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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    It is true that the UK has the 2nd highest population per MEP figure in the EU of 875,289, whereas the average figure is 673,370. It will depend on your definition of 'democracy' to judge if this qualifies as democratic. To many people it is not.
    Your figures are wrong. The average number of citizens per MEP is:

    508,450,856 / 751 = 677,031

    The number of citizens per MEP is also wrong, but the ranking is correct:

    MEPs per capita:
    France (66.42 million / 74) 897,567
    UK (64.88 million / 73): 888,767
    Spain (46.45 million / 54): 860,185
    Germany (81.2 / 96): 845,833
    Italy (60.8 / 73): 832,876

    This looks like a great injustice, but I think really it is just a rounding error (you can't have a fraction of an MEP allocated to a member state).

    What happens to the UK rank if it gains one extra MEP and the other all lose one:

    France (66.42 million / 73) 909,863
    UK (64.88 million / 74): 876,756
    Spain (46.45 million / 53): 876,415
    Germany (81.2 / 95): 854,736
    Italy (60.8 / 72): 844,444

    Same order, but closer - perhaps this is what should happen in the next re-shuffle (MEP allocation hasn't been updated since 2014)?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then how do you propose one should plan for the future.
    What you are suggesting is not planning, it is guessing. As I wrote, the tipping point for that decision already happened - 1973.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    What you are suggesting is not planning, it is guessing. As I wrote, the tipping point for that decision already happened - 1973.
    Let me give you an example:

    Simon read that total net migration to the UK in the year ending September 2015 was 323,000.

    Simon is concerned about the pressure on public services.

    Simon believes leaving the EU will reduce the number of migrants entering the UK.

    Can you say that Simon's decision is based on guess work and his reasoning behind his decision has no merits?

    Do you not agree that the very logic behind making any decision in life is to make a judgement based on facts and statistics, despite the fact that those facts and/or statistic does not guarantee a certain outcome but is simply indicative of the likely outcome, subject to one's perception of its indication?

    If not how do you make a decision for the future, when you do not know what the future will be like?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Let me give you an example:



    Can you say that Simon's decision is based on guess work and his reasoning behind his decision has no merits?…
    It's funny that you make this argument, when you have said you are not interested in the immigration issue.

    The problem with your example is that it has imperfect information, to a really large extent.

    The first problem is to know whether this extra number of migrants is increasing the overall population of the UK.

    Secondly, this figure needs to be put into perspective: what is the underlying population growth, without migration?

    Then you would need to know what the government intends to do about the alleged strain on public services: is it providing more housing/schools/GPs…?

    You might also want to ask yourself are the migrants nett contributors to government funds, or not? Or is there a difference in this characteristic between migrants from different locations (ie EU, and non-EU).

    Is there any evidence that leaving the EU would change overall migration, or population growth?

    One could probably continue this list for ten or twenty points, and still not really get a good understanding of the issues.

    So, if Simon is looking at nett migration figures and making decisions based on that figure alone, then he isn't planning, he is just guessing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    It's funny that you make this argument, when you have said you are not interested in the immigration issue.

    The problem with your example is that it has imperfect information, to a really large extent.

    The first problem is to know whether this extra number of migrants is increasing the overall population of the UK.

    Secondly, this figure needs to be put into perspective: what is the underlying population growth, without migration?

    Then you would need to know what the government intends to do about the alleged strain on public services: is it providing more housing/schools/GPs…?

    You might also want to ask yourself are the migrants nett contributors to government funds, or not? Or is there a difference in this characteristic between migrants from different locations (ie EU, and non-EU).

    Is there any evidence that leaving the EU would change overall migration, or population growth?

    One could probably continue this list for ten or twenty points, and still not really get a good understanding of the issues.

    So, if Simon is looking at nett migration figures and making decisions based on that figure alone, then he isn't planning, he is just guessing.
    Then is there any evidence that leaving the EU will not reduce immigration number?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then is there any evidence that leaving the EU will not reduce immigration number?
    Is there evidence that leave the EU will reduce immigration numbers?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36328566

    The majority of your fellow citizens are not anti-immigration.

    You make such a fuss about this, and think leaving the EU will be a magic bullet. But in reality it is far from that. You act like that by leaving the EU, suddenly all your personal believes and opinions will come to fruit. Completely disregarding what others may want, and what politicians will actually do...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Is there evidence that leave the EU will reduce immigration numbers?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36328566

    The majority of your fellow citizens are not anti-immigration.

    You make such a fuss about this, and think leaving the EU will be a magic bullet. But in reality it is far from that. You act like that by leaving the EU, suddenly all your personal believes and opinions will come to fruit. Completely disregarding what others may want, and what politicians will actually do...
    I think you are missing my point. If you read my replies I am not making a point for immigration, I am merely using it as an example to demonstrate both sides cannot possibly tell what the implication of the referendum outcome will be. I actually have no issue with immigration but I respect those who make a case for it if it affects them.

    I was demonstrating the simple fact that personal judgement is required in this situation given that there is no definite way to know what the outcome will be if we leave the union, or what the future of the EU will be like if we stay. In politics we can throw around facts and figures all we like but at the end it is open to interpretation. This applies to both sides of any argument and I hope people can respect their differences without trying to degrade or distort the opposite argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think you are missing my point. If you read my replies I am not making a point for immigration, I am merely using it as an example to demonstrate both sides cannot possibly tell what the implication of the referendum outcome will be. I actually have no issue with immigration but I respect those who make a case for it if it affects them.

    I was demonstrating the simple fact that personal judgement is required in this situation given that there is no definite way to know what the outcome will be if we leave the union, or what the future of the EU will be like if we stay. In politics we can throw around facts and figures all we like but at the end it is open to interpretation. This applies to both sides of any argument and I hope people can respect their differences without trying to degrade or distort the opposite argument.
    Well sorry, when I said you maybe I should have clarified not you in particular but "you who argue for leaving".

    And well, way too late for that, no? Particularly the Leave campaign has been vicious, and personally attacking the Remain campaign. And distorting arguments? Come on, that's politics, it's naive to saying they shouldn't do it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then is there any evidence that leaving the EU will not reduce immigration number?
    I don't think that there is any definitive evidence on either side. But you are advocating change from the status quo, which I believe needs evidence in support of such a change.

    As previously, I believe that the issues are wider than "Simon" reading that nett migration is positive (ie that immigration exceeds emigration). Knowing this figure alone is not a basis for a rational decision, IMO.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Well sorry, when I said you maybe I should have clarified not you in particular but "you who argue for leaving".

    And well, way too late for that, no? Particularly the Leave campaign has been vicious, and personally attacking the Remain campaign. And distorting arguments? Come on, that's politics, it's naive to saying they shouldn't do it.
    I think we can agree that both sides have been using this tactic but if you think about it, it really adds nothing and takes away from the argument. The exchange of thoughts and ideas is best when done in a respectful manner, otherwise it becomes pointless because then it changes the nature of the debate into one that ideas are no longer openly considered.

    I don't know if you are a university student. In my university's debating society it actually surprised me at first how much more discussions we get through when everyone follows the debating house rules. Conversely it is usually the ones who take an attacking approach that ruins the debate, luckily they are usually kicked out pretty quickly because we have strict debating rules.

    It is a bad practice and it's a shame that many do it, but try not to reduce yourself to that level.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Or (and it's painful having to point this out) people have different ideas as to what the EU should do/ be about- the same way that a ukipper's going to have a different idea of what should be done post brexit than say a Eurosceptic green voter. Christ alive you people have no concept of nuance.
    Usually, in fact almost always, its the same people who use the "how wonderful the EU is..[for social policy, defence etc]" as say, on the same issue, five minutes later "it will never happen".

    All I am pointing out is that the Remain supporters are disingenuous, hiding their true desire for a political union in the EU and the end of UK self-government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think we can agree that both sides have been using this tactic but if you think about it, it really adds nothing and takes away from the argument. The exchange of thoughts and ideas is best when done in a respectful manner, otherwise it becomes pointless because then it changes the nature of the debate into one that ideas are no longer openly considered.

    I don't know if you are a university student. In my university's debating society it actually surprised me at first how much more discussions we get through when everyone follows the debating house rules. Conversely it is usually the ones who take an attacking approach that ruins the debate, luckily they are usually kicked out pretty quickly because we have strict debating rules.

    It is a bad practice and it's a shame that many do it, but try not to reduce yourself to that level.
    1. As I said that is politics. Politics is not a debating society with strict rules.

    2. We are on the internet here, that automatically means there will be another level of aggressiveness.

    I mean I am not saying you are wrong, just naive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    …or what the future of the EU will be like if we stay. In politics we can throw around facts and figures all we like but at the end it is open to interpretation.
    I believe you put too much weight on this point. It is impossible to know the future, especially the longer term future. We have the LEAVE campaign talking about "when" Albania and Turkey join the EU, as if this is a deal that is already done and these countries meet the requirements of entry. And you want to worry about things that may or may not happen, which in any event could trigger another referendum.

    It is just as possible that there is a move for reform in the EU, you have read how Juncker and Tusk have both said there is no appetite for federalism, so perhaps there is a different path ahead for the EU? I personally do not have a problem with the phrase "ever closer union", because the full phrase is not "ever closer union of the federated governments of the EU", but "ever closer union of the peoples of Europe". Breaking down the barriers between our nations is something to celebrate, not to be wringing our hands over.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think we can agree that both sides have been using this tactic but if you think about it, it really adds nothing and takes away from the argument. The exchange of thoughts and ideas is best when done in a respectful manner, otherwise it becomes pointless because then it changes the nature of the debate into one that ideas are no longer openly considered.

    I don't know if you are a university student. In my university's debating society it actually surprised me at first how much more discussions we get through when everyone follows the debating house rules. Conversely it is usually the ones who take an attacking approach that ruins the debate, luckily they are usually kicked out pretty quickly because we have strict debating rules.

    It is a bad practice and it's a shame that many do it, but try not to reduce yourself to that level.
    Both sides have NOT been using this tactic. Leave want to Leave but Remain say that Remain can be almost like Leaving when they know that it means total unification within 30 years.

    This is not a hypothetical debating society issue, it is a National Referendum on the future of our country and self government for future generations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Usually, in fact almost always, its the same people who use the "how wonderful the EU is..[for social policy, defence etc]" as say, on the same issue, five minutes later "it will never happen".
    Can you give us some examples. I don't mean examples that you have made up that show contradictions, I mean references to posts that real people have made.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    1. As I said that is politics. Politics is not a debating society with strict rules.

    2. We are on the internet here, that automatically means there will be another level of aggressiveness.

    I mean I am not saying you are wrong, just naive.
    Not being aggressive does not make one's argument any weaker, it actually challenges the opposition to put more thoughts into their argument. It is not a naive approach. In fact it is those who gets aggressive that gets the least credibility in a debate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Not being aggressive does not make one's argument any weaker, it actually challenges the opposition to put more thoughts into their argument. It is not a naive approach. In fact it is those who gets aggressive that gets the least credibility in a debate.
    We are not in an organized debate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I don't think that there is any definitive evidence on either side. But you are advocating change from the status quo, which I believe needs evidence in support of such a change.

    As previously, I believe that the issues are wider than "Simon" reading that nett migration is positive (ie that immigration exceeds emigration). Knowing this figure alone is not a basis for a rational decision, IMO.
    I'm glad we can agree that there is no evidence on to prove either sides of the argument.

    I was just using Simon's case for demonstration purpose. It could have been 'Lisa' on the Remain side making a decision based on statistics she interprets as supportive of remaining.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Both sides have NOT been using this tactic. Leave want to Leave but Remain say that Remain can be almost like Leaving when they know that it means total unification within 30 years.
    Please give some examples. It seems to me it is the LEAVErs who say "we can still trade with the EU the same as we do now", "we can still be in the single market but not have free movement of people", "we can leave and all the regulation government relies upon will magically disappear"...

    As I posted above, both Juncker and Tusk have indicated that, if there ever was a federalist secret plan, there no longer is. Even if this is the underlying conspiracy, then UK legislation makes it clear that any loss of sovereignty triggers a referendum. If these things come to pass, the time to debate and vote on them is at that time, not when you're developing your fantasy ideas for the nightmare future of the EU.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I don't think that there is any definitive evidence on either side. But you are advocating change from the status quo, which I believe needs evidence in support of such a change.

    As previously, I believe that the issues are wider than "Simon" reading that nett migration is positive (ie that immigration exceeds emigration). Knowing this figure alone is not a basis for a rational decision, IMO.
    This referendum is about the fact that, within 30 years a Remain vote will end self government in the UK. We already have a 2 speed EU with the Eurogroup headed for full political union by 2025 and all of their heads of state saying publicly that full political union is the only solution to the Euro crisis. The "Rational Decision" must be based on political union versus independence.

    The migration debate itself is an example of the disingenuous remainders. They know that anything can be said or indeed given away to win this referendum because, after a Remain vote, within 30 years they get what they want anyway.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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.