The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Eu: In or out?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Francis Urquhart
I'm in for mostly Historical reasons. I feel no desire to go and fight on the European continent like so many of my ancestors.

A quick-fire history lesson if you will:

The EU started as the ECSC (The European Coal and Steel Committee) after WW2. The aim was to limit the production and movement of war supplies, which at the time was mostly coal and steel. Great Britain was notably absent for much of the creation and early days of the EU. We refused to join when offered, and then when we wanted to join the 'wonderful' Charles De Gaulle kept refusing our requests to join. We were essentially that not-cool schoolboy that had been asked out by the hot chick, and now regretted saying 'no' but were being doorstopped by the popular Jock. After-all De Gaulle was seen as a war hero.

Anyways the EU changed without our influence and turned into something which was far less agreeable than it's initial form, however we joined regardless because frankly our economy was
hemorrhaging and we had no other choice. Perhaps if we had been a member sooner we would have had more control.

I for one would like to stay in the EU as although i feel there are many things wrong with it (and there are MANY things wrong with it, lots of IN campaigners should not be so dismissive of 'out' campaigners as right-wingers as most of them aren't.). However if we leave the EU we may set of a dangerous precedent, which if the Eurozone doesn't recover soon we may see other countries leave. Now before i get accused of using 'scare-tactics' the chances of a whole-scale breakup of the EU is unlikely, however with every country that leaves its irrefutable that the EU would lose influence, very important influence.

One example of that influence being put to good use would be Russia. In my opinion we have been distrustful of Russia and outright xenophobic towards them at times, now we could just sit here and let them develop hypersonic nuclear weapons (so fast that even the most well-developed missile-defence systems have no chance of shooting them down) and build our missile shield and pretend that we're safe or we can invite Russia closer to the fold, even with someone like Putin at the helm.

Obviously there are deep-seated issues and problems with my idea, that i wont go into in this post unless someone takes an interest and replies, otherwise i might be accused of murder by boring some of you to death with this post.

Sorry for it's length, i hope some of you found it interesting, and like i said i respect both INers and OUTers alike.

Best regards
Francis.


I gather the TL;DR is "without the EU there would be war," because of course it is the only thing stopping war in Europe (!) Given that the likely source of another war in Europe cokes from OUTSIDE the EU then it kinda doesn't help stop wars, and if anything is counter constructive, did a great job in the Balkans, didn't they...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TSRFT8
Alot of people who are "Leave" only have one reason - "Less immigrants will take the job i do not want to do" Not saying all, however a vast amount have these views.

Im IN, but each to their own.


I want a more secure border however i made my decision based on other reasons one is the nhs and fishing industry
Original post by Jammy Duel
I gather the TL;DR is "without the EU there would be war," because of course it is the only thing stopping war in Europe (!) Given that the likely source of another war in Europe cokes from OUTSIDE the EU then it kinda doesn't help stop wars, and if anything is counter constructive, did a great job in the Balkans, didn't they...

Posted from TSR Mobile


Hi Jammy! Good to see you again by the way, might not remember in the commons but it's been a while!

I agree that the EU is not the only thing preventing conflict. NATO plays a big role in that, however whoever does the videos and NATO news deserves one hell of a raise at up-playing the role and resillience of NATO. It would be twice as powerful if used in tandum with the mechanics of the EU.

And every organisation has a moment in its history where it could have done better, but the fact that the EU survived not only the Balkans but also the recent Eurozone crisis suggests that it is more resillient than people give it credit for, and for me resillience is a big thing! I mean i'm sure you remember this time last year, (and the year before that) people talking about greek leading a wide-scale exit from the EU. Something that thank-goodness didn't materialise. However some of that credit must go to the IMF for the bailout too.

Like i said earlier the EU has a lot of problems, but my main argument is the historical context, it's so easy to get wound up on current affairs that we forget the noble goals that the EU has attempted (and some would say achieved) through its lifetime.

Best regards to you. :biggrin:
Francis
Original post by Francis Urquhart
Hi Jammy! Good to see you again by the way, might not remember in the commons but it's been a while!

I agree that the EU is not the only thing preventing conflict. NATO plays a big role in that, however whoever does the videos and NATO news deserves one hell of a raise at up-playing the role and resillience of NATO. It would be twice as powerful if used in tandum with the mechanics of the EU.

And every organisation has a moment in its history where it could have done better, but the fact that the EU survived not only the Balkans but also the recent Eurozone crisis suggests that it is more resillient than people give it credit for, and for me resillience is a big thing! I mean i'm sure you remember this time last year, (and the year before that) people talking about greek leading a wide-scale exit from the EU. Something that thank-goodness didn't materialise. However some of that credit must go to the IMF for the bailout too.

Like i said earlier the EU has a lot of problems, but my main argument is the historical context, it's so easy to get wound up on current affairs that we forget the noble goals that the EU has attempted (and some would say achieved) through its lifetime.

Best regards to you. :biggrin:
Francis


I would sooner like to see NATO in Europe reduced to just the UK than see it be controlled by the EU, a body that effectively said they want an army for posturing but not using.

The Balkans should in no way have destabilised the EU anyway, but they tried to sort it out and failed, and then the UN and NATO came in and sorted it all out. They're doing a great job in Ukraine ATM, oh, wait...

I would not see the resilience of the EU as a good thing because of the way they are resilient. They have a population that has generally been brought up being told of the necessity of it and the structure, which is itself similar to their own national structures which they have been brought up being taught are done in a good way; but more significant is that they will break any of their own rules they have to to make sure they survive, even their constitution only matters until it gets in the way, the only way to bail out Greece was to ignore the Lisbon Treaty.

As much as the goals are noble the means are not.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ByEeek
But so is the rest of the world. Have you travelled to the US recently? You think you have arrived when you get off the plane forgetting that you still have a good hour+ to get through immigration. China is no better. You have to fill in your visa application and add £85 per person to the cost of your trip and hope it comes back in a reasonable length of time.
!


That's nothing to do with protectionism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcDed4xVD4

Check this out, future of the continents.
Original post by EuanF
We had that in the 1930s, ****ing Chamberlain passed it and as far as I recall he wasn't some sort of time travelling EU member.

The EU hasn't given us anything we didn't already have because Britain was a world leader in workers rights, the poor european states were far more behind on the matter.


All chamberlain did was guarantee 1 week off with pay a quarter of what the EU guarantees so the Tories could easily scale it back once we left, you're right that working time was limited to 48 hours in the 1937 factories act and did nothing to ensure maternity leave. Maternity leave was only brought in by the 1975 employment protection act and even then it only covered about half of women it was later expanded to cover all women to comply with EU law.

So the EU did give us better maternity leave and more weeks off with pay, these could both be repealed and brought back to be in line with the 1975 act by the government.
Original post by Audrey18


This is not an election. The EU Referendum was called because some Tories spotted that the Eurozone was just completing Stage 1 of Union - Eurozone states now have to submit their budgets to the Eurogroup for approval and the Eurozone banks are now controlled by the ECB, not by the National Banks.

Stage 2 of Eurozone Union begins in 2017. This is political union. The Eurozone has a majority of the vote in the EU so we have a simple choice: IN and join the Eurozone by 2025 or OUT and carry on as at present.

The EU Referendum has nothing to do with racism, psychos etc. it is a decision about whether future generations will have self government or be governed from Brussels. If the polls are right a surprising number of our peers seems to believe that being governed from Brussels is a good idea. But please remember that the EU will pass legislation that is good for strongly lobbying multi-nationals and will have no idea what is good for Gloucester or London.
(edited 7 years ago)
Staying: of course it will go against what is trying to happen. We can always make a compromise with the EU HQ.

Leaving: it will be a lot harder for our generation to get around and the generations after us as we may not be able to find work somewhere else as easy as we can now.


My opinion: everyone is going to think differently. I would say star because it is the best thing to decide at the moment. However, no one really knows what's going to happen if we stay or if we leave.
For example Norway has done well and Switzerland has done well (even though they started with a rocky start).


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rach.is.awesome
Staying: of course it will go against what is trying to happen. We can always make a compromise with the EU HQ.

Leaving: it will be a lot harder for our generation to get around and the generations after us as we may not be able to find work somewhere else as easy as we can now.


My opinion: everyone is going to think differently. I would say star because it is the best thing to decide at the moment. However, no one really knows what's going to happen if we stay or if we leave.
For example Norway has done well and Switzerland has done well (even though they started with a rocky start).


Posted from TSR Mobile


Seriously, how do we get a compromise when we submit to them when we can't even get a compromise with the threat of taking away our £10bn? Funnily enough it's something that no bremainer seems able to answer.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rach.is.awesome


My opinion: everyone is going to think differently. I would say star because it is the best thing to decide at the moment. However, no one really knows what's going to happen if we stay or if we leave.
For example Norway has done well and Switzerland has done well (even though they started with a rocky start).


Posted from TSR Mobile


Well, Norway and Switzerland, both have freedom of movement to have access to the single market. That is something that Brexiters want to stop.

Switzerland recently introduced immigration restrictions on Croatian citizens ( I think) and was cut from funding by the EU. Those restrictions are only going to get worse as current agreements come to an end with the EU and they have to renegotiate.,
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
Seriously, how do we get a compromise when we submit to them when we can't even get a compromise with the threat of taking away our £10bn? Funnily enough it's something that no bremainer seems able to answer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Are you suggesting that we should always get our way or else? We are one of many. In any group the final decision is always a compromise. And that is a good thing.

I take it when you go out for a drink with your mates you dictate where you go and what everyone drinks and disregard the opinion of anyone else, even if it turns out to be a better idea than yours?

If we leave the EU but want access to the common market we will have to pay for it, sign up to the rules including free movement but have no say on any changes to the rules.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 352
Avatar for EuanF
EuanF
2
Original post by ByEeek
Are you suggesting that we should always get our way or else? We are one of many. In any group the final decision is always a compromise. And that is a good thing.

I take it when you go out for a drink with your mates you dictate where you go and what everyone drinks and disregard the opinion of anyone else, even if it turns out to be a better idea than yours?

If we leave the EU but want access to the common market we will have to pay for it, sign up to the rules including free movement but have no say on any changes to the rules.


We have no say on the rules anyway, so what's to lose?
Original post by ByEeek
Are you suggesting that we should always get our way or else? We are one of many. In any group the final decision is always a compromise. And that is a good thing.

I take it when you go out for a drink with your mates you dictate where you go and what everyone drinks and disregard the opinion of anyone else, even if it turns out to be a better idea than yours?

If we leave the EU but want access to the common market we will have to pay for it, sign up to the rules including free movement but have no say on any changes to the rules.


If that compromise consistently went against what is right for myself I would have no issues with leaving them. Funnily enough you seemed unable to contend the point. Instead of saying how we would reform when we have failed for half s century and couldn't with the threat of leaving you merely said that we should submit to going into a direction that Britain does not want to go in.

Are you a Euro federalist?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah guys i'm gonna have vote out on this one, why are we paying a membership fee that goes straight to terrorists?
Original post by EuanF
We have no say on the rules anyway, so what's to lose?


That is simply not true. We have a seat at the table. We have a voice and others listen to us just as we listen to them. Finally our MEPs vote on all legislation. And they too have a voice and others listen. It isn't reported on a daily basis but we are a strong voice in the EU. Stronger than you give credit for.
Original post by EuanF
We have no say on the rules anyway, so what's to lose?


Except for the fact that 10% of MEPs represent the UK. I don't really see how making up 10% of a vote between 28 countries is "having no say"...
Original post by Jammy Duel
If that compromise consistently went against what is right for myself I would have no issues with leaving them. Funnily enough you seemed unable to contend the point. Instead of saying how we would reform when we have failed for half s century and couldn't with the threat of leaving you merely said that we should submit to going into a direction that Britain does not want to go in.

Are you a Euro federalist?

Posted from TSR Mobile


But that is the compromise in in this country too. I am sitting helpless as the Tories destroy the NHS, the education system and local services. They have gone against their manifesto promises, attacked the poor whilst giving tax breaks to the rich. They have eroded workers rights and general wrecked the place. Theresa May wants to spy on us in the name of anti terrorism but I don't buy that. It is thanks to the EU that we have a small chance of not living in 1984.

The EU is more perfect than imperfect although Brexit only seem to see the disadvantages. I am less concerned about reform than the disaster awaiting the UK if we left.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 358
Avatar for Ordo
Ordo
14
Stay
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by JordanL_
Except for the fact that 10% of MEPs represent the UK. I don't really see how making up 10% of a vote between 28 countries is "having no say"...


19 of those 28 countries are in the EMU - the Eurozone - they have achieved Stage 1 of Union: this is why we are having a referendum, it was the gripe of the Tories who pushed Cameron into it. (7 will join EMU later)

So, there are two effective countries in the EU: The Eurozone and the UK. The Eurozone has 90% of the vote. Does this mean you have a say and "influence"?

Even if you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that Stage 2 of EMU union is under way or likely to be achieved by 2025 you must acknowledge we have a 2 speed EU and eventually there will be a crunch point where 90% of the vote is in the hands of the fast-track countries and the UK is marginalised. The UK's relations with the EU are going to go "crunch!" in 9 to 40 years whatever. So don't vote Remain if it is obvious that you would want to leave later!
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you