Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Fear mongering is fair enough but not from the government and not using our money.

    Why is it the best option? Economically the EU is a sinking ship and industry in the UK has gone backwards since joining.

    UK has almost no voice in the EU anyway. We would be trading the next to nothing voice in the EU and little in the UK in exchange for full voice in the UK. What really matters.
    So, how would the referendum address the impartiality of the Government?

    That aside, why do you think that the EU is a sinking ship and why do you think that is important to whether we're a member? Do you think industry would return to the UK if we left?

    The UK has a voice in the EU that is proportionate to it's size relative to the whole of the EU. Is this not fair? The voice of the remaining EU is still going to be bigger since they would be the larger, demographically and economically, partner in any post-leave negotiations that would take place.


    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Also by letting the immigrants in you are generating more opportunities for more jobs to open up as there will be more strain on services BUT If we go out of the EU the country will be stable and if we need more workers we just need a system in place to only allow ones in that would suit jobs that are in high demand.
    I think this was proposed once. The previous Labour government wanted to create a low-skilled visa but scrapped it as the EU already provided enough migrants in this category.

    I do see this as one of the few compelling arguments to leaving the EU though I'd rather not risk our financial stability for something which I, personally, doubt would result in any significant gain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    How on earth is it racist to believe that we should be able to make our own laws, control our own borders etc. racist?
    It is also not racist to believe we shouldn't be allowing anyone and everyone into our country. Just look at what happened in Paris - they registered an attacker as a refugee.
    I don't suppose you happened to catch the BBC interview where they interviewed a young man from the Ivory Coast who was at Calais and admitted he was trying to come here for a "better" job, when he had one at home? It's estimated that up to 80% of these people are not from war torn countries.
    Look it up - the EU isn't a good thing.
    The attackers in Paris, and Belgium, were mostly home grown. Do you think the attacker who posed as a refugee would have been able to do anything if they hadn't been able to get weapons from existing extremists in France? Or do you think they were able to lug that all the way from Syria?

    What has the crisis in Calais got to do with the EU?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The attackers in Paris, and Belgium, were mostly home grown. Do you think the attacker who posed as a refugee would have been able to do anything if they hadn't been able to get weapons from existing extremists in France? Or do you think they were able to lug that all the way from Syria?

    What has the crisis in Calais got to do with the EU?
    Your point is flawed there. If there are extremists travelling within the EU supplying weapons etc, we are definitely better off out. At this moment in time, the UK has no right to turn anyone form the EU away based on their criminal record. So these people can be travelling freely into our country.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The attackers in Paris, and Belgium, were mostly home grown. Do you think the attacker who posed as a refugee would have been able to do anything if they hadn't been able to get weapons from existing extremists in France? Or do you think they were able to lug that all the way from Syria?

    What has the crisis in Calais got to do with the EU?
    The EU have encouraged people to travel here, instead if helping them in their home countries.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    I'm a Eurosceptic but I'd vote remain. I'm hopefully of a narrow win for In as it gives us more grounds for reforms, but I don't want to see, nor do I think there should be, a second referendum.

    Just to be clear too, I have no issues with the Immigration side of things. It's more so about how the EU is run
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    So, how would the referendum address the impartiality of the Government?

    That aside, why do you think that the EU is a sinking ship and why do you think that is important to whether we're a member? Do you think industry would return to the UK if we left?

    The UK has a voice in the EU that is proportionate to it's size relative to the whole of the EU. Is this not fair? The voice of the remaining EU is still going to be bigger since they would be the larger, demographically and economically, partner in any post-leave negotiations that would take place.
    Because it gives people time to forget all the scaremongering lies for one. It's going to be neck and neck and you're naive if you think the government hasn't been unfairly swaying things.

    The UK doesn't need a voice in the EU (not that we have one). We need a voice for our own country. Every voice from the UK has been suppressed by the EU. Our geographical size is immaterial. We have the 3rd biggest population of any European country, not far behind France. So we should have a lot bigger say than zero. EU bureaucracy has been crippling international trade for the UK. Stifling healthy competition with red tape.

    Norway were fed the same pack of lies in the mid 90s when they rejected EU membership and they're doing great. The non EU countries in Europe all have great economies. This isn't a coincidence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    So, how would the referendum address the impartiality of the Government?

    That aside, why do you think that the EU is a sinking ship and why do you think that is important to whether we're a member? Do you think industry would return to the UK if we left?

    The UK has a voice in the EU that is proportionate to it's size relative to the whole of the EU. Is this not fair? The voice of the remaining EU is still going to be bigger since they would be the larger, demographically and economically, partner in any post-leave negotiations that would take place.




    I think this was proposed once. The previous Labour government wanted to create a low-skilled visa but scrapped it as the EU already provided enough migrants in this category.

    I do see this as one of the few compelling arguments to leaving the EU though I'd rather not risk our financial stability for something which I, personally, doubt would result in any significant gain.
    We are the number one investment country in Europe, according to a survey by Ernst and Young. This is because of the international companies in London, and our connections with the EDIT: US. Many business leaders in this survey said the EU had no effect on this.

    We pay the second largest sum into the EU, yet have one of the smallest voices. How is this fair?

    We would get our own voice in the WTO, NATO and many other organisations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    Well then clearly if the racists (I'm sorry, 'Euroskeptics' win and people vote to leave then we should also have another referendum.
    Wind your neck in, Euroskeptics aren't racists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm a Eurosceptic but I'd vote remain. I'm hopefully of a narrow win for In as it gives us more grounds for reforms, but I don't want to see, nor do I think there should be, a second referendum.

    Just to be clear too, I have no issues with the Immigration side of things. It's more so about how the EU is run
    One of the Labour MPs who helped to draft the Lisbon Treaty has said the EU cannot be reformed.
    One of the former vice presidents has said that Cameron's "reforms" are not legally binding.
    (Their names escape me, sorry)
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    One of the Labour MPs who helped to draft the Lisbon Treaty has said the EU cannot be reformed.
    One of the former vice presidents has said that Cameron's "reforms" are not legally binding.
    (Their names escape me, sorry)
    I'd like to see evidence for it.

    I'm fairly certain it's legally binding providing certain countries accept the terms and conditions. If it was genuinely not legally binding nor unable to reform, the Out campaign would have made a much much larger fuss about it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'd like to see evidence for it.

    I'm fairly certain it's legally binding providing certain countries accept the terms and conditions. If it was genuinely not legally binding nor unable to reform, the Out campaign would have made a much much larger fuss about it.
    Angela Merkel has admitted she won't give the UK what Cameron asked for, Leave.eu have capitalised on it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Because it gives people time to forget all the scaremongering lies for one. It's going to be neck and neck and you're naive if you think the government hasn't been unfairly swaying things.

    The UK doesn't need a voice in the EU (not that we have one). We need a voice for our own country. Every voice from the UK has been suppressed by the EU. Our geographical size is immaterial. We have the 3rd biggest population of any European country, not far behind France. So we should have a lot bigger say than zero. EU bureaucracy has been crippling international trade for the UK. Stifling healthy competition with red tape.

    Norway were fed the same pack of lies in the mid 90s when they rejected EU membership and they're doing great. The non EU countries in Europe all have great economies. This isn't a coincidence.
    If a second referendum were to happen people would still campaign for either position. There'd still be scaremongering, from either side.

    Your second point doesn't make any sense. As I said before, our voice is proportionate to our size in the EU. Why do you think that we don't have one, or that our voice is being suppressed? What EU beureaucracy has crippled international trade and has stifled healthy competition?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    If a second referendum were to happen people would still campaign for either position. There'd still be scaremongering, from either side.

    Your second point doesn't make any sense. As I said before, our voice is proportionate to our size in the EU. Why do you think that we don't have one, or that our voice is being suppressed? What EU beureaucracy has crippled international trade and has stifled healthy competition?
    But not proportionate to the amount we pay in. As I said earlier, we pay in the second largest amount but have one of the smallest voices. How is this fair?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Norway were fed the same pack of lies in the mid 90s when they rejected EU membership and they're doing great. The non EU countries in Europe all have great economies. This isn't a coincidence.
    You mean like Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg?

    Because we all know the only reason these are successful is that they are not in the EU.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    You mean like Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg?

    Because we all know the only reason these are successful is that they are not in the EU.
    I'd guess one of the main reasons they're doing well is they're not giving over £55 million a day to the EU!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySuk6jE6kJc

    This sums it up pretty well.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    If a second referendum were to happen people would still campaign for either position. There'd still be scaremongering, from either side.

    Your second point doesn't make any sense. As I said before, our voice is proportionate to our size in the EU. Why do you think that we don't have one, or that our voice is being suppressed? What EU beureaucracy has crippled international trade and has stifled healthy competition?
    If remain wins, the EU will find it has free reign to do whatever it wants with zero risk. We'll likely see a lot of negative things happening merely weeks later. You'll be screaming for a second referendum then.

    Define what you call "voice". What exactly have we voiced that the EU actually took note of? Every motion by the UK has been denied. The EU has imposed import tariffs which allows inferior products to avoid having to compete with non-EU products. This repeated over a long period of time causes market stagnation. If the EU is so wonderful then why is it the only shrinking market in the world? Use your head. Just because you're negative and afraid of change, it doesn't mean we should let people like you drag the country down and not allow it to reach its full potential.

    Go watch brexit the movie.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    The EU have encouraged people to travel here, instead if helping them in their home countries.
    Ok... and still this wouldn't have anything to do with us. We're not forced to accept these people.

    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    Your point is flawed there. If there are extremists travelling within the EU supplying weapons etc, we are definitely better off out. At this moment in time, the UK has no right to turn anyone form the EU away based on their criminal record. So these people can be travelling freely into our country.
    How is it flawed? Free travel within the EU stops at the border between France and the UK, and the border security there is pretty significant. I mean you could try and travel to the UK with weapons in the back of your car but I doubt you're going to get anywhere.

    As far as I'm aware the UK has the right to return an EU migrant if they are a criminal. Criminal records are another thing, though we can reject anyone who comes from outside of the EU.
    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    But not proportionate to the amount we pay in. As I said earlier, we pay in the second largest amount but have one of the smallest voices. How is this fair?
    We're the 4th largest contributor to the EU, not the second.We make up 10% of the budget and have 12% of the vote in the European Council and 10% of the vote in the European Parliament. How is that not proportionate (if not in our favour)?Regardless, would you rather the EU were a plutocracy? Power is shared in accordance to the size of each countries population, not their wealth.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Ok... and still this wouldn't have anything to do with us. We're not forced to accept these people.



    How is it flawed? Free travel within the EU stops at the border between France and the UK, and the border security there is pretty significant. I mean you could try and travel to the UK with weapons in the back of your car but I doubt you're going to get anywhere.

    As far as I'm aware the UK has the right to return an EU migrant if they are a criminal. Criminal records are another thing, though we can reject anyone who comes from outside of the EU.
    We're the 4th largest contributor to the EU, not the second.We make up 10% of the budget and have 12% of the vote in the European Council and 10% of the vote in the European Parliament. How is that not proportionate (if not in our favour)?Regardless, would you rather the EU were a plutocracy? Power is shared in accordance to the size of each countries population, not their wealth.
    Fine then, 10% average. yet the EU controls 100% of our economy, 50% of our laws etc. etc. It's undemocratic.
    All 28 leaders agreed to abolish the 5% VAT on tampons, yet this can be overturned by the European Commission, none of whom are elected. Fair, right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    If remain wins, the EU will find it has free reign to do whatever it wants with zero risk. We'll likely see a lot of negative things happening merely weeks later. You'll be screaming for a second referendum then.

    Define what you call "voice". What exactly have we voiced that the EU actually took note of? Every motion by the UK has been denied. The EU has imposed import tariffs which allows inferior products to avoid having to compete with non-EU products. This repeated over a long period of time causes market stagnation. If the EU is so wonderful then why is it the only shrinking market in the world? Use your head. Just because you're negative and afraid of change, it doesn't mean we should let people like you drag the country down and not allow it to reach its full potential.

    Go watch brexit the movie.
    Er, and you brought up scaremongering? The EU doesn't have free reign to do whatever it likes over the UK, nor would it magically gain this power if we vote to remain. If you really think it can then please explain this to me.

    By voice I mean the weight of our vote in the European Council and the number of MEPs we have in the European Parliament. Both are proportionate to our population. What do you mean by voice? Getting our way?

    I'll ask again, but what bureacracy and red tape has stifled trade and healthy competition? Can you give some examples?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JessThomas6)
    Fine then, 10% average. yet the EU controls 100% of our economy, 50% of our laws etc. etc. It's undemocratic.
    All 28 leaders agreed to abolish the 5% VAT on tampons, yet this can be overturned by the European Commission, none of whom are elected. Fair, right?
    The EU doesn't control 100% of our economy. As for laws, what opposition do you have about this? Most of them are regulations about trading standards.

    Can you provide a link to the story about VAT on tampons?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.