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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The EU was set up to ensure a peaceful and prosperous post-war Europe and in a lot of ways it has succeeded in its aims. I think it would be foolish to be against a united Europe outright. Unfortunately, the EU has grown into an undemocratic bureaucratic nightmare.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ahnaf.c)
    If you're so sure, join UKIP. you'll make my tutor soooo happy!
    The % of money the UK contributes to the EU is quite low (although often vastly exaggerated). depends on your political viewpoints. great arguments for remaining in the EU, great arguments for leaving it too.
    but the EU does have potential. may have failed in many ways due to mismanagement in some cases, but I see a lot of potential in it.
    I agree. It really seems like a system that will have to break down and be started again.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by karateworm)
    Hi all

    For most of my (politically aware) life I've been a staunch supporter of the EU, but as of late I've started to question how necessary it really is, and whether a "simple" trade agreement would be the answer economically.

    I'd like to see the coherent arguments from both perspectives, so I can take a step closer to working out my view on it. Thanks to all those who post
    Feel free to join TSR UKIP, just click on the banner in my signature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I say hand the keys over to the EU and let them do whatever the hell they want.

    That way the pro-EU brigade can witness with their own eyes what a sinister, nasty organisation it really is.

    Nothing else will convince the silly billies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I learnt about the EU in Law and I can't say I enjoyed it much really.

    I wouldn't say I am anti-EU because I don't know an awful lot about it, but people have told me we would be better off out of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An interesting tread. All these arguments are correct but you're thinking the wrong way.
    The final objective of the EU is to build a sort of United States of Europe. So, if you're thinking about the interest of UK ur getting wrong. But for that you need to have a strong european feeling, like it's your first nationality. And there is maybe 0,5% people who are thinking that way.

    So yeah of course, UE is total failure and I think it shall be stopped.

    Greetings from France;
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Is it trying to turn Europe into a state or is it just a trade bloc. The single currency would never work unless the EU acted as one single state.
    Well the EU Constitution was an attempt at unifying the EU. I don't believe it can be seen as creating a single trade bloc when it is far more interested in protecting individual's Community rights and freedoms that often have nothing to do with trade.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Well the EU Constitution was an attempt at unifying the EU. I don't believe it can be seen as creating a single trade bloc when it is far more interested in protecting individual's Community rights and freedoms that often have nothing to do with trade.
    But there is no clear target or list of aims. The EU makes cnstant grabs for power, taking as much as it can whislit binding countries to it as much as possible. But no where does it say why the EU does this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    But there is no clear target or list of aims. The EU makes cnstant grabs for power, taking as much as it can whislit binding countries to it as much as possible. But no where does it say why the EU does this
    Why should it? European Union creates a new legal order.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryA)
    There have been several cases where the ECJ and European Court of Human Rights have provided what are seen as "morally correct” decisions. Not only this, but there have been several equality laws enforced through membership of the EU.

    Were it not for the EU, Parliament would not have enforced laws to allow people to have their rights enforced.

    So while there are downsides to being in the EU, the upsides outweigh them.
    ECHR/ECtHR is not and has nothing to do with the ECJ.

    We can still be part of the ECHR without being part of the EU.

    (Original post by loafer)
    ...
    I agree.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Why should it? European Union creates a new legal order.
    Because we live in a democracy and the populations of those countries should decide if they want their country stripped of its independence rather than self serving unelected EU officials?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On the EU, go here and read what I have to say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Because we live in a democracy and the populations of those countries should decide if they want their country stripped of its independence rather than self serving unelected EU officials?
    European Union's jurisprudence does not strip Member States of their sovereignty. Member State's sovereignty will only be affected where there is a shared competence.

    EU directives don't automatically become part of our law, because the way in which they are to be implemented is left to Member States to decide.

    People also seem to be incredibly reactionary; only caring about European Union where it appears it is infringing upon national sovereignty. A little hypocritical when EU election turnouts are very low.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    EU directives don't automatically become part of our law, because the way in which they are to be implemented is left to Member States to decide.
    "EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so. Directives may concern one or more Member States, or all of them.

    "Each directive specifies the date by which the national laws must be adapted - giving national authorities the room for manoeuvre within the deadlines necessary to take account of differing national situations.

    "Directives are used to bring different national laws into line with each other, and are particularly common in matters affecting the operation of the single market (e.g. product safety standards). "


    The European Commission

    So, EU directives effectively become part of national law, when national parliaments make laws to meet EU goals.

    People also seem to be incredibly reactionary; only caring about European Union where it appears it is infringing upon national sovereignty. A little hypocritical when EU election turnouts are very low.
    If the EU didn't infringe on national sovereignty, there'd be no need to become reactionary. But I think it's a little odd to be reactionary over EU law, then vote for parties in favour of EU membership. Obviously it doesn't seem to matter that much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    We are not bound to do that at all and, whilst it may create a constitutional crisis within the Union, there is no grounds in law at all for insisting on a state being involved in the ECHR.

    We are, however, bound to the ECHR anyway, by virtue of having signed the treaty.
    But all member states have signed the Treaty, and we can't unsign it. We won't be creating a constitutional crisis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    "EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so. Directives may concern one or more Member States, or all of them.

    "Each directive specifies the date by which the national laws must be adapted - giving national authorities the room for manoeuvre within the deadlines necessary to take account of differing national situations.

    "Directives are used to bring different national laws into line with each other, and are particularly common in matters affecting the operation of the single market (e.g. product safety standards). "


    The European Commission

    So, EU directives effectively become part of national law, when national parliaments make laws to meet EU goals.



    If the EU didn't infringe on national sovereignty, there'd be no need to become reactionary. But I think it's a little odd to be reactionary over EU law, then vote for parties in favour of EU membership. Obviously it doesn't seem to matter that much.
    Hmm directives are strange. They don't have direct effect, but an unimplemented directive can still be invoked by an individual who has suffered a breach of their Community rights as a result of the unimplemented directive. So all in all, the EU really does protect us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    European Union's jurisprudence does not strip Member States of their sovereignty. Member State's sovereignty will only be affected where there is a shared competence.

    EU directives don't automatically become part of our law, because the way in which they are to be implemented is left to Member States to decide.

    People also seem to be incredibly reactionary; only caring about European Union where it appears it is infringing upon national sovereignty. A little hypocritical when EU election turnouts are very low.
    Ofcourse EU law strips member state soverignty, what planet do you live on?

    EU directives may not become law automatically, but other instruments of EU jurisprudence do. Additionally, the only reason they do not become law automatically is because different member states work in different way and have different systems so the national governments are left with the responsibility of implementing the directives in a suitable way; in an attempt to achieve the desired end result.

    EU jurisprudence has effectively got rid of parliamentry sovereignty (or atleast while we have a bunch of spineless ***** as MPs). The ECJ is now the highest court in our land.

    I don't disagree with many of the main aims of the EU (free trade with European partners, free movement of people etc.) but I disagree with the methods they use and the undemocratic nature of the institution primarily. I detest the way the European bureaucrats have created a top-down system of unelected *******s, who effectively dictate to us how are country and society should run.

    **** them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Hmm directives are strange. They don't have direct effect, but an unimplemented directive can still be invoked by an individual who has suffered a breach of their Community rights as a result of the unimplemented directive. So all in all, the EU really does protect us.
    You are making the assumption that European Union directives will always be for the benefit of our society.

    What you have failed to explain through out your contribution to this thread is, how it is logical for an institution with member states as varied as the European Union to create 'one size fits all' legislation? The socio-economic characteristics of the UK are completely different to that of many other member states, a directive that may benefit us, whether it is us as citizens or businesses in the UK - may very likely be a negative addition to their society. And ofcourse, the opposite also applies (as is often the case).

    This project is doomed to fail, however our politicians, with their minds stuck in puddble of denial, want to drag us along. I can't believe there are only a handful of MPs amongst the three main parties willing to openly denounce the European Union political project. They all seem to be just turning a blind eye because the wider constitutional implications aren't at the forefront of Joe Public's mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pothead1)
    EU jurisprudence has effectively got rid of parliamentry sovereignty (or atleast while we have a bunch of spineless ***** as MPs). The ECJ is now the highest court in our land.

    I don't disagree with many of the main aims of the EU (free trade with European partners, free movement of people etc.) but I disagree with the methods they use and the undemocratic nature of the institution primarily. I detest the way the European bureaucrats have created a top-down system of unelected *******s, who effectively dictate to us how are country and society should run.

    **** them.
    Lol, hello Nigel Farage.

    European Union has not 'got rid of parliamentary sovereignty.' European Union law will only cause our national courts to set aside (not repeal) national laws where they are incompatible with EU legislation. I think this is fantastic and why anyone wouldn't is beyond me. European Union protects our fundamental Community rights in ways our own national parliaments may fail to do so.

    Also - ECJ is not the highest court in the land. It is a court of last instance where cases cannot be decided in the UK because of conflicting EU law and appeals which concern EU law. Why is this a problem for you? I'd rather have a specialist court such as ECJ deciding important legal and constitutional matters than our Supreme Court that may not have the competence to judge on EU matters.

    I think your anger at European Union is the result of a lack of information and education on the subject. Most average citizens unfortunately do not receive much education in European Union, which is a crime because of its sheer importance in our national day to day business. European Union is not a top down system. It's rather horizontal when you consider the ECJ ruling are mostly important academic matters or interesting points of law; very much how the United Kingdom Supreme Court operates.

    As for being unelected - why would ECJ be elected? Courts up and down the country, whether you're at the Old Bailey or in county court in Bradford do not have elected judges. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    On the EU, go here and read what I have to say.
    I agree with what you wrote in that post. Pro-EU arguments are usually without any real foundation.
 
 
 
  • 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.