Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Eu: In or out? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should be stay a member or leave?
    Stay
    58.06%
    Leave
    41.94%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Personally, my opinion is just that.

    The results of the referendum have vast significant effects on our society which will be lasting. I'm expected as a citizen to choose if we stay or leave, whilst I have insufficient knowledge to do so. I don't know why doing so would be a good idea.

    This would be fine if literature was made available or some form of education given (I'd love that) to all those expected to vote on the decision they are to make. But we're just expected to make it almost blindly.

    Democracy doesn't go so well when votes that are made are fabricated by the power of the media - but all is well if the general population are actually able to understand the area and make an informed decision. With so many going to university, I think there will be a lot of promise for the future (not to say that empiricism and evidence based decision making is exclusive to university education).

    Like anything, I think it should be given to those with merit to make such judgements (on evidence, and have a vast depth of area specific knowledge to draw on)... who should then be held to account by others to make sure that it wasn't made poorly.

    I feel it is maybe fair to draw comparison to professional practice, in which people are expected to not try and do more than they are able (particularly clinical; as error is much more likely). If I tried to do surgery after watching a YouTube video, I don't think it would go so well - much better if a trained surgeon did it.

    Then there is the political basis for the vote - wasn't it promised simply as a move against UKIP by the Tories? (as suggested - that it is their single primary area, so taking it away from them).

    I apologise - my knowledge of politics etc. isn't brilliant... but this is roughly where my thoughts lie atm.
    Yes, there are flaws to democracy, and plenty of people will vote with uncultured or unscrutinised views, but that's the price people must be willing to pay to live in a society like ours. Even if such a thing like a good dictator exists, I wouldn't take the chance with having a dictator. And I believe absolute power corrupts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Yes, there are flaws to democracy, and plenty of people will vote with uncultured or unscrutinised views, but that's the price people must be willing to pay to live in a society like ours. Even if such a thing like a good dictator exists, I wouldn't take the chance with having a dictator. And I believe absolute power corrupts.
    I understand that, and that's fair enough.
    But I don't understand why they are giving the vote on EU membership.
    Of course, I don't think anyone should have absolute power, as everyone makes mistakes and people should keep other people in check and as you say power likely does corrupt (or make much more likely). But in some circumstances, like this one, I feel that I would rather there not be a referendum.
    If those highly knowledgeable on such issues, the politicians and academics involved in these areas, thought it was best to leave and this was backed up by evidence then so be it.
    But we are being asked to make a choice - not on evidence - but on ignorance.
    So to me, it seems like a bit of a frightening joke.
    Making decisions on either bigoted ideas or biased information doesn't feel like a democracy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I understand that, and that's fair enough.
    But I don't understand why they are giving the vote on EU membership.
    Of course, I don't think anyone should have absolute power, as everyone makes mistakes and people should keep other people in check and as you say power likely does corrupt (or make much more likely). But in some circumstances, like this one, I feel that I would rather there not be a referendum.
    If those highly knowledgeable on such issues, the politicians and academics involved in these areas, thought it was best to leave and this was backed up by evidence then so be it.
    But we are being asked to make a choice - not on evidence - but on ignorance.
    So to me, it seems like a bit of a frightening joke.
    Making decisions on either bigoted ideas or biased information doesn't feel like a democracy.
    But it's closer than the other options.

    I hardly think we have the pinnacle of democracy in this country, but it's closer than other systems at the moment.

    Just adding.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Firstly, easy on the adjectives. One and a half million Muslims does not mean one and a half million 'radical' Muslims. Your use of that adjective is quite awful and distasteful, implying that all of the one and a half million Muslims hold sympathetic views to Islamic fundamentalists. That is simply not true and an unsubstantiated, deceptive and deceitful claim.
    Are you kidding me? We know very well that the countries and culture of the which they are coming is deeply mysigonig and radical islamophilic. The UK has aalready problem with radical muslims at home, and a person really must be nuts to accept even more on the top of that. Even if the majority of them might not be criminals still the majority holds radical views that does not fit european culture. Oh, and one more thing. The most of the migrants are males in their best years (about 80%)

    "If we could also just appreciate, for a moment, that most of these refugees are running away from the terrorists in the Middle East, and not actually trying to spread their influence? Not all of the Muslim refugees are radical, but all of the tyrants that made them refugees are."
    Actually the most refugees are not even coming from war torned countris like Syria, only a small proportion. Most of them are actullly from the countries like the Mahgreb or Afganistan, and should not be there. Thus they are economic migrants who were delighted by th Merkel call. And you know, there is a video on youtube where saudi reporter interviewed one such refugee coming to Germany where he "swear by Allah to only spread Islam there". Migranting in other countries, especially non-muslim has a religious role in Islam.

    "Now, I think I speak for everyone when I say that the actions of such refugees are despicable and should rightly be condemned from all sides of the political spectrum. Germany should never have let in so many refugees so quickly."
    True

    "At the same time, however, this is somewhat the fault of European inaction. Countries like Italy, Greece and Cyprus have been overwhelmed with the flow of refugees for at least over a year now, with some rates being up to 30,000 refugees arriving a month in some places (I believe) - and the indifference of European governments like the UK has meant minimal funding going to these countries in order to help alleviate the crisis."
    Now, it is actually the EU that is passivly doing nothing and indirectly helping the muslims invadors. When the Balkan route was closing by building a fence on macedonian border with Greece the European commission was condemning it. Orban was called a dictator by the EU for doing the same with Hungarys border on Serbia. As this example shows the EU is supporting the migrants crisis.

    There is also a one more reason. The ECHR is Strasbourg ruled that every suh migrants that arrived illegally in EU has the same rights as the citizens. seceding from the EU would meant for the UK to not abiding to this silly rulings.


    "If proper funding had been given sooner, the immigrants could be identified, checked for criminal records and actually prevented from entering the European Union if they were found to have history."
    Impossible. It is physicall impossible to check 2000 detaily people in one day without a single document, and then coming the next 2000 tomorrow. Since the most would not get asylium there would be a problem of deportation of a such amounth of people.

    "This isn't a justification of their actions, nor is it some kind of way to say that it's not the fault of these people who have taken advantage of the desperate situations in order to cause crime in the European Union. It is, however, a warning against the knee-jerk reaction you seem to be espousing: we have to be pragmatic about the situation, and simply 'closing the borders' will only amplify the problem and spread hate against the EU and the West, which we will in turn pay for in the future. The appropriate response has to be managed immigration of refugees found to be decent and willing to contribute to European society."
    No, you are deluded. Closing the borders is the only best solution for now. We should not let ourself be blackmailed by a notorious ISIS cooperatior which is Erdogan. And for the bolded part, what is that for a retarded reasoning? The Muslims will hate you regardless if you accept them or not. For them you are a kuffr and have no reasoning like you think. And you last sentence would mean that 90% should be removed as the vast majority to not care or a wiling to contribute. They are here because they expects welfare.

    This means European countries each taking in their fairshare of EU immigrants and each contributing to the EU border countries facingthe huge influxes"
    Oh,no. Germany invited them and Merkel called them. To my knowledge Merkel nevershowed solidarity and asked other EU partners what do they think about this nordid them inform them of the restribution to other EU states. So, it is only ontheir side.
    Asfor the “taking fair share” and even if you accept a small portion (odd enoughas how can you force a muslim to go to Romania or Poland; they expected onlyGermany) the next year will come even more migrant and than even moredistribution will demand EU/Germany.

    “For balance,refugees present an enormous economic opportunity. Just this morning, I wasreading one senior economist arguing that every one euro invested in theserefugees would repay itself in two euros within five years - because theypresent a unique opportunity to diversify and rejuvenate (in the proper meaningof the word) the ageing societies and economies of Europe, thereby relaunchingeconomies that crashed in 2008. Past examples of refugee immigration, likeLeicester in 1972, prove that refugee immigration can be hugely beneficial tolocal and national economies alike.”
    Hahahahaha God jokeman
    The Germanministerium for interior announced few days ago that 80% cannot compete on themarket because they have a lack of education of any work and cannot even reador write. According to this report the adults are on the same level as a10-year old in Germany.
    Such uncreativeneandertals from some Middle Eastern shithole is quite an opposite to aneconomic opportunity; they are balast. And if you love them so much use thempersonally in your house.
    Also, as this is adebate of Brexit. The main point of this migration derail and why the UK shouldleave the EU is that the
    1. The EU Commissionsupport indirectly and passivly the muslim migrant invasion
    2. The EU andits off-shot the ECHR are due to its silly regulations makes it possible toeverybody outside EU regardless whether a real refugee and not to legally claimbenefits in every EU country. Leaving the EU the UK should not more abide tothis absurb rules.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    Are you kidding me? We know very well that the countries and culture of the which they are coming is deeply mysigonig and radical islamophilic. The UK has aalready problem with radical muslims at home, and a person really must be nuts to accept even more on the top of that. Even if the majority of them might not be criminals still the majority holds radical views that does not fit european culture. Oh, and one more thing. The most of the migrants are males in their best years (about 80%)
    There are absolutely no reputable facts, studies or statistics to support these viewpoints. The fact that the majority of the refugees are males in their young years is an asset, not a drawback: it means it is economically-beneficial to accept them in.

    Of course, there are cultural differences between the Middle East they have fled and the Europe they have arrived to. I am not saying there should be no well-funded assimilation projects, nor that we shouldn't check refugees to ensure they are committed to working in Europe - and to abide by Western principles.

    (Original post by slaven)
    Actually the most refugees are not even coming from war torned countris like Syria, only a small proportion. Most of them are actullly from the countries like the Mahgreb or Afganistan, and should not be there. Thus they are economic migrants who were delighted by th Merkel call. And you know, there is a video on youtube where saudi reporter interviewed one such refugee coming to Germany where he "swear by Allah to only spread Islam there". Migranting in other countries, especially non-muslim has a religious role in Islam.
    I love you've just said that Afghanistan isn't a "war torned" country. Wars aren't just happening in Syria!

    Again, proper checks through funding and less European inaction would prevent this. There are people who have taken advantage of the desperate situation and who are economic migrants and not refugees: better funding means better checks means a firm but fair approach at our borders.

    (Original post by slaven)
    No, you are deluded. Closing the borders is the only best solution for now. We should not let ourself be blackmailed by a notorious ISIS cooperatior which is Erdogan. And for the bolded part, what is that for a retarded reasoning? The Muslims will hate you regardless if you accept them or not. For them you are a kuffr and have no reasoning like you think. And you last sentence would mean that 90% should be removed as the vast majority to not care or a wiling to contribute. They are here because they expects welfare.
    Far from it. There are plenty of Muslims in the UK who are totally abiding by Western society's principles and values - trust me, I live next to a whole community of them - and I swear it is this attitude that is driving Islamic fundamentalism. Vilifying Muslims like you are doing leads to a "them versus us" culture which leads to Islamic fundamentalism. It's funny how you call Erdogan an ISIS cooperator (and trust me I don't like the guy much either), but it seems like you're doing just as awfully. Interviews also suggest many of the refugees are not expecting benefits - just a better chance at life.

    (Original post by slaven)
    The Germanministerium for interior announced few days ago that 80% cannot compete on themarket because they have a lack of education of any work and cannot even reador write. According to this report the adults are on the same level as a10-year old in Germany.
    I'd like to see the report, but this sounds dubious. The majority of refugees who have come are actually middle-class - those who have been wealthy enough to afford to pay traffickers the levy for crossing the sea. This is why so many have smartphones. They have had decent education and, as you can imagine, have skills and previous job experience from working in Syria.

    Again, the economic benefits of refugees have been proven in the past: Leicester grudgingly welcomed 10,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972 who, between them, ended up creating 30,000 jobs in the city. German Jewish refugees in the South Wales valleys in the 1930s hastened the regional economic revival from the Great Depression, accounting for one in two new businesses in the region.
    (Original post by slaven)
    There is also a one more reason. The ECHR is Strasbourg ruled that every suh migrants that arrived illegally in EU has the same rights as the citizens. seceding from the EU would meant for the UK to not abiding to this silly rulings.
    This is utterly not true. The ECHR is run by the Council of Europe and is totally separated from the European Union; whereas the European Union only has 28 member states, almost every European country bar Belarus is signed up to the ECHR. Leaving the European Union does not mean leaving the European Court of Human Rights: it is an entirely separate entity. Leaving the ECHR would also be disastrous: it was set up in Churchill's legacy to put international courts above national ones - so as to avoid a corruption of courts as took place in Nazi Germany - and it means that we can sue the government when it fails to accept our human rights.
    *----*
    All this considered, I don't think that you are the kind of open-minded, forwards-thinking individual who will ever really change their minds on this. It is a great shame, though: the rest of us in London are cooperating closely with our neighbours and appreciating the multicultural globalised world that is a reality. If you were to ever learn Islam, or see how Muslims work with the rest of society, you'd realise that these Islamophobic fears are being stoked unnecessarily and wrongly. Yes, there are radical Muslims. But this is the same racism that once existed against the black community or against the Jewish community that has been reincarnated in a different form: there are extremists of every group, not just Muslims.

    Germany should not have welcomed those refugees - I agree. It was a national government in a bold, naive attempt to solve an international crisis on its own. But the Greek-Macedonian border was erected in forty-eight hours; it's amazing what international governments can do when they want to solve an international crisis. I'm not saying "take everyone in" or "let's do what Germany did": I am saying that a managed approach of immigration is necessary as the only long-term solution to the crisis. Closing the borders means more and more refugees amassing on Europe's shores, more and more Muslims hating the West, and a prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Erdogan has recently erected guns on his borders that will automatically shoot anyone trying to enter Turkey - this is an ominous reminder of East Germany and its own past. Like the only solution then was to open borders and build bridges, so it is now. At least now we have the choice between doing it in a managed way that prevents impacts as far as possible to native Europeans or to do it in an unmanaged way like the Germans did which wrecks havoc across the continent. This is not an extreme in politics: it is a moderate, pragmatic proposal that we have a duty to meet on moral and economic bases alike. It is an attitude not of laziness, indifference and callous passivity against the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War: it is an attitude of humanitarian, economic and sensible nature - one which seeks the best in people and one which values the contribution that anyone has to make to enrich our country and its neighbours.

    You are, I think, far too brainwashed and far too ideologically-inflamed to ever change your mind on this issue. I won't waste any more time debating this kind of attitude.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Sebastian Bartlett ThatDoesntTickle Naveed-7 Hachik0 AfcFob markova21 XcitingStuart Save.Me Jazzyboy plstudent DrLovejoy The gains kinggg newpersonage @

    Apparently the contents of the ballot paper come Voting Day has been leaked.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Thanks for that, just proves to most people how nasty remainers are and how weak their arguments are. Keep up with these tactics because you are handing the vote to Leave.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    Thanks for that, just proves to most people how nasty remainers are and how weak their arguments are. Keep up with these tactics because you are handing the vote to Leave.
    I want UK to leave the EU. It's the best thing for her.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that we don't like the EU because they put in protectionism rules to protect EU industries, or are you saying you would like a trade deal with say the US, were we open ourselves up to allow US companies to come in and compete directly with our companies i.e. free trade? On the one hand we are opposed to TTIP, but on the other hand we want a private deal with the US that opens us up to US commerce?
    EU limits our ability to trade with countries outside of Europe, it discriminates against poorer nations and the real growth is outside the EU. If those industries can't compete then tough, protectionist policies are outdated and overall damaging. I would love a trade deal with the largest economy in the world which has much more in common with us than most of Europe and where most people actually like Britain. TTIP is not the answer though. Also we aren't just talking about the US, once again you think too small like most remain supporters. Think beyond declining Europe and think to the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    I want UK to leave the EU. It's the best thing for her.
    Funny way of showing it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    EU limits our ability to trade with countries outside of Europe, it discriminates against poorer nations and the real growth is outside the EU. If those industries can't compete then tough, protectionist policies are outdated and overall damaging. I would love a trade deal with the largest economy in the world which has much more in common with us than most of Europe and where most people actually like Britain. TTIP is not the answer though. Also we aren't just talking about the US, once again you think too small like most remain supporters. Think beyond declining Europe and think to the world.
    No, the EU doesn't limit trade with countries outside of Europe. Germany trades three times as much with China as the UK does; it is bound to all the same regulations as we are through its membership of the European Union. This is the fault of national government policy, not the European Union. Yes, the EU is a protectionist trade bloc, but it doesn't limit trade outside of it per se.

    And yes: Europe is declining. But even though Europe is declining, it is still the world's largest economy, the world's largest superpower and the world's largest defence spender, with the largest population in all of Western society. When we trade as Britain, we compete with the Little League clubs of France and Germany. When we trade as Europe, we compete with the Premier League superpowers of the United States and China. It is not so much "out of Europe and into the big wide world" as it is "out of the world's biggest marketplace and into irrelevance". You don't carry half as much clout if you represent a market of 60m people as if you represent a market of 500m - which is why being in the EU enables us to negotiate better, stronger and more beneficial trade deals, and why world leaders across the globe (bar, of course, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin) want us to stay in so that we can continue to negotiate good trade deals with the rest of the world.

    If your argument were true and the European Union limits our trade with other countries, don't you think that they'd be telling us to vote 'Leave'? Except, of course, that governments around the world - from the United States to India - are telling us to vote 'Remain'. Don't take my word for it - take their word for it.

    Let's consider a few points about the Brexit TTIP argument:

    1. It is irrelevant to the EU referendum debate. Because it will have to be ratified by all 28 member states of the European Union, it will come before our national parliament - where it will be debated, scrutinised and it is then that it is appropriate to make some noise about it. We will have a sovereign democratic vote on TTIP and it is then that we can oppose it. The TTIP argument for leaving the EU is therefore utterly insufficient and flawed. If you don't like TTIP, that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote 'Remain': the UK will get its own separate parliamentary vote on TTIP, as will the 27 other member states of the European Union.

    2. It is an awful, awful attempt to distract left-wing individuals from the right-wing dangers of Brexit. The individuals persuaded by the TTIP argument are under the deceptive illusion that only by voting for Brexit can we avoid the right-wing privatisation of everything and anything, from the NHS to Father Christmas. This is a lie and it could not be more divorced from the truth.

    If you look at who is campaigning for Brexit, the names that spark are Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and most of the Tory hard-right.

    Do not mistake my words: they individually support policies that do exactly what TTIP is alleged to threaten to the UK. These are politicians that support bringing back hanging, scrapping maternity leave, revoking same-sex marriage, privatising the NHS, abolishing the BBC, curbing the trade unions, investing heavily in fossil fuels - they have a Tory authoritarian regime of suffering and privatisation that they want to inflict on our country. The European Union stops them. They argue that the EU has too many regulations for their liking - but they're not talking about the business regulations; they're talking about the political regulations that prevent these hard-right Tory Eurosceptics from inflicting their agenda on the United Kingdom.

    There is absolutely no left-wing argument for leaving the EU in this regard: voting 'Brexit' is a mandate for the Brexiteers whose sole conviction against the EU - behind the pantomime and charades of other arguments - is that it stops them from being as authoritarian and as right-wing as they want to be. Brexit is one step closer to Tory authoritarian Britain - and if this TTIP argument has got you thinking about voting 'Leave' in order to stop right-wing rule, think twice about it. Only through remaining in the EU can we protect Britain from the full force of the Tories.

    Again, don't take my word for it: take their word for it. Already, Brexiteers have talked about removing EU regulations requiring tachographs on buses - so that your bus drivers are overworked and underpaid - about cutting benefits because these are "linked" to food prices and about reversing various other EU environmental regulations that actually make products safe for household use and limit the damages of climate change. Under the guise of 'Brexit' is a right-wing agenda of austerity, privatisation and authoritarian rule.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    It is an awful, awful attempt to distract left-wing individuals from the right-wing dangers of Brexit. The individuals persuaded by the TTIP argument are under the deceptive illusion that only by voting for Brexit can we avoid the right-wing privatisation of everything and anything, from the NHS to Father Christmas. This is a lie and it could not be more divorced from the truth.

    If you look at who is campaigning for Brexit, the names that spark are Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and most of the Tory hard-right.

    Do not mistake my words: they individually support policies that do exactly what TTIP is alleged to threaten to the UK. These are politicians that support bringing back hanging, scrapping maternity leave, revoking same-sex marriage, privatising the NHS, abolishing the BBC, curbing the trade unions, investing heavily in fossil fuels - they have a Tory authoritarian regime of suffering and privatisation that they want to inflict on our country. The European Union stops them. They argue that the EU has too many regulations for their liking - but they're not talking about the business regulations; they're talking about the political regulations that prevent these hard-right Tory Eurosceptics from inflicting their agenda on the United Kingdom.

    There is absolutely no left-wing argument for leaving the EU in this regard: voting 'Brexit' is a mandate for the Brexiteers whose sole conviction against the EU - behind the pantomime and charades of other arguments - is that it stops them from being as authoritarian and as right-wing as they want to be. Brexit is one step closer to Tory authoritarian Britain - and if this TTIP argument has got you thinking about voting 'Leave' in order to stop right-wing rule, think twice about it. Only through remaining in the EU can we protect Britain from the full force of the Tories.

    Again, don't take my word for it: take their word for it. Already, Brexiteers have talked about removing EU regulations requiring tachographs on buses - so that your bus drivers are overworked and underpaid - about cutting benefits because these are "linked" to food prices and about reversing various other EU environmental regulations that actually make products safe for household use and limit the damages of climate change. Under the guise of 'Brexit' is a right-wing agenda of austerity, privatisation and authoritarian rule.
    Fear mongering at its best :-).

    Bringing back hanging; source? Or have you literally made this up? If opinion polls are to be believed then the British support the death penalty (I don't personally except for perhaps mass murder).

    Scrapping maternity leave - once again, where is the source?

    Same sex marriage - a Conservative government brought this is. They're hardly going to scrap it.

    Privatisation of the NHS as a whole isn't going to happen. It'd be electoral suicide.

    Please don't confuse authoritarianism with libertarianism. Pretty much everything you've said about the Tories would be about relaxing regulation (which you're well within your rights to dislike) but don't call it authoritarianism.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i just deadlocked it lmao
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Fear mongering at its best :-).

    Bringing back hanging; source? Or have you literally made this up? If opinion polls are to be believed then the British support the death penalty (I don't personally except for perhaps mass murder).

    Scrapping maternity leave - once again, where is the source?

    Same sex marriage - a Conservative government brought this is. They're hardly going to scrap it.

    Privatisation of the NHS as a whole isn't going to happen. It'd be electoral suicide.

    Please don't confuse authoritarianism with libertarianism. Pretty much everything you've said about the Tories would be about relaxing regulation (which you're well within your rights to dislike) but don't call it authoritarianism.
    Michael Gove - Brexiteer - wants to bring back hanging.
    Daniel Hannan - Brexiteer - wants to dismantle the NHS.
    John Whittingdale - Brexiteer - opposes same-sex marriage.
    Liam Fox - Brexiteer - opposes same-sex marriage and abortion.
    Priti Patel - Brexiteer - wants to bring back the death penalty (and voted against same-sex marriage, but supports it now).
    Chris Grayling - Brexiteer - opposes homosexual rights.
    Lord Lawson - Brexiteer - believes cycling is the worst thing to happen to London since the Blitz.
    Sir James Dyson - Brexiteer - wants to scrap EU energy labels.
    Patrick O'Flynn - Brexiteer - believes pregnant women are a "disaster".
    David Davies - Brexiteer - wants to increase investment in fossil fuels.
    Godfrey Bloom - Brexiteer - believes no employer in their right mind would employ a "young, single, free woman".

    UKIP MEPs refused to vote in the European Parliament for equal pay for women. Joined by Brexiteer Tory MEPs, they also refused to back significant tax dodging regulations after the Panama Papers. In 2001, UKIP also called for scrapping the state pension. This isn't to mention UKIP's energy and environment policies, which come straight out of a comedian's jokebook, denying scientific consensus on climate change.

    Although it is a separate and ongoing issue, some of the above have also called for the UK to join Belarus as one of the few non-European countries not to sign up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - meaning that it will be harder to sue the government and local councils where they infringe on human rights, under the guise of "mission creep" (although in 2014, only four rulings of the ECtHR actually contradicted those of the UK Supreme Court). In order to try to boost support to show how the 'EU' is allegedly making too many our own laws, Vote Leave has actually claimed that leaving the EU means leaving the ECtHR; this is not true as the two organisations are not related to one another and the ECtHR is under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe, not the European Union.

    These are people with a hidden, Tory, hard-right authoritarian agenda. Their conviction against the EU is that it has stopped them enacting their agenda on the United Kingdom.

    This is fearmongering, but it's also a point in the debate that has to be made. The politicians spearheading the 'Leave' campaign broadly support these individual policies which will unleash the full force of Tory hard-right authoritarian rule on Britain. 'Leave' is not a moderate case: it is an extremity, like the other policies that these politicians support.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Sebastian Bartlett ThatDoesntTickle Naveed-7 Hachik0 AfcFob markova21 XcitingStuart Save.Me Jazzyboy plstudent DrLovejoy The gains kinggg newpersonage @

    Apparently the contents of the ballot paper come Voting Day has been leaked.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    A very common mistake - the psycho nutjobs running our country aren't in the house of commons, they're in Brussels.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Michael Gove - Brexiteer - wants to bring back hanging.
    Daniel Hannan - Brexiteer - wants to dismantle the NHS.
    John Whittingdale - Brexiteer - opposes same-sex marriage.
    Liam Fox - Brexiteer - opposes same-sex marriage and abortion.
    Priti Patel - Brexiteer - wants to bring back the death penalty (and voted against same-sex marriage, but supports it now).
    Chris Grayling - Brexiteer - opposes homosexual rights.
    Lord Lawson - Brexiteer - believes cycling is the worst thing to happen to London since the Blitz.
    Sir James Dyson - Brexiteer - wants to scrap EU energy labels.
    Patrick O'Flynn - Brexiteer - believes pregnant women are a "disaster".

    UKIP MEPs refused to vote in the European Parliament for equal pay for women. Joined by Brexiteer Tory MEPs, they also refused to back significant tax dodging regulations after the Panama Papers. In 2001, UKIP also called for scrapping the state pension. Although it is a separate and ongoing issue, most of the above have also called for the UK to join Belarus as one of the few non-European countries not to sign up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - meaning that it will be harder to sue the government and local councils where they infringe on human rights, under the guise of "mission creep" (although in 2014, only four rulings of the ECtHR actually contradicted those of the UK Supreme Court).

    These are people with a hidden, Tory, hard-right authoritarian agenda. Their conviction against the EU is that it has stopped them enacting their agenda on the United Kingdom.
    Once again, nothing you've posted there is particularly authoritarian except perhaps the death penalty (which as I stated before many people support) - it's libertarianism.
    Did you actually read the stories or literally just post the links?
    NHS - a couple of MPs published a paper saying that the UK would be better off without the NHS which then almost every other Tory MP disagreed with (apart from the chap who's now in UKIP, Douglas Carswell). I believe the NHS is a good thing but I can understand why certain individuals don't like they idea of forcing everybody to pay for the NHS out of taxes as it's a form of authoritarianism (therefore scrapping it & giving people a choice is libertarianism).

    Same sex marriage/rights - again if you read the reasons given the MPs who were worried about it were worried about the government forcing people & institutions into providing gay marriage (such as the Church). Again I support gay marriage but is it not authoritarian to force everyone to accept it whereas the libertarianism POV would be to let these individuals & institutions make up their own minds?

    The EU has been quite authoritarian regarding vacuum cleaners so I can understand why Mr Dyson I'd upset, especially if their tests favour the competition for no good reason.

    http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-...right/page/0/2

    Surely if the EU was libertarian people would be able to choose how much power they want a vacuum cleaner to have via free market?

    Pregnant women - again did you read the story? The writer was concerned that the government are forcing companies to except these rules which then leads to them being less likely to employ women. Surely forcing this on companies is authoritarian??
    The UK has had its own rights acts since 1215. The 17th Century saw that increase & yet again throughout the 20th Century both before we joined the EU & after it. We don't need the EU Human Rights Act - the UK Parliament should have the ability bring in a British Bill of Rights.

    If you really want to spread hatred about the more right wing members of the Conservative Party then go right ahead. But remember these are mostly libertarian not authoritarian positions.
    Have a read of the difference between the two.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rise-new-li...ration-1469233

    https://blogbloggerbloggest.com/2016...ibertarianism/
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    EU limits our ability to trade with countries outside of Europe
    The EU doesn't limit our ability to trade with other countries. It happens all the time. We buy cheap stuff from China. We sell expensive brands all over the world. The EU does however limit our ability to make specific trade deals with other countries. But just exactly what sort of deals do we want? And with whom? Would we want a free trade deal with the likes of China for example? And Facebook and Google are hardly paying their way in this country due to innovative tax avoidance. Do we really want more access to the UK from corporate America because any deal is not going to have the little guy at its centre?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    The EU doesn't limit our ability to trade with other countries. It happens all the time. We buy cheap stuff from China. We sell expensive brands all over the world. The EU does however limit our ability to make specific trade deals with other countries. But just exactly what sort of deals do we want? And with whom? Would we want a free trade deal with the likes of China for example? And Facebook and Google are hardly paying their way in this country due to innovative tax avoidance. Do we really want more access to the UK from corporate America because any deal is not going to have the little guy at its centre?
    Are we allowed to make trade deals with other nations whilst we're a member of the EU? Yes, or no?
    Does the answer you're about to provide back up the assertion that the EU limits our ability to make trade deals? Yes, it does.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Are we allowed to make trade deals with other nations whilst we're a member of the EU? Yes, or no?
    Does the answer you're about to provide back up the assertion that the EU limits our ability to make trade deals? Yes, it does.
    Yes. It limits our ability to do trade deals. But it doesn't limit our ability to trade with whoever we want. What I do question is do we need trade deals? Would you want a free market deal with China for example? And if you don't want TTIP with the US (most Brexiters appear not to) because of corporate access to bid to run our NHS and the like, just exactly what does a trade deal with the US outside the EU look like?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ln99)
    I reckon voting out will rip the United Kingdom apart, get the sense that Sturgeon would much rather be in the Eu and if it came to it she would call another independence referendum. Scotland would then join the EU. I personally think this would **** Scotland up and make it a complete minority of a country. The UK is a strong force and an even bigger one with inside the EU. I haven't researched a lot on this matter so I could be completely off here. The EU is the safe bet and I don't believe we should risk putting our country in jeopardy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So be bullied and blackmailed by the Scots into more and more power for Brussels, just to save the union that will be less and less independent anyway? No way, we should stand up to them and for the best future, and offer them a perfectly fair settlement within the union (And NI/Wales), and if they don't take that sod 'em.

    Edit-don't forget the Scots were only 5% away from independence, and at the time projections would show that if the younger voters came of age the next time, with more of the older generation phase out, it would tip towards independence. If they want it within Brussels, they'll take it, they will still want it as much. We have to not pander to them, we have to be strong and then make a fair settlement, make a stronger case for the union by totally revamping our politics, and making a credilble social democratic opposition that is closer to Sots, and many old labour supporters hearts. We'd be more likely to save the union through a constitution and/or federal settlement than through Europe, it will only be nominally a union then.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Yes. It limits our ability to do trade deals. But it doesn't limit our ability to trade with whoever we want. What I do question is do we need trade deals? Would you want a free market deal with China for example? And if you don't want TTIP with the US (most Brexiters appear not to) because of corporate access to bid to run our NHS and the like, just exactly what does a trade deal with the US outside the EU look like?
    So how were such a hugely successful mercantile and trading nation in the past without a protectionist Eurocrat bureaucracy then? The Swiss have a deal with China for gods sake. I've already heard a lot of business people saying they could sell so much better outside, that customers from other countries were having to pay more because of the EU. I'm really exasperated with hearing these defeatist, fear based arguments. It's saying 'we can't do anything anymore, it's bad but will be worse if we leave' It's a self fulfilling prophecy, the thrust of the argument is to hand (unaccountable)power to others because we've given up on using it better ourselves, so therefore we will end up more and more unable to take decisions ourselves and shape our own future. Whereas if we leave and say we can , we build entirely different and independent future. How was America founded and why did it get so successful? History has a lot of self fulfilling prophecies in it, so if we say we can't make ourselves great outside the EU make our own laws or trade deals, we won't. It is as simple as choice.
    There's no way I want to be looking back saying, I chose fear, because I'm unhappy with so much, but I don't want to risk something supposedly worse, when it could be so so much better, and when the long term counts so much to me also.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.