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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Germany France and Italy will need to go if the US of EU is to work like the USA or Canada or Australia

    I was comparing the UK to USA, Canada, and Australia. The USA has 350 million people and 50 states. That is roughly 6 million people per state. A US (or Australian or Canadian state) is like Scotland, with own law making assemblies and legal codes.

    If you divide the UK up into 6 million lumps that equates to 10 state parliaments - we only have two with Law making powers: Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales has no law making ability).

    This means we have a poltical lack of 8 parliaments.

    You might think this is not important, but if you look at the list of the top 20 countries (by wealth) they are ALL either SMALL or FEDERATIONS.

    You get to near the bottom of the list and you get to the first centralised state - The UK - based on the London elite. As a result, people feel disfranchised and distant from their MP. I believe the UK got too big around about the time we joined the EU and the Miners Strike.

    It was about this time that the different "states" within the UK began to pull very different ways.

    So what would the 8 states be - Well I think we actually need 9?

    I guess - you'd split it North V South:

    Cornwall, Wessex, London and Kent (all historic kingdoms) in the south.

    In the North:
    Lancashire, Yorkshire, Midlands and Northumbria and the swing states of East Anglia and Wales (yeah thats 10 - close enough)

    What are your views?
    I feel like this needs to be re-worded...hard to see the point you're making
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelpain)
    I feel like this needs to be re-worded...hard to see the point you're making
    Within a EU the LARGE nation state has no meaning. People either have to relate to the BIG EU or their LOCAL STATE. UK, France, Italy and Germany are too big for a federal EU.

    If we go down the EU route, we need to get rid of the UK , France, Germany and ITaly.

    In the USA model, the average state has 6 million people - that equates to breaking the UK up into about 10 states, each with own law making powers and parliaments (eg 10 Scotlands) - I suggested (for historical reasons):

    Scotland, Northern Ireland PLUS:

    Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumbria, Wales, Midlands, East Angula, Kent, London, Wessex, Cornwall.

    UK - ditch!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    The reason Cameron didn't get a very good deal, and the reason we won't get a better deal if we look like leaving is because if we get a better deal, everyone in the EU will want a better deal. Either that, or everyone in the EU gets the same deal. And that really isn't going to happen in a month of Sundays.

    But I think we underestimate how good we currently have it. Life in the UK right now has never been better in history. Just exactly what are we striving for if right now is terrible?
    Relative to any other time England was at its global "relative" peak at about 1750s- 1790s (Thomas Newcomen and Jane Austin) - pop 5 million - Napoleon's Europe (globalisation - including mates with USA) came off second best.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Within a EU the LARGE nation state has no meaning. People either have to relate to the BIG EU or their LOCAL STATE. UK, France, Italy and Germany are too big for a federal EU.

    If we go down the EU route, we need to get rid of the UK , France, Germany and ITaly.

    In the USA model, the average state has 6 million people - that equates to breaking the UK up into about 10 states, each with own law making powers and parliaments (eg 10 Scotlands) - I suggested (for historical reasons):

    Scotland, Northern Ireland PLUS:

    Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumbria, Wales, Midlands, East Angula, Kent, London, Wessex, Cornwall.

    UK - ditch!

    But no-one has talked about a united Europe, the European Act of 2011 means that any changes are ratified with a referendum, and also with Cameron's talks we are exempt from closer union. The idea of a unified Europe has no place in the argument in my opinion.

    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Relative to any other time England was at its global "relative" peak at about 1750s- 1790s (Thomas Newcomen and Jane Austin) - pop 5 million - Napoleon's Europe (globalisation - including mates with USA) came off second best.
    Do you mean England & the Empire/Commonwealth...?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Relative to any other time England was at its global "relative" peak at about 1750s- 1790s (Thomas Newcomen and Jane Austin) - pop 5 million - Napoleon's Europe (globalisation - including mates with USA) came off second best.
    Absolutely. At that time the wealth was all in the hands of the relative few and the rest were in terrible poverty. Now, there are extremes at both ends but in the middle most families can afford foreign holidays and appliances galore. But are you really suggesting we go back to a time where our wealth was generated by slavery and the exploitation of other nations?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelpain)
    But no-one has talked about a united Europe, the European Act of 2011 means that any changes are ratified with a referendum, and also with Cameron's talks we are exempt from closer union. The idea of a unified Europe has no place in the argument in my opinion.

    Do you mean England & the Empire/Commonwealth...?
    a) I think if we stay in the EU, it will, due to the nature of reality (constant change), that we will end up with a US of Europe within 50 years. This is not a bad thing per ce, but it will mean the end of Germany, UK, France and Italy as DESIRABLE entities (they will need to go (as I've outlined in previous posts))..

    b) By 1780s most of empire gone - it was England via rest. Still did ok though due to industrial revolution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Absolutely. At that time the wealth was all in the hands of the relative few and the rest were in terrible poverty. Now, there are extremes at both ends but in the middle most families can afford foreign holidays and appliances galore. But are you really suggesting we go back to a time where our wealth was generated by slavery and the exploitation of other nations?
    I said relatively you are using absolutes which is unfair and a bit rude. Wedgwood (1750s-onwards etc ) were the first firms to go for mass market. If you are going to do this , might as well be fair.

    Slavery, I would suggest, held the industrial rev back, it certainly would not have encouraged it. We know this, as the UK is bad at introducing new machinery now because it gets so much cheap labour from the EU.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Im voting leave. However, I'll be happy with whatever the result.

    Here are a few of my reasons for leaving:

    Leaving EU will control borders on how many people come in and out. Those who have already immigrated will definitely be able to stay, so thats fine.

    Leaving will also decrease the damage to car busineses. Im a car trader. I buy cars from salvage companies. Most quality cars at salvage companies (BMWs, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Audi and many other types of cars) are bidded on and hit hard by EU foreigners. These cars then become less easy to buy at a good value by English citizens. The EU foreigners bid hard on these vehicles, put them on very large lorrys and send them to their own country to make profit. It becomes less easy for us British citizens to make profit from these quality cars.

    Also voting because I want to have less pressure on society and population. Nowadays, I see young foreigners trying to steal from shops. I also see foreigners blocking driveways with their car out of jealousy. I also see young foreigners trying to intimidate me or cause nuisance.
    However, this is not the case with all foreign EU citizens. Not everyone does this.

    Im also voting leave because I believe in our country. I believe that whatever the consequences, we can survive. We need to be confident and believe in ourselves.
    Once we leave the EU and get ourselves on our feet, maybe we can still be able to invest in other poorer EU countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    Im voting leave. However, I'll be happy with whatever the result.

    Here are a few of my reasons for leaving:

    Leaving EU will control borders on how many people come in and out..
    I must admit I'm 100% the reverse of you. I love more than anything else, free movement.

    What I don't like abuse of power - the UK does badly out of the EU relative to any other nation.

    Name a nation that does worse out of the EU than the UK? (Don't say Germany as they do brilliantly out of low EURO currency).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I must admit I'm 100% the reverse of you. I love more than anything else, free movement.

    What I don't like abuse of power - the UK does badly out of the EU relative to any other nation.

    Name a nation that does worse out of the EU than the UK? (Don't say Germany as they do brilliantly out of low EURO currency).
    I'm still waiting to fear from anyone who can name a country that does as badly out of the EU than the UK.

    If no one can, I suggest if we vote NO we will get a better deal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I'm still waiting to fear from anyone who can name a country that does as badly out of the EU than the UK.

    If no one can, I suggest if we vote NO we will get a better deal.
    Costa rica, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    Costa rica, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.
    Why does Bulgaria do worse out of the EU than we do? I don't understand. They get loads of aid, and have the entire EU job market open to them so their extremely poor citizens can get miles richer by working in UK or Germany.

    How can that possibly be worse than us?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Why does Bulgaria do worse out of the EU than we do? I don't understand. They get loads of aid, and have the entire EU job market open to them so their extremely poor citizens can get miles richer by working in UK or Germany.

    How can that possibly be worse than us?
    I agree your right except for Iceland and Costa rica
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I'm still waiting to fear from anyone who can name a country that does as badly out of the EU than the UK.

    If no one can, I suggest if we vote NO we will get a better deal.
    How about the countries "picking up the pieces" for the UK - the migrant camps in Calais, literally globally recognised for how poor of a quality-of-life these residents have. France could easily let the migrants enter the UK and make it our problem, but they don't.

    And although it's harsh, I think the ease of movement in mainland Europe, particularly amidst the allegations of rape by migrants, and the recent bombings, make their EU a little bit more dangerous than our own, where we actually benefit from the influx of cheap labour which do the jobs in society British people are too lazy for or turn down. Classic examples of vegetable picking, sanitation, cleaning, etc. All crucial, vital jobs that the UK citizens could do, but ignore out of snobbery.

    The UK is a net provider of services, particularly for the EU which tends to be more oriented towards manufacturing and lesser-services. But to be exposed to a global market of countries with more-efficient provision of services is ludicrous. We are already deficient in what we can export, and this would be exacerbated on the global scale. Now imagine the losses that would be created to the services industry from global competition.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redwhiteandbrit)
    How about the countries "picking up the pieces" for the UK - the migrant camps in Calais, literally globally recognised for how poor of a quality-of-life these residents have. France could easily let the migrants enter the UK and make it our problem, but they don't.

    And although it's harsh, I think the ease of movement in mainland Europe, particularly amidst the allegations of rape by migrants, and the recent bombings, make their EU a little bit more dangerous than our own, where we actually benefit from the influx of cheap labour which do the jobs in society British people are too lazy for or turn down. Classic examples of vegetable picking, sanitation, cleaning, etc. All crucial, vital jobs that the UK citizens could do, but ignore out of snobbery.

    The UK is a net provider of services, particularly for the EU which tends to be more oriented towards manufacturing and lesser-services. But to be exposed to a global market of countries with more-efficient provision of services is ludicrous. We are already deficient in what we can export, and this would be exacerbated on the global scale. Now imagine the losses that would be created to the services industry from global competition.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    France,
    Nope - we give way more into EU than France.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...6097.stm#start

    Housing migrants?
    France has 300% more land than the UK - it would be really cruel/evil for France to say otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ...so what we could ask for EXTRA from EU for us to vote YES?

    I suggest that the UK is notoriously bad at INVESTMENT in new machinery and manufacturing.
    An EU fund could be made to help the UK invest in manufacturing so that we could get more like the average the EU level for investment and also provide more jobs for all these EU people who want to come here.

    Give us the money and we can do it.

    Seems fair to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    France,
    Nope - we give way more into EU than France.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...6097.stm#start

    Housing migrants?
    France has 300% more land than the UK - it would be really cruel/evil for France to say otherwise.
    Perhaps it would be better to read and understand the points I am actually making about safety, inefficiencies, etc before answering

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redwhiteandbrit)
    Perhaps it would be better to read and understand the points I am actually making about safety, inefficiencies, etc before answering

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    my next post did answer your questions:

    Here it is again:


    ..so what we could ask for EXTRA from EU for us to vote YES?

    I suggest that the UK is notoriously bad at INVESTMENT in new machinery and manufacturing.

    An EU fund could be made to help the UK invest in manufacturing so that we could get more like the average the EU level for investment and also provide more jobs for all these EU people who want to come here.

    Give us the money and we can do it.

    Seems fair to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    my next post did answer your questions:

    Here it is again:


    ..so what we could ask for EXTRA from EU for us to vote YES?

    I suggest that the UK is notoriously bad at INVESTMENT in new machinery and manufacturing.

    An EU fund could be made to help the UK invest in manufacturing so that we could get more like the average the EU level for investment and also provide more jobs for all these EU people who want to come here.

    Give us the money and we can do it.

    Seems fair to me.
    But how is it fair that we should be receiving funds for investment...? We have a high quality of life already, funds such as these should be used towards improving the countries at the periphery of the EU such as the new member states.

    This idea is already in progress, however: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-...stment-plan_en
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redwhiteandbrit)
    But how is it fair that we should be receiving funds for investment...? We have a high quality of life already, funds such as these should be used towards improving the countries at the periphery of the EU such as the new member states.

    This idea is already in progress, however: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-...stment-plan_en
    Not necessarily so.
    Quality of life in Mediterranean country side can be worth thousands compared to bed sit in rain soaked Manchester.

    I'd say if these people are coming here, then its HERE that the money should be spent to give them BETTER JOBS ..

    Its WIN WIN

    Win for US and Win for them
 
 
 
  • 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 rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.