Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Surely the real issues are whether we should have contributory (EU style) welfare or non-contributory (uk style); whether we should have a mega port to serve the EU decided by Brussels or decided by Westminster; whether the land in the UK can take 110m people or 70m decided in Westminster or Brussels etc. etc.

    So are you pro-EU because you wish the destruction of England and Wales due to historical race hatred?
    I only care about the benefits & rights for the lower classes. Why would I care about things like the Trans Pacific Partnership. I'd rather leave the EU than let he Tories gain a way where they could destroy the NHS.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    So you also are happy to see the UK terminated.
    Only under certain circumstances. I value British power and in a world with 4 likely economic and military superpowers in decades to come, tying ourselves to one may not be a bad idea.

    Being rich but unimportant isn't enough for me and that's our future as things stand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Great answer, it was the school history curriculum. Labour played a blinder changing it. You could have been taught about Britain's role ending the slave trade and saving Europe from tyranny but instead they taught you the bad stuff. There is good and bad in all history in all countries.

    It is fascinating that this has left you with no love of your neighbours and no interest in supporting them in their current needs, preferring instead an EU that is largely dominated by a German/French/Austrian/Italian bloc that was gassing ethnic minorities to death in living memory. Fascinating. I wish I could control the school history curriculum!
    Quite right. The dumbing down & skewing of school history has a lot to answer for. I expect that conspiracy theories will soon be part of the curriculum:

    Q1 Queen Elizabeth is a member of ( please tick one of the following )

    i) The Chameleon Ladies

    ii) The Newt Folk

    iii) The Lizard People
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saleha09)
    Don't really follow the debate but here are some 'pros' to staying...

    -->Millions of jobs are linked to our EU membership

    As far back as the year 2000, it has been claimed that three million jobs rely directly on our membership of the European Union. The figure was even cited by Nick Clegg during his time as Deputy Prime Minister. (Though it doesn't state how many job losses there would be if we left..)

    -->Some of Britain's biggest trading partners are in the EU

    Some of Britain's largest trading partners - including France and Germany - are in the EU. The EU is the UK's main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year, or 52% of the total trade in goods and services. Complete withdrawal from the EU would see trade barriers erected, with car exports to the EU, for example, facing a 15% tariff and imports a tariff of 10%.

    -->It's easier than ever for us to work and travel abroad

    Around 1.4 million British people live abroad in the EU, and having membership makes movement around the continent incredibly easy.

    That doesn't even begin to cover half of it so you'll probably need a second opinion from someone who does follow it closely..
    So? If it's protectionist then it stinks. It goes against all our heritage and traditions, that made the anglosphere nations, influenced by our founders, so successful. Look how much better even the Aussie economy runs, and how much more successful than Europe they consistently are, with not even a great bounty of resources- and there's your answer. It's empirical.

    The jobs thing is scaremongering, and it isn't the point. We were conned into the EU in the first place, told by Heath it was a mere trade agreement-they knew what was best for the people, so we were deceived, of course. Now there are some jobs dependent on it, though that is exaggerated. But what the hell happened to the moral issue of how we were deceived, what happened to matters of principle, bigger themes, our national purpose, our long term destiny and sovereignty? Why should we unquestioningly accept the received wisdom of politicians, who only care about short-termism and their own personal opportunism? Why are we constantly told the immigrants from the EU are the only thing are economy can function with, while we dispense with our education system for the poor, and give up on them and declare them useless, and we train no-one, ad we undercutt hem with cheap labour and low wages? Does any part of you say that this is about powerful and rich people's interests and opportunism, and that actually some of the idealists and people who are about their country are on the anti-EU side?

    (The whole issue has recently been portrayed as in-out being- left-right, or progressive vs conservatives-but it's BS- Tony Benn, Labour's hero of the left was opposed to the EU strongly a fact which they conveniently airbrushed out. In fact it was many Tories of the economic right who were pro EU, Many prominent in Labour was against it- like with Israel-Palestine, it switched in terms of associated sides)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I only care about the benefits & rights for the lower classes. Why would I care about things like the Trans Pacific Partnership. I'd rather leave the EU than let he Tories gain a way where they could destroy the NHS.
    So you would support a potentially irreversible political union with Germany, France etc. on the basis of current EU policies. So if the EU swung to the Right or even the far Right (as much of Europe has done over the past century) where would you go then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Only under certain circumstances. I value British power and in a world with 4 likely economic and military superpowers in decades to come, tying ourselves to one may not be a bad idea.

    Being rich but unimportant isn't enough for me and that's our future as things stand.
    But the UK has only 12% of the vote in the EU Council (since 1st Nov 2014). The UK will have no voice in a future political union.

    Wouldn't it be just as entertaining to spectate at EU power from an offshore independent nation as from an offshore region of the EU?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    Quite right. The dumbing down & skewing of school history has a lot to answer for. I expect that conspiracy theories will soon be part of the curriculum:

    Q1 Queen Elizabeth is a member of ( please tick one of the following )

    i) The Chameleon Ladies

    ii) The Newt Folk

    iii) The Lizard People
    Funny, but you missed the point that the EU Referendum is about the present and the previous poster was saying it is a good idea to terminate the UK because he hated British history.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    So you would support a potentially irreversible political union with Germany, France etc. on the basis of current EU policies. So if the EU swung to the Right or even the far Right (as much of Europe has done over the past century) where would you go then?
    Into the mountains.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    But the UK has only 12% of the vote in the EU Council (since 1st Nov 2014). The UK will have no voice in a future political union.

    Wouldn't it be just as entertaining to spectate at EU power from an offshore independent nation as from an offshore region of the EU?
    Well its probably worth saying that our share of population is increasing but I agree (we're the California of the EU in the long run).

    With current Eu and Euro-zone structures I wouldn't go all in. Though I'd consider the USA.

    I'm actually open to leaving the EU as things stand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Into the mountains.
    Well, get your climbing gear ready, all governments swing left and right. Just because the EU coincides with your view today doesnt mean it will tomorrow. Having both the EU and the UK provides some balance to Europe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm actually open to leaving the EU as things stand.
    Sadly the EU isn't stable. The Euro will only work in the long run with full political union (check out the ECB's opinion on the inevitability of full political union).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Is this the general consensus amongst pro-EU supporters? It would be interesting to know.
    Pro-European here. I am proud to be British, and believe that the UK is a great nation that should have a presence on the world stage. I believe that membership of the EU is fully compatible with that aim. We pool our sovereignty with our European neighbours and therefore enhance our economic clout, our voice, and out influence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Also, don't take illegaltobepoor as representative of pro-Europeans.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Pro-European here. I am proud to be British, and believe that the UK is a great nation that should have a presence on the world stage. I believe that membership of the EU is fully compatible with that aim. We pool our sovereignty with our European neighbours and therefore enhance our economic clout, our voice, and out influence.
    Your reply seems to come under the category of not realising that full political union is indeed the termination of the UK.

    You may have noticed that the UK has been strangely silent on the World Stage in the past year and that defence and foreign affairs were scarcely mentioned in the General Election. What changed? In November 2014 the foreign policy and security parts of the Treaties became fully implemented. The UK now no longer has an independent voice in foreign policy or defence.

    The principle change is the solidarity clauses implemented by the Treaties as amended by Lisbon, especially Article 24(3):

    "3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."

    Couple this clause with Article 26(1):

    "1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."

    and we end up with a cast iron committment to supply UK military forces for EU missions and to allow the EU to control foreign policy.

    What about UK defence? Can we act alone?

    "3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers).

    What about the UK's UN Security Council presence?

    Article 34:

    "Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

    When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Your reply seems to come under the category of not realising that full political union is indeed the termination of the UK.
    Well, just as well I'm not advocating full political union, then, and nor is the EU.

    You may have noticed that the UK has been strangely silent on the World Stage and that defence and foreign affairs were scarcely mentioned in the General Election. What changed? In November 2014 the foreign policy and security parts of the Treaties became fully implemented. The UK now no longer has an independent voice in foreign policy or defence.
    No, I have not noticed that. The UK is one of the most active and prominent independent voices worldwide. it just happens to coincide an awful lot with the interests of our neighbours and allies. We're not going to divert just for the sake of it.

    The principle change is the solidarity clauses implemented by the Treaties as amended by Lisbon, especially Article 24(3):

    "3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."
    I see nothing contentious there. External policy remains an intergovernmental matter, and the principle is on the lines of many international bodies: you fight your corner inside, but when a line has been agreed, you're honour-bound to respect the will of the majority. There's still buckets of scope for a Member State to nix a contentious policy before it's adopted by the EU.

    Couple this clause with Article 26(1):

    "1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."

    and we end up with a cast iron committment to supply UK military forces for EU missions.
    Again, nothing contentious. Identifying strategic interests. Gosh, what a shocker. Defining general guidelines and objectives - basically, a long list of nice-to-haves. The European Council is, again, an intergovernmental body which captains the EU in the most broad and strategic terms, and any absolute non-negotiable nuclear concerns simply won't get even near the table if a Member State doesn't want it.

    What about UK defence? Can we act alone?

    "3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers).
    No, you're completely misreading that. The UK is expected, as a Member State, to be open and honest with its neighbours about its foreign policy and keep them informed of its actions. We do the same with NATO and other close alliances we have. Anything the Council hasn't put a view on we remain entirely at liberty to do what we like. For everything the Council has agreed a line on, we remain at liberty to violate, but we risk international censure for breaking faith. There's no chains on our hands beyond the ones of common decency.

    What about the UK's UN Security Council presence?

    Article 34:

    "Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

    When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position."
    Again, what's the problem with that? It simply means the UK in the Security Council has two hats: one as a sovereign Great Power, and another, which it shares with France, as spokesperson for the Member States of the EU. I fail to see what the issue is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Gladders, just look back over your
    (Original post by gladders)
    last post
    . You say that you cannot see any problem with the UK submitting its foreign and defence plans for EU approval before it can take any action and can see no difficulty in the UK devoting its UN Security Council seat to putting forward foreign policy approved by the EU (for there is no "non-EU foreign policy" available to the UK). Yet you maintain that this still allows the UK to act as an independent nation on the global stage.

    We seem to have entirely different ideas of sovereignty and of independence. To me they are about taking decisions without the need to refer the decisions to another authority which can veto them or change them. What Britain used to do. To you "independence" seems to mean the opposite - being happy that decisions must always be passed and approved by others.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Gladders, just look back over your . You say that you cannot see any problem with the UK submitting its foreign and defence plans for EU approval before it can take any action and can see no difficulty in the UK devoting its UN Security Council seat to putting forward foreign policy approved by the EU (for there is no "non-EU foreign policy" available to the UK). Yet you maintain that this still allows the UK to act as an independent nation on the global stage.

    We seem to have entirely different ideas of sovereignty and of independence. To me they are about taking decisions without the need to refer the decisions to another authority which can veto them or change them. What Britain used to do. To you "independence" seems to mean the opposite - being happy that decisions must always be passed and approved by others.
    It's not EU 'approval'. It's EU notification. Out of decency, we inform our neighbours of what we are doing. If we want to strike out alone, we can; if we think common action by the EU would be better, we can call for that. But as part of that, if something is agreed as common action by the EU, then we can't undermine it. That's not violation of our sovereignty but simply recognising the quid-pro-quos of international diplomacy.

    Will you be demanding our withdrawal from NATO next, as that has direct command-and-control over UK military units, and binds us diplomatically even tighter!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It's not EU 'approval'. It's EU notification. Out of decency, we inform our neighbours of what we are doing. If we want to strike out alone, we can; if we think common action by the EU would be better, we can call for that. But as part of that, if something is agreed as common action by the EU, then we can't undermine it. That's not violation of our sovereignty but simply recognising the quid-pro-quos of international diplomacy.
    You seem to have a different set of Treaties in mind Article 26(1):

    "1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."

    Where does that say the EU should be "informed" rather than the EU "shall adopt the necessary decisions"?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Will you be demanding our withdrawal from NATO next, as that has direct command-and-control over UK military units, and binds us diplomatically even tighter!
    Under NATO, an alliance, the UK can adopt its own foreign policy and defence policy. The EU is a political union, becoming tighter year by year. In an alliance we consult and inform, in a union we take orders from the government of the union.

    BTW, paragraph 3 of the Article presented above extends the EU's competence to all decisions:

    "3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers)."

    The "consultation" and "informing" is just to ensure that any independent actions are caught under paragraph 1. ie: The EU Council decides, not the member state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Most people cannot stand the history of Britain. What is there to be proud of? Invading other nations, stealing vast quantities of wealth and making slaves out of those who have a darker skin tone?

    They aren't my British values so the Empire can go to hell for all I care.
    Oh really...

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    You seem to have a different set of Treaties in mind Article 26(1):

    "1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."

    Where does that say the EU should be "informed" rather than the EU "shall adopt the necessary decisions"?
    You're moving the goalposts - that refers to a different point I made. On that subject, as I already pointed out to you, the Council works on the basis that, as honourable, sovereign states, you promise to abide by the collectively decision of the other sovereign states when they make a collective decision in Council.

    If there's anything on the cards that the UK thinks it could never freely sign up to that it would absolutely oppose, then that issue simply never gets anywhere near Council, because it would be filtered out in the acres of pre-Council low-level negotiations that take place.

    Under NATO, an alliance, the UK can adopt its own foreign policy and defence policy. The EU is a political union, becoming tighter year by year. In an alliance we consult and inform, in a union we take orders from the government of the union.

    BTW, paragraph 3 of the Article presented above extends the EU's competence to all decisions:
    And yet NATO has control over parts of our military. Sounds rather more than a mere alliance to me. And why should alliances get free graft anyway?

    "3.. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions." (ie: all actions must be referred to the Council before they are taken but Paragraph 1 says that the Council is sovereign in all matters of defence that it considers)."

    The "consultation" and "informing" is just to ensure that any independent actions are caught under paragraph 1. ie: The EU Council decides, not the member state.
    Not at all. Prior consultations means that the Member State can be informed if anything they are proposing to do could violate any of the commitments they have already signed up for, and to make changes so that they don't end up embarassing themselves. That's called, again, being a decent member of the international community. The Member State can tell Council to go whistle if it likes - Council cannot stop it - but that Member State will face consequences in terms of diminished influence and probably a great deal of international mockery.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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