Original post by dannyscott7
That's like saying is the tax I've paid going to do anything useful as it's already been sent to the Government. Don't want it even when you desperately need it. Can't believe your arguments. It's based on principle, it's like pissing money away. If we had a government that worked for us rather than lobbyists then we would already have left the EU and would be spending all this money on our own issues and not have a debt of 1.5 trillion
That's like saying is the tax I've paid going to do anything useful as it's already been sent to the Government. Don't want it even when you desperately need it. Can't believe your arguments. It's based on principle, it's like pissing money away. If we had a government that worked for us rather than lobbyists then we would already have left the EU and would be spending all this money on our own issues and not have a debt of 1.5 trillion
The point I was making is that Leave voters make a massive deal about the cost of the EU when in reality it's not that great an amount in the grand scheme of things.
Since when did people suddenly think that? Your making huge ridiculous assumptions. Both our government and the EU are corrupt and incompetent.
In other words you want to trade one lot of incompetent fools for another so that our incompetent fools have more money and power to be incompetent with? Sounds lovely.
See, the reason I made the sweeping assumption about people suddenly liking the government was that it made a heck of a lot more sense to me, really.
I'm not even sure why I'm taking somebody who claims anybody young with a different opinion to them is indoctrinated seriously...
As one would expect from joining a debate later, I am not completely aware of all that has been said, with some questionable things brought up that scream 'relevance?!' to me. So you can take this as a disclaimer if repetitions are made. In addition, I want to make it clear, that while my position is for a 'Brexit', I respect and recognise the views against it. Why? because I understand the benefits via my learning of EU law, but, all things considered (after weighing), I believe an exit is best
First of all, I must say that it is an excellent field of choice to work in, particularly since finance is one of the UK's greatest contributions at an international level (having led in the implementation/transition to the 'euro' despite not being a party to it). Being part of the Single Market allows the UK to be part of a vast market of which the UK is apart of, in virtue of our EU membership and! EU Competition laws causes big businesses to not disadvantage the other
HOWEVER! It is not beyond the UK's capabilities to address competition laws of their own in a 'Brexit' and! it is also possible to be part of the Single Market as a EFTA/EEA member. To reinforce this, the Bruges Group sent out a survey, highlighting what the difference will be and the result was - 71% would prefer to leave the EU and join the EFTA (http://www.brugesgroup.com/alternatives-to-the-eu/42-issues/alternatives-to-the-eu/61-71-said-they-would-prefer-britain-to-leave-the-eu-and-join-efta)
There is also the EU-US deal to look forward too, that will remove barriers to trade with the US and benefit big businesses BUT (i) a US study reveals it will bring financial instability & unemployment (http://nhap.org/new-report-says-ttip-will-bring-european-disintegration-unemployment-instability/), (ii) the European Commission admit the risks will come before the benefits, that the effect of TTIP will be 'prolonged and substantial' (http://ttip2016.eu/blog/ttip%20jobs.html), (iii) while SNP advocate EU membership, it is argued TTIP could damage Scotland's food industry (http://sceptical.scot/2016/01/ttip-could-damage-scotlands-food-industry/), (iv) also argued it can damage small businesses (http://businessagainstttip.org/sites/default/files/rough_trade_2016.pdf)
BUT! it is supported by the European Parliament so surely it's alright? Arguably BUT this is contrary to 2m Europeans petitioning against it (http://waronwant.org/media/meps-accused-%E2%80%98betraying-european-people%E2%80%99-ttip-vote) to allow courts specially designed to deal with business claims against a State when the State affects their profit (ruled illegal by German judges), leading to concern that corporate interest will be favoured over environment standards and consumer protection (https://euobserver.com/economic/132142)
ALSO it is noted that since the beginning of March, even British businesses are starting to waiver from their support in the EU, that would prefer to cut the EU red-tape (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/29/british-business-leaders-lose-resolve-to-stay-in-the-eu/) and NOW! the trade deal has been examined and found that the deal has 'lots of risks and no benefit' for the UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-uk-government-only-did-one-assessment-of-trade-deal-and-found-it-had-lots-of-risks-and-no-a6999646.html)
In addition! what about the EU's support of businesses? what about Tata? as Cameron admts that the protection of British steel was one of the policies the UK fought for and lost (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/659163/David-Cameron-ADMITS-Brussels-BLOCKED-bid-rescue-UK-steel?_ga=1.233909278.1681619402.1458079126)
BUT in a 'Brexit' and EFTA membership, we'd remain in the Single Market, we'd be able to look after our national interest/industries and avoid TTIP - I would vote to leave, upon weighing these considerations.
Under the system of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the people are sovereign, wherein they elect in a Government that acts on our behalf. The questions of corruption and competence can be left aside as far as the EU Membership debate is concerned BUT! the problem does arise when an elected Government acts in areas of policy that we know nothing about. On a domestic level, it wasn't too long ago, that our Government tried to sneak in a tax credit cut by the means of a Statutory Instrument, but it was blocked by the joint effort of the House of Lords and petitioning. This led to the Government kicking off how wrong it was for the House of Lords to interfere, which it would IF it was a 'bill' BUT it was not.
Did you know? that back in 2005, the UK signed the EU Constitution, but ultimately France and Holland rejected it for the Constitution to not go ahead. It is a relief that they did, as the Constitution reduces the power to 'veto', so it is quite ironic that the UK renegotiation pushed for a 'red card' to give more power to 'veto' XD though...we would not need a 'veto' if we had a right to refuse outside the EU.
To address the power given to Brussells, campaigners have argued that in 1975, we signed up to the 'Common Market'. Why? because that was the question on the referendum paper. It is a legitimate argument, though there was more to EU membership, which inc/ 'the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States' (http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/objectives_en.htm) where 'cohesion' means 'unity' and while we are part of the EU, we are moving closer to that unity (and sending more power over in that process).
Some may argue, what about the 'deal' as the UK are opting out of the 'ever closer union' BUT the 'deal' cannot be relied upon and that is why the 'deal' isn't heralded now as an argument for 'in' by even Cameron himself! Cameron promised treaty-change but Martin Schluz, the President of the European Parliament has said that is not going to happen (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/641461/EU-renegotiation-deal-David-Cameron-Brussels-Martin-Schulz-reversible) and while it is not in a treaty, the European Court of Justice are able to ignore it, as shown with the Danish 'deal' (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/196/attachments/original/1449856534/How_EU_judges_ignored_the_Danish_deal_79_times.pdf) which even reveals how our hold on our borders are not so controlled by us, when the Court can overrule us, concerning non-EU citizens.
I believe that is all the points raised here, except for the £1.5 trillion debt we have. Quite interestingly, a economist spoke out against MPs on Question Time, who worked out that the net savings from a 'Brexit' and taking account the economic multiplier of what we'd spend the savings on, would be able to fund and repay the national debt by 2030 (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/663365/Question-Time-audience-proves-Britain-UK-leave-Brexit-European-Union-back-envelope?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain) which! if accurate, would make a big difference
A. Britain can deal but only so much. Full-Fact reveals that while the EU is our largest exporter, the share is decreasing, while the share of exports outside the EU is increasing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv22aRdLjKY) so! it is possible for the UK to deal more if it left the EU and then traded with the EU, with the benefit of trade from the Commonwealth, or the Asia-Pacific Trade that grows 5x faster than the EU. As the UK grows and prospers, so will it be able to help the EU grow and prosper as a trading partner. As it stands now the UK is the country who the EU export most to (https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/)
A. Aside from trade, I do not say the British Parliament are unable to do anything BUT! while a member of the EU, the British Parliament have to transpose EU law into our law, regardless how they feel unless the law is a Directive BUT can well be challenged and cost the State/taxpayers even more money when taken to Court. Outside the EU, laws can be addressed purely on national interest and not be subject to 'interference', which the President of the European Commission admits, does happen (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547897/EU-lost-attractiveness-interferes-people-s-lives-admits-Brussels-chief.html)
B. Britain has a part to play in what the EU decides, yes. However, this depends on what exactly you mean by 'decides'. The three main institutions are the Council of Ministers (that can make some laws alone without MEPs, made up of a minister per state, with the minister in question depending on what issue/policy they address), the European Parliament (MEPs who discuss what policies they are given and must consent for a law to pass, or refuse to stop a law to pass) & the European Commission (minister per state by nomination, lead in policy and decide what course the EU will take, the body that creates the co-decided laws)
B. In terms of what happens in the European Parliament for the MEP's we send to represent us, it would perhaps interest you that a British MEP represents twice as many voters than the average EU MEP. Does it make any difference? No....BUT! I find it quite insightful to learn, that b/w 2009-2014, 576/1936 votes were opposed by British MEPs in the name of British interest, but 485/576 votes happen anyway (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11066802/How-British-MEPs-are-outvoted-time-and-again-in-Brussels.html) so in terms of influence for what is decided and if what is decided works for us? It's questionable.
I have been part of another discussion that has debated the issue of the EU, and the contrary seems to be the case, where older members support a vote to remain to prevent wars, so I would believe views are quite mixed. Immigration certainly is presented as an issue, to which open borders plays a part, though I would not support the notion that immigration is bad, when it does bring benefits as you have said. For me, I have had the benefit of two excellent law lecturers that have supported me, but the reason I highlight these particular two, is that they both come from Africa. So! the benefits of immigration can come from the EU or outside the EU, is the point I am making.
The NFU is campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU, but...this is contrary to 2/3 of farmers backing 'Brexit' (who face problems as a direct result of EU rules and regulations) and, ironically contrary to the NFU's own study that a 'Brexit' would recovery farm incomes (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/665784/EU-referendum-farmers-poll-Brexit), which makes it odd that NFU would support the opposite, so it'll be interesting if this view changes now...
As I previously mentioned above, corruption and competence is another matter entirely, as it would apply in a 'Brexit' or as part of EU membership. However, I value the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of Government, which is affected by EU membership when we cannot call the EU to account, as we can with our MPs. Our 'fools' can be incompetent as they like, but when push comes to shove, we can push for a resignation to happen, or campaign for a vote of no confidence. The 'fools' over in the EU can be as incompetent as they like and be incompetent as long as they like, to use your argument.
I would prefer power back in the people's belt, which ultimately is what is at stake. As previously stated, sovereign power is in the hands of the people, then come election day, sovereign power is given to the Government to exercise it, BUT! in 1973, some of that sovereign power to govern the UK was given to the EEC, and as the EEC expanded, more sovereign power was given to the EC/EU from each Treaty and would expect more when the next Treaty comes. Again as previously raised, it is the aim of the EU to achieve economic, social & territorial cohesion/union, so ultimately, the EU will be setup as the ultimate authority, with the UK being the equivalent to what the Scottish Parliament is now.
Furthermore, there is the question of how democratic the EU is. I previously mentioned how the European Court of Justice has treated the Danish, but just as bad is the EU ignoring the Dutch referendum with 2/3 voting against the EU-Ukraine deal (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/661195/Dutch-referendum-Brussels-ban-MPs-Ukraine-deal-Brexit-EU) BUT! Brussells has indicated it will happen anyway (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/659147/Dutch-referendum-EU-leaders-Ukraine-deal-Netherlands-no-vote-Juncker-Merkel-Hollande?_ga=1.233909278.1681619402.1458079126) with the possibility of the Dutch being told to vote again and get it right (sound similar to the Irish referendum when it came to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty). The referendum purely for appearance sake which has led to the Dutch arguing for Brexit (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/657883/EU-referendum-Brexit-Holland-vote-Britain-leave-Brussels?_ga=1.29043772.1681619402.1458079126), to not pass on the chance to get out and restore democracy.
So! incompetent fools in a huge trading bloc that can ignore you OR incompetent fools that would be given more power but liable/accountable to you - I choose the latter over the former, without question
I entirely sympathise and understand your position, which is shared among the populace. It was wrong of the Government to divide so soon. I personally, with common-sense policy, would have setup a cross-party committee (as they do when they make laws) to scrutinise the current position, to be able to present two solid options for us to choose from (inc/ presenting a united front for what the UK can do in a 'Brexit'). Afterwhich, sidelines can be drawn for which option they want to support and go from there.....
However...that is not the case, and I feel an apology should be given of what a mess it has turned into. Thankfully, independent fact-checking charities like Full-Fact, are doing their part to try and equalise the debate and help us to make an informed and well-considered response. While I may be occupied now with upcoming exams, this vote is very important to me, due to the effect it potentially has, to cause me to follow what is happening.As mentioned in my 'disclaimer', I understand the benefits of EU membership and can see why people would rather stay and let things be, even if there is a ? if the referendum will change anything, if the 'deal' will go through and if there will be another chance to change our minds if the next treaty asks for more power.
However, when it comes to a referendum during a Treaty, Ireland is a perfect example of how much pressure will be put on a State to make the right choice or vote again.I am thankful for what the EU has done for us as a nation, but believe it is taking a course that is difficult for us to follow. However, I by no means, believe we 'pull up the drawbridge' and have nothing to do with EU - that's just stupid. Over 50 years of EU membership has led to such a bond, that it should continue and can continue through EFTA/EEA, while pulling out of political union to have more control over our laws, our borders and be able to look after our businesses and our very own democracy.
I would submit that staying in the EU would be the easier option, because as I have recognised, EU membership does have its benefits and it would be easier to keep things as they are. I believe from both sides, there is a element of uncertainty. For 'Brexit', how the UK will be to re-enter the global stage. For EU Membership, if change/reform is even possible. To change/reform, I am not particularly sure if the UK renegotiation is anything to go off, if the EU will continue to steamroll on policies it wants to happen, regardless of public opposition, evident by the Dutch and mirroring also the effect of TTIP. I would rather place my bets on the abilities of what this country can achieve, then the restrictions of what this country cannot.
Original post by Trapz99
As someone looking to work in financial services, I think staying in the EU will be 100% the best choice for the economy and for British businesses. Vote to stay.
First of all, I must say that it is an excellent field of choice to work in, particularly since finance is one of the UK's greatest contributions at an international level (having led in the implementation/transition to the 'euro' despite not being a party to it). Being part of the Single Market allows the UK to be part of a vast market of which the UK is apart of, in virtue of our EU membership and! EU Competition laws causes big businesses to not disadvantage the other
HOWEVER! It is not beyond the UK's capabilities to address competition laws of their own in a 'Brexit' and! it is also possible to be part of the Single Market as a EFTA/EEA member. To reinforce this, the Bruges Group sent out a survey, highlighting what the difference will be and the result was - 71% would prefer to leave the EU and join the EFTA (http://www.brugesgroup.com/alternatives-to-the-eu/42-issues/alternatives-to-the-eu/61-71-said-they-would-prefer-britain-to-leave-the-eu-and-join-efta)
There is also the EU-US deal to look forward too, that will remove barriers to trade with the US and benefit big businesses BUT (i) a US study reveals it will bring financial instability & unemployment (http://nhap.org/new-report-says-ttip-will-bring-european-disintegration-unemployment-instability/), (ii) the European Commission admit the risks will come before the benefits, that the effect of TTIP will be 'prolonged and substantial' (http://ttip2016.eu/blog/ttip%20jobs.html), (iii) while SNP advocate EU membership, it is argued TTIP could damage Scotland's food industry (http://sceptical.scot/2016/01/ttip-could-damage-scotlands-food-industry/), (iv) also argued it can damage small businesses (http://businessagainstttip.org/sites/default/files/rough_trade_2016.pdf)
BUT! it is supported by the European Parliament so surely it's alright? Arguably BUT this is contrary to 2m Europeans petitioning against it (http://waronwant.org/media/meps-accused-%E2%80%98betraying-european-people%E2%80%99-ttip-vote) to allow courts specially designed to deal with business claims against a State when the State affects their profit (ruled illegal by German judges), leading to concern that corporate interest will be favoured over environment standards and consumer protection (https://euobserver.com/economic/132142)
ALSO it is noted that since the beginning of March, even British businesses are starting to waiver from their support in the EU, that would prefer to cut the EU red-tape (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/29/british-business-leaders-lose-resolve-to-stay-in-the-eu/) and NOW! the trade deal has been examined and found that the deal has 'lots of risks and no benefit' for the UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-uk-government-only-did-one-assessment-of-trade-deal-and-found-it-had-lots-of-risks-and-no-a6999646.html)
In addition! what about the EU's support of businesses? what about Tata? as Cameron admts that the protection of British steel was one of the policies the UK fought for and lost (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/659163/David-Cameron-ADMITS-Brussels-BLOCKED-bid-rescue-UK-steel?_ga=1.233909278.1681619402.1458079126)
BUT in a 'Brexit' and EFTA membership, we'd remain in the Single Market, we'd be able to look after our national interest/industries and avoid TTIP - I would vote to leave, upon weighing these considerations.
Original post by dannyscott7
If we had a government that worked for us rather than lobbyists then we would already have left the EU and would be spending all this money on our own issues and not have a debt of 1.5 trillion...Both our government and the EU are corrupt and incompetent. The fact is we are currently giving all our power away to the EU whilst paying billions for it.
Under the system of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the people are sovereign, wherein they elect in a Government that acts on our behalf. The questions of corruption and competence can be left aside as far as the EU Membership debate is concerned BUT! the problem does arise when an elected Government acts in areas of policy that we know nothing about. On a domestic level, it wasn't too long ago, that our Government tried to sneak in a tax credit cut by the means of a Statutory Instrument, but it was blocked by the joint effort of the House of Lords and petitioning. This led to the Government kicking off how wrong it was for the House of Lords to interfere, which it would IF it was a 'bill' BUT it was not.
Did you know? that back in 2005, the UK signed the EU Constitution, but ultimately France and Holland rejected it for the Constitution to not go ahead. It is a relief that they did, as the Constitution reduces the power to 'veto', so it is quite ironic that the UK renegotiation pushed for a 'red card' to give more power to 'veto' XD though...we would not need a 'veto' if we had a right to refuse outside the EU.
To address the power given to Brussells, campaigners have argued that in 1975, we signed up to the 'Common Market'. Why? because that was the question on the referendum paper. It is a legitimate argument, though there was more to EU membership, which inc/ 'the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States' (http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/objectives_en.htm) where 'cohesion' means 'unity' and while we are part of the EU, we are moving closer to that unity (and sending more power over in that process).
Some may argue, what about the 'deal' as the UK are opting out of the 'ever closer union' BUT the 'deal' cannot be relied upon and that is why the 'deal' isn't heralded now as an argument for 'in' by even Cameron himself! Cameron promised treaty-change but Martin Schluz, the President of the European Parliament has said that is not going to happen (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/641461/EU-renegotiation-deal-David-Cameron-Brussels-Martin-Schulz-reversible) and while it is not in a treaty, the European Court of Justice are able to ignore it, as shown with the Danish 'deal' (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/196/attachments/original/1449856534/How_EU_judges_ignored_the_Danish_deal_79_times.pdf) which even reveals how our hold on our borders are not so controlled by us, when the Court can overrule us, concerning non-EU citizens.
I believe that is all the points raised here, except for the £1.5 trillion debt we have. Quite interestingly, a economist spoke out against MPs on Question Time, who worked out that the net savings from a 'Brexit' and taking account the economic multiplier of what we'd spend the savings on, would be able to fund and repay the national debt by 2030 (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/663365/Question-Time-audience-proves-Britain-UK-leave-Brexit-European-Union-back-envelope?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain) which! if accurate, would make a big difference
Original post by brainhuman
Tell me, a) how can the British Parliament not deal with the world as it sees fit? If it couldn't do anything as you imply here, why does it even still exist? b) Is Britain not part of the EU? Don't they have any influence in what the EU decides?
A. Britain can deal but only so much. Full-Fact reveals that while the EU is our largest exporter, the share is decreasing, while the share of exports outside the EU is increasing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv22aRdLjKY) so! it is possible for the UK to deal more if it left the EU and then traded with the EU, with the benefit of trade from the Commonwealth, or the Asia-Pacific Trade that grows 5x faster than the EU. As the UK grows and prospers, so will it be able to help the EU grow and prosper as a trading partner. As it stands now the UK is the country who the EU export most to (https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/)
A. Aside from trade, I do not say the British Parliament are unable to do anything BUT! while a member of the EU, the British Parliament have to transpose EU law into our law, regardless how they feel unless the law is a Directive BUT can well be challenged and cost the State/taxpayers even more money when taken to Court. Outside the EU, laws can be addressed purely on national interest and not be subject to 'interference', which the President of the European Commission admits, does happen (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547897/EU-lost-attractiveness-interferes-people-s-lives-admits-Brussels-chief.html)
B. Britain has a part to play in what the EU decides, yes. However, this depends on what exactly you mean by 'decides'. The three main institutions are the Council of Ministers (that can make some laws alone without MEPs, made up of a minister per state, with the minister in question depending on what issue/policy they address), the European Parliament (MEPs who discuss what policies they are given and must consent for a law to pass, or refuse to stop a law to pass) & the European Commission (minister per state by nomination, lead in policy and decide what course the EU will take, the body that creates the co-decided laws)
B. In terms of what happens in the European Parliament for the MEP's we send to represent us, it would perhaps interest you that a British MEP represents twice as many voters than the average EU MEP. Does it make any difference? No....BUT! I find it quite insightful to learn, that b/w 2009-2014, 576/1936 votes were opposed by British MEPs in the name of British interest, but 485/576 votes happen anyway (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11066802/How-British-MEPs-are-outvoted-time-and-again-in-Brussels.html) so in terms of influence for what is decided and if what is decided works for us? It's questionable.
Original post by Leafy leafy
Very true, also, trying hard not to generalise, but I've found many older citizens have old-fashioned ignorant views. It appears many of them see leaving the EU as way to get rid of the "immigrant problem" which most of us younger people know is not a huge issue, and in fact immigrants bring lots of benefits to the countries economy.
I have been part of another discussion that has debated the issue of the EU, and the contrary seems to be the case, where older members support a vote to remain to prevent wars, so I would believe views are quite mixed. Immigration certainly is presented as an issue, to which open borders plays a part, though I would not support the notion that immigration is bad, when it does bring benefits as you have said. For me, I have had the benefit of two excellent law lecturers that have supported me, but the reason I highlight these particular two, is that they both come from Africa. So! the benefits of immigration can come from the EU or outside the EU, is the point I am making.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
Say NFU? The same NFU telling us to stay in the EU? Errrmm...right okay.
The NFU is campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU, but...this is contrary to 2/3 of farmers backing 'Brexit' (who face problems as a direct result of EU rules and regulations) and, ironically contrary to the NFU's own study that a 'Brexit' would recovery farm incomes (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/665784/EU-referendum-farmers-poll-Brexit), which makes it odd that NFU would support the opposite, so it'll be interesting if this view changes now...
Original post by Retired_Messiah
In other words you want to trade one lot of incompetent fools for another so that our incompetent fools have more money and power to be incompetent with? Sounds lovely.
As I previously mentioned above, corruption and competence is another matter entirely, as it would apply in a 'Brexit' or as part of EU membership. However, I value the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of Government, which is affected by EU membership when we cannot call the EU to account, as we can with our MPs. Our 'fools' can be incompetent as they like, but when push comes to shove, we can push for a resignation to happen, or campaign for a vote of no confidence. The 'fools' over in the EU can be as incompetent as they like and be incompetent as long as they like, to use your argument.
I would prefer power back in the people's belt, which ultimately is what is at stake. As previously stated, sovereign power is in the hands of the people, then come election day, sovereign power is given to the Government to exercise it, BUT! in 1973, some of that sovereign power to govern the UK was given to the EEC, and as the EEC expanded, more sovereign power was given to the EC/EU from each Treaty and would expect more when the next Treaty comes. Again as previously raised, it is the aim of the EU to achieve economic, social & territorial cohesion/union, so ultimately, the EU will be setup as the ultimate authority, with the UK being the equivalent to what the Scottish Parliament is now.
Furthermore, there is the question of how democratic the EU is. I previously mentioned how the European Court of Justice has treated the Danish, but just as bad is the EU ignoring the Dutch referendum with 2/3 voting against the EU-Ukraine deal (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/661195/Dutch-referendum-Brussels-ban-MPs-Ukraine-deal-Brexit-EU) BUT! Brussells has indicated it will happen anyway (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/659147/Dutch-referendum-EU-leaders-Ukraine-deal-Netherlands-no-vote-Juncker-Merkel-Hollande?_ga=1.233909278.1681619402.1458079126) with the possibility of the Dutch being told to vote again and get it right (sound similar to the Irish referendum when it came to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty). The referendum purely for appearance sake which has led to the Dutch arguing for Brexit (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/657883/EU-referendum-Brexit-Holland-vote-Britain-leave-Brussels?_ga=1.29043772.1681619402.1458079126), to not pass on the chance to get out and restore democracy.
So! incompetent fools in a huge trading bloc that can ignore you OR incompetent fools that would be given more power but liable/accountable to you - I choose the latter over the former, without question
Original post by Inexorably
Still really undecided, both sides seem to quite often have conflicting statistics and I really think this is detracting from bigger issues in our own country - namely the issues with junior doctors and teachers.
I entirely sympathise and understand your position, which is shared among the populace. It was wrong of the Government to divide so soon. I personally, with common-sense policy, would have setup a cross-party committee (as they do when they make laws) to scrutinise the current position, to be able to present two solid options for us to choose from (inc/ presenting a united front for what the UK can do in a 'Brexit'). Afterwhich, sidelines can be drawn for which option they want to support and go from there.....
However...that is not the case, and I feel an apology should be given of what a mess it has turned into. Thankfully, independent fact-checking charities like Full-Fact, are doing their part to try and equalise the debate and help us to make an informed and well-considered response. While I may be occupied now with upcoming exams, this vote is very important to me, due to the effect it potentially has, to cause me to follow what is happening.As mentioned in my 'disclaimer', I understand the benefits of EU membership and can see why people would rather stay and let things be, even if there is a ? if the referendum will change anything, if the 'deal' will go through and if there will be another chance to change our minds if the next treaty asks for more power.
However, when it comes to a referendum during a Treaty, Ireland is a perfect example of how much pressure will be put on a State to make the right choice or vote again.I am thankful for what the EU has done for us as a nation, but believe it is taking a course that is difficult for us to follow. However, I by no means, believe we 'pull up the drawbridge' and have nothing to do with EU - that's just stupid. Over 50 years of EU membership has led to such a bond, that it should continue and can continue through EFTA/EEA, while pulling out of political union to have more control over our laws, our borders and be able to look after our businesses and our very own democracy.
Original post by cfcgcffcg
Staying in the EU would be a better option
I would submit that staying in the EU would be the easier option, because as I have recognised, EU membership does have its benefits and it would be easier to keep things as they are. I believe from both sides, there is a element of uncertainty. For 'Brexit', how the UK will be to re-enter the global stage. For EU Membership, if change/reform is even possible. To change/reform, I am not particularly sure if the UK renegotiation is anything to go off, if the EU will continue to steamroll on policies it wants to happen, regardless of public opposition, evident by the Dutch and mirroring also the effect of TTIP. I would rather place my bets on the abilities of what this country can achieve, then the restrictions of what this country cannot.
I think that poll is really interesting. Not from a Remain/Leave stand point, thats about what I'd expect given where we are, but the amount of people who say the won't be voting.
Now, I know why I won't be voting in this referendum, but I'd be interested to know why other people aren't either.
Now, I know why I won't be voting in this referendum, but I'd be interested to know why other people aren't either.
Original post by macromicro
It's scary how close this referendum is going to be due to short-sighted simpletons who wear Union Jack underwear and think we need to close the borders.
It would be a massive step back in the progression we've made and would have to be reversed at some point in the future. The entire world is going to be one large union eventually - we need to all get used to that fact and help achieve it.
It would be a massive step back in the progression we've made and would have to be reversed at some point in the future. The entire world is going to be one large union eventually - we need to all get used to that fact and help achieve it.
It is just as short-sighted to assume that everybody voting to leave the EU is a bigoted nationalist, there are many significant issues surrounding the referendum regarding other things than immigration and from what I've seen and heard there appears to be stronger arguments for leaving than staying!
by remaining in the EU the UK remain able to recieve their imports (most of our products, such as food, clothing and technology) with no taxes or extra costs, meaning that our lifestyles will not be impacted.
Most goods we consume are from abroad? think where are our clothes made? where do we get our cars and IPads? how much exotic food do you consume? if we leave the EU prices for these goods will rise, and they will become scare, meaning that those lower income households will only be able to afford fast food, making them obese and therefore adding pressure to the NHS. Also TNC's such as Mc Donalds or Coca Cola who have offices and shops in the UK may decide to leave as they will no longer be able to access the EU through the UK; therefire causing unemployment
Most goods we consume are from abroad? think where are our clothes made? where do we get our cars and IPads? how much exotic food do you consume? if we leave the EU prices for these goods will rise, and they will become scare, meaning that those lower income households will only be able to afford fast food, making them obese and therefore adding pressure to the NHS. Also TNC's such as Mc Donalds or Coca Cola who have offices and shops in the UK may decide to leave as they will no longer be able to access the EU through the UK; therefire causing unemployment
Original post by kickboxer 98
by remaining in the EU the UK remain able to recieve their imports (most of our products, such as food, clothing and technology) with no taxes or extra costs, meaning that our lifestyles will not be impacted.
Most goods we consume are from abroad? think where are our clothes made? where do we get our cars and IPads? how much exotic food do you consume? if we leave the EU prices for these goods will rise, and they will become scare, meaning that those lower income households will only be able to afford fast food, making them obese and therefore adding pressure to the NHS. Also TNC's such as Mc Donalds or Coca Cola who have offices and shops in the UK may decide to leave as they will no longer be able to access the EU through the UK; therefire causing unemployment
Most goods we consume are from abroad? think where are our clothes made? where do we get our cars and IPads? how much exotic food do you consume? if we leave the EU prices for these goods will rise, and they will become scare, meaning that those lower income households will only be able to afford fast food, making them obese and therefore adding pressure to the NHS. Also TNC's such as Mc Donalds or Coca Cola who have offices and shops in the UK may decide to leave as they will no longer be able to access the EU through the UK; therefire causing unemployment
Was this serious?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mojojojo101
I think that poll is really interesting. Not from a Remain/Leave stand point, thats about what I'd expect given where we are, but the amount of people who say the won't be voting.Now, I know why I won't be voting in this referendum, but I'd be interested to know why other people aren't either.
For such an important vote, even more than the General Elections, I am curious why people won't be voting. As I agree, the number of people not voting is quite something to take in, so I would be interested in the 'why' argument.
Original post by barnabydewhurst
It is just as short-sighted to assume that everybody voting to leave the EU is a bigoted nationalist, there are many significant issues surrounding the referendum regarding other things than immigration and from what I've seen and heard there appears to be stronger arguments for leaving than staying!
Ontop of the issues raised, much of the debate has been centered around personalities and even inviting people outside the UK and even outside the EU to comment on what the UK should do. The Irish I don't believe, had this much attention when they had their referendum in 2005. However, the trouble with personalities, is that sometimes stereotypes can be made, like 'Brexiteers' being nationalists and want to be on their own.
I for one don't want the UK to be on our own and feel that we can still engage, because we are partly engaging with the world now, and can engage even more in a 'Brexit'. I don't believe for a second that the personalities advocating for 'Remain' will isolate the UK and do nothing if 'Brexit' wins - even Cameron said before the re-negotiation that the UK could achieve outside the EU.Something else he also said was how Britain should be 'big' and 'brave' inside the EU, but I feel Britain can be 'big' and 'brave' outside, while not losing touch with all our friends.
Our rights will still be protected by the European Court of Human Rights (separate from the EU), which! quite shockingly was revealed to me in a Human Rights lecture, has ruled that a State was in breach of Human Rights, even though the State followed EU law - and that the overpowered European Court of Justice judges have ruled that the EU should not sign up to the Human Rights Convention and so it hasn't, even to this day! so while the EU respects the rule of law, democracy and human rights - each is quite questionable when you weigh it all up
It certainly is a big decision for everyone - Immigration is not the only issue - and immigration shouldn't be seen as a dirty word either when we benefit from it - it's the control of it, that is more the issue
Original post by kickboxer 98
by remaining in the EU the UK remain able to recieve their imports (most of our products, such as food, clothing and technology) with no taxes or extra costs, meaning that our lifestyles will not be impacted.Most goods we consume are from abroad? think where are our clothes made? where do we get our cars and IPads? how much exotic food do you consume? if we leave the EU prices for these goods will rise, and they will become scare, meaning that those lower income households will only be able to afford fast food, making them obese and therefore adding pressure to the NHS. Also TNC's such as Mc Donalds or Coca Cola who have offices and shops in the UK may decide to leave as they will no longer be able to access the EU through the UK; therefire causing unemployment
Yes! remaining in the EU, as I've said, would keep things the same and the key thing is 'our lifestyles will not be impacted', which is true (to an extent) BUT! we import not only from the EU, but some countries outside the EU aswell and! we can import from more in a 'Brexit' and! if we rejoin EFTA, we will still be connected to the EU to hold onto the Free Movements of Goods, Services, Capital & People - the difference! would be that we would not have political union or a customs union, though EFTA is just a starting point w/o even negotiating with the EU and if the EFTA can achieve so much, then negotiations will seek to expand upon that, or they'd be no need to negotiate at all XD
However, in the EU, as I have mentioned in my initial post, there is the admitted 'prolonged and substantial' effect of TTIP that will cause unemployment, while a 'Brexit' has 2yrs breathing space after a vote to leave under Article 50, that will NOT cause the so-called 'shock' that the 'Remain' camp argues.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by animus01
For such an important vote, even more than the General Elections, I am curious why people won't be voting. As I agree, the number of people not voting is quite something to take in, so I would be interested in the 'why' argument.
mojojojo101
...
Currently 15% on here have said they won't be voting.
1. They might not be eligible.
2. A turnout of 85% is HUGE. It is freaking massive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html
This was the highest general election turnout in 18 years - at 66%.
Original post by paul514
well yeah, its my view and i study economics- i know there are consequences like the great depression which was shocking and still effecting many countries which we trade with but it was just my view
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Missed MSc Grade
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Business law 2
- Migrant worker: pre-settled to settled status and work requirements
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- maintenance loan
- SFE website - continuous login error (please help)
- Confirmation letter of Settled Status?
- 2.1 for final year
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Should i vote Labour?
- GYG Announcement: November Winner and December Prize
- Is an average of 64.4 okay for third year?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
