Turn on thread page Beta

Should Britain be in the EU? (Just need a poll answered to help with a project) watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Britain be in the EU?
    Yes
    101
    48.10%
    No
    96
    45.71%
    Unsure
    13
    6.19%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Yes but you have to remmember UK has 3rd largest number of ministers in EU Parliament, so UK has a big influence on what Laws to pass on. Also, I think that EU having same Laws makes us (Europeans) equal.
    It may have the 3rd largest number of seats in the EU parliament, but we still only make up 9% of the seats. There isn't a huge influence, but a small influences. Also, Britain shouldn't be able to influence its own laws, but actually make its own laws.

    (Original post by L i b)
    If it wasn't for putting aside old nationalistic loyalties, the UK wouldn't exist today. As for non-democratic - the EU is democratic. It is democracy balanced with representation of individual countries, and is actually a gesture towards the sovereignty which you support.

    It serves the interests of the people of Europe, who include us.
    I understand how the EU has some democratic elements, but it still isn't democratic as a whole. Firstly, Britain has to share power with 26 other states, meaning that outcomes will be beneficial to the EU as a whole. However, since I want Britain to be a sovereign nation, decisions should be beneficial to Britain as a whole, and not to the EU as a whole. Currently under the EU, Britain has got to do things that we don't agree with, or isn't beneficial. This is bad for British democracy. Other undemocratic elements are the EU judges, the unelected presidents, and the European Commission which has unelected appointed commissioners.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    I understand how the EU has some democratic elements, but it still isn't democratic as a whole.
    Neither is any state. We call a state democratic when there are overwhelming democratic influences upon it, not when it satisfies some absolutist theory of democracy, whatever that may be.

    Firstly, Britain has to share power with 26 other states, meaning that outcomes will be beneficial to the EU as a whole. However, since I want Britain to be a sovereign nation, decisions should be beneficial to Britain as a whole, and not to the EU as a whole. Currently under the EU, Britain has got to do things that we don't agree with, or isn't beneficial.
    That has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, it is just is/ought nationalism. Indeed, what you're suggesting - that states rather than people should be equal - is fundamentally undemocratic.

    Other undemocratic elements are the EU judges, the unelected presidents, and the European Commission which has unelected appointed commissioners.
    The Commission is 'unelected' in the same way that the British government is 'unelected' - it consists of appointed members, but ultimately the legislature has control over those appointments and the Commission must maintain the confidence of said legislature. This is how parliamentary systems operate.

    Other 'Presidents' are elected by their respective bodies. The President of the European Council is elected, quelle suprise!, by the European Council; the President of the European Parliament is elected by the European Parliament; the President of the Council of the Union (Council of Ministers) is rotational between the delegates of the member-states.

    To compare again to the UK situation, this is like calling Britain undemocratic because we don't elect the Speakers of the Commons and Lords, or the Lord President of the Privy Council.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Neither is any state. We call a state democratic when there are overwhelming democratic influences upon it, not when it satisfies some absolutist theory of democracy, whatever that may be.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, it is just is/ought nationalism. Indeed, what you're suggesting - that states rather than people should be equal - is fundamentally undemocratic.

    The Commission is 'unelected' in the same way that the British government is 'unelected' - it consists of appointed members, but ultimately the legislature has control over those appointments and the Commission must maintain the confidence of said legislature. This is how parliamentary systems operate.

    Other 'Presidents' are elected by their respective bodies. The President of the European Council is elected, quelle suprise!, by the European Council; the President of the European Parliament is elected by the European Parliament; the President of the Council of the Union (Council of Ministers) is rotational between the delegates of the member-states.

    To compare again to the UK situation, this is like calling Britain undemocratic because we don't elect the Speakers of the Commons and Lords, or the Lord President of the Privy Council.
    The UK government is more democratic than the EU institution. The UK government is a government of the British people, for he British people, by the British people. That is democracy. Something that the EU lacks. Plus, the only directly elected body in the EU is the parliament, yet its power is very weak compared to the House of Commons.

    I do believe that states should be equal in freedom. This freedom means sovereignty. All countries deserve sovereignty, especially if they are calling for it. Most people in the UK want this soveirgnty and freedom back.

    Also, the British government ministers may be appointed, to their positions, but the ministers are also elected themselves as MPs. The commissioners aren't elected at all in the Commission. And presidents may be elected by bodies, but not by the people. When someone has a position so senior, then they need to be elected. Imagine if American presidents weren't elected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No we should not be in the EU.

    And if Turkey ever joins, we should definately leave the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We need to leave ASAP, its done more harm than good to the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sort of in the middle on this one. Economically I don't think we would be able to survive without being in it, it's good for trading between countries and it's practically impossible for us to go out of it anyway. Having said that, I don't agree that all these laws they make for human rights should be decided by a panel of people from the likes of Georgia, Latvia etc.. what do they know about Britain? Or am I confusing this for the European Council which is just a complete farce!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, cooperation = peace... most of the time! Or at least that's my optimistic view on life!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    bearing in mind this forum mightnt represent the views of the people of the united kingdom, and not even accurately of students to be honest.

    just to let you know
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    The UK government is more democratic than the EU institution. The UK government is a government of the British people, for he British people, by the British people. That is democracy. Something that the EU lacks.
    Nope, that's nationalism. Completely different and, indeed, conflicting ideology.

    Plus, the only directly elected body in the EU is the parliament, yet its power is very weak compared to the House of Commons.
    Its power is weaker than the House of Commons due to the nationalism you advocate.

    I do believe that states should be equal in freedom. This freedom means sovereignty. All countries deserve sovereignty, especially if they are calling for it. Most people in the UK want this soveirgnty and freedom back.
    Well, the UK is part of the EU. I certainly don't equate nationalism with 'freedom' - quite the opposite, actually; I think bringing identity politics further into our system of governments is a very dangerous and illiberal precedent.

    Also, the British government ministers may be appointed, to their positions, but the ministers are also elected themselves as MPs.
    Some of them are - many are drawn from the House of Lords. Either way, I don't think being able to find a small constituency that will elect you is particularly good at giving political legitimacy: the support of Parliament is sufficient.

    When someone has a position so senior, then they need to be elected. Imagine if American presidents weren't elected.
    Well, like I say, we don't seem to mind about the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament, the Lord President of the Privy Council or so forth - and their roles are more analogous to these European Union presidents than the role of President of the United States is. You're simply exploiting the fact that the positions share a name.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben Butler)
    Having said that, I don't agree that all these laws they make for human rights should be decided by a panel of people from the likes of Georgia, Latvia etc.. what do they know about Britain? Or am I confusing this for the European Council which is just a complete farce!
    You're confusing it doubly - the European Council is an EU body, the Council of Europe (to which you refer) is not. The European Court of Human Rights judges are indeed drawn from across Europe - but they don't make the law, they interpret it based on a multinational treaty.

    As for 'what do they know about Britain?' - well, what would a Justice of the Supreme Court from Hampshire know about the Gaidhealtachd of Scotland, or a Justice from County Londonderry know about Norfolk, or a Justice from Cornwall know about Jamaica (UK justices still accept appeals from certain Commonwealth countries)?

    The answer is simple: the law does not depend on local knowledge, it depends on addressing arguments made by counsel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You're confusing it doubly - the European Council is an EU body, the Council of Europe (to which you refer) is not. The European Court of Human Rights judges are indeed drawn from across Europe - but they don't make the law, they interpret it based on a multinational treaty.

    As for 'what do they know about Britain?' - well, what would a Justice of the Supreme Court from Hampshire know about the Gaidhealtachd of Scotland, or a Justice from County Londonderry know about Norfolk, or a Justice from Cornwall know about Jamaica (UK justices still accept appeals from certain Commonwealth countries)?

    The answer is simple: the law does not depend on local knowledge, it depends on addressing arguments made by counsel.
    Oh really. Personally I could not imagine British judges making moronic, crackpot law that have been spewed from the ECHR in the past 5 years.

    I do not want judges from uber-liberal, far leftist countries like Sweden, Norway,Belgiumetc. Making law that will affect the UK.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agenda Suicide)
    Whether the media confuses people and hates on Europe otherwise, we'd be a lot poorer without it.

    Edit: I don't know why the neg rep? You're either immature and can't handle somebody elses view or you're a media zomie.
    I didn't rep, but what you said wasn't an opinion, you're stating it as a fact, and one that is highly disputed.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No we should just decline into a tiny island nation and lose our influence around the globe...

    Idiots.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    No we should just decline into a tiny island nation and lose our influence around the globe...

    Idiots.
    How ridiculous, how would we lose our influence?
    Ever heard of the United nations?
    Also we had influence before either the EU or the UN happened.

    Your either a troll or just very stupid.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rory :))
    How ridiculous, how would we lose our influence?
    Ever heard of the United nations?
    Also we had influence before either the EU or the UN happened.

    Your either a troll or just very stupid.
    We also had an empire

    See where I'm going with this?

    UK isnt a superpower anymore. Best way to have maximum influence is to be a leader of Europe.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    We also had an empire

    See where I'm going with this?

    UK isnt a superpower anymore. Best way to have maximum influence is to be a leader of Europe.
    We have one of the worlds best stock exchanges. Our education is highly ranked and we have the Queen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    Plus, the only directly elected body in the EU is the parliament, yet its power is very weak compared to the House of Commons.
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    All countries deserve sovereignty, especially if they are calling for it. Most people in the UK want this soveirgnty and freedom back.
    These two parts of your post are in direct contradiction of each other.

    Make up your mind. Either you want the EU's institutions be more democratic and more accountable to the population or you want a higher degree of control from the member states' governments. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't both increase the powers of the Parliament (the democratic institution) and increase the powers of the Council (the intergovernmental institution where your sovereign states come together).

    At the moment it's very much a compromise where both the Parliament and the Council need to agree for an act to be passed (ie. the ordinary legislative procedure, which applies to most areas).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I support Britain's integration into the EU, but only in certain areas. I think an EU, correctly managed, could bring Europe into a new age of prosperity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the benefits of being a member of the EU, but in it's current state I'm against being a member state. It's in much need of reform.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.