Turn on thread page Beta

EU referendum: Where does your vote lie? watch

  • View Poll Results: In or Out of EU?
    In
    62.00%
    Out
    37.00%
    I won't vote.
    1.00%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Cautiously in. I'm not wedded to EU membership by any means, but I don't find any of the arguments for leaving persuasive.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I just don't like how the EU imposes laws on an entire continent. For me it's a mater of principle that a foreign body with such a big democratic deficit implementing laws is a bad idea.
    What is its democratic deficit? There is of course room for improvement but I think such claims arent true. As this US study says:

    'Empirical evidence demonstrates that in each case the EU meetsprevailing standards of real-world democratic governance.
    Regardless of how it is defined, the “democratic
    deficit” is a myth.'

    https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/...h_european.pdf





    One I can think of off the top of my head is the ban on asulam, a herbicide important for bracken control in the UK, which was banned to protect spinach (I think it was spinach) crops in other EU countries. A relatively minor issue, but an example of how the EU in its current form can introduce laws that benefit some countries but are problematic for others.
    That's actually a fair point and one I would agree with. There are serious problems with the CAP and CFP but these need to be sorted out not by electing UKIP MEPs to do F all there.

    I also see TTIP as part of the sovereignty issue - it will give more power to corporate interests that already have too much influence on government as it is. Before you accuse me of scaremongering, similar agreements in other countries have allowed companies to sue governments for supposed loss of profits (e.g. for anti fracking laws, restricting mining, etc.).
    I think a system which could weaken regulations (or "harmonise" as pro-TTIP politicians like to say) and could for example allow a mining company to sue the government if it refused to allow destructive mining in a national park is a pretty big threat to sovereignty.
    The thing is with TTIP we dont know for certain until we have it (There are very simple reasons why some details are kept hidden, mainly to protect states involved from speculators trying to crash it IE Black Wednesday) .

    I personally cant see say the french allowing something that could lead to a US company buying their public services, or even the Tories handing over their political suicide note by selling the NHS.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    On the issues i shan't argue them here because in the history of TSR only one member has ever convinced me of their point on only one issue.
    What was the issue?
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Except the EU back then was entirely different to what it is today.
    Well, obviously. It didn't exist then!


    I think that Churchill may not have been pleased by some aspects of the EU but would want to stay and reform it . I think he would be appalled that his party is considering leaving the ECHR and that Separatist groups like the SNP and Ukip are growing. And I am pretty damn certain that he would find the ongoing situation in Ukraine to be of far greater concern than the UK leaving the EU.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    What is its democratic deficit? There is of course room for improvement but I think such claims arent true. As this US study says:

    'Empirical evidence demonstrates that in each case the EU meetsprevailing standards of real-world democratic governance.
    Regardless of how it is defined, the “democratic
    deficit” is a myth.'

    https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/...h_european.pdf







    That's actually a fair point and one I would agree with. There are serious problems with the CAP and CFP but these need to be sorted out not by electing UKIP MEPs to do F all there.



    The thing is with TTIP we dont know for certain until we have it (There are very simple reasons why some details are kept hidden, mainly to protect states involved from speculators trying to crash it IE Black Wednesday) .

    I personally cant see say the french allowing something that could lead to a US company buying their public services, or even the Tories handing over their political suicide note by selling the NHS.
    The bit in bold is important. If we don't know if TTIP will cause something, surely that is a brilliant reason to simply reject the whole thing? If we are unsure what the impacts will be, but there is good reason to have concerns, then we should block it until we are sure.

    The precautionary principle needs to be applied. "We don't know for certain until we have it" is simply not good enough and if we don't know until we have it, we should not have it at all.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    What was the issue?
    Trade agreement quality.

    I asserted that as a larger market the EU would get better terms however this kipper provided evidence that Japan had a better trade agreement with the other country than either the US or EU.

    I forget the exact details but i remember being convinced.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Trade agreement quality.

    I asserted that as a larger market the EU would get better terms however this kipper provided evidence that Japan had a better trade agreement with the other country than either the US or EU.

    I forget the exact details but i remember being convinced.
    TBF that could be the exception rather than the rule.

    Not discounting it though. Do you remember if the country was one of the Asian tigers? It would be a very different comparison I think if that was the case.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If we can get back some powers especially with control to some type of immigration, control over our own waters and not have to give them so much money then I will vote to stay in otherwise I'm out, see yah later
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In. I think we benefit both economically and culturally from being part of the EU.

    Though unless they allow 16 year olds to vote, I won't be able to voice my opinion.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    We don't need the EU to be a successful country. Take a look at Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and use those as examples.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Except the EU back then was entirely different to what it is today.
    It's still fundamentally a common market. The problem isn't that the EU has changed, it is that the nature of the state has changed in western, developed economies. Areas like labour law and regulation have expanded considerably, and the changes in the EU reflect that.

    (Original post by RFowler)
    The bit in bold is important. If we don't know if TTIP will cause something, surely that is a brilliant reason to simply reject the whole thing? If we are unsure what the impacts will be, but there is good reason to have concerns, then we should block it until we are sure.

    The precautionary principle needs to be applied. "We don't know for certain until we have it" is simply not good enough and if we don't know until we have it, we should not have it at all.
    Well, hold on, we've not even drafted TTIP yet. Yes, anything could theoretically be written in it - but that is true of all legislation and all treaties at in their early stages.

    You might as well say we should do nothing, because it might contain bad things.

    In reality, the potential benefits of TTIP are enormous. If done well, it's one of these once-in-a-generation opportunities that could do more for our economy than decades of tinkering around the edges.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    We don't need the EU to be a successful country. Take a look at Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and use those as examples.
    All of which still have to implement EU regulations, just without a democratic say over how they are drafted...

    You're right though, we don't need the EU to be successful. We don't need UK Trade and Investment promoting our exports abroad either, or to have the biggest financial centre in the world in our capital city - but guess what: it helps.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    We don't need the EU to be a successful country. Take a look at Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and use those as examples.

    Switzerland is being pushed around by the French and Germans. Iceland is still recovering from a disastrous recession and Norway still has to abide the rules and regulations of the EU including the movement of Free people.

    No thanks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The EU does not enforce human rights on the UK Government. The European Court of Human Rights is a completely separate entity set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which is entirely separate from the EU. Many countries, like Russia, Turkey, Norway, Serbia and Ukraine are part of the ECHR but not members of the EU.
    There seems to be a bit of a miscommunication here. I was replying to the shock and horror I would have if the Connies got rid of the Human Rights Act.

    Then, I suggested that the EU would help against some of the more extreme conservative policies. Competition laws, and other personal freedoms, the freedom to travel throughout Europe -- all things which bring great benefit to the UK.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    All of which still have to implement EU regulations, just without a democratic say over how they are drafted...
    As I asked on another thread, and you chose not to respond, South Korea has a free trade deal with the EU. Is South Korea therefore a quasi-protectorate of the EU that has ceded its democracy to Brussels? Because the only answer I can infer from what you have written and continue to write is yes, but that strikes me as absurd.

    Perhaps you know something about the South Korean situation that I do not in which case please tell me.



    edit: I'd also point out that South Korea's FTA with the EU, following the 2011 provisional application, has hardly changed the flow of trade between South Korea and the EU:



    People who think these sorts of agreements are extremely important are almost certainly wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Probably in. I'm not particularly fussed about where power lies, Brussels doesn't seem all that more remote to London to me, I'm more fussed about good legilsation and regulation and at the moment Brussels is better at producting that than Westminster is. If we can come up with a post-EU vision for society thats better than our society in the EU then I would be all for leaving, but that's not happened.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    As I asked on another thread, and you chose not to respond, South Korea has a free trade deal with the EU. Is South Korea therefore a quasi-protectorate of the EU that has ceded its democracy to Brussels? Because the only answer I can infer from what you have written and continue to write is yes, but that strikes me as absurd.
    In all frankness, yes, trade deals do impinge on sovereignty quite often. That's why many have things like Investor-State dispute settlement clauses that go over the level of national courts to separate tribunals. In both cases, in theory the country could ultimately just walk away and say they're not playing any more - which is perhaps some sort of sovereignty - but meanwhile they are often bound into doing things they don't much like.

    There are considerable differences between EFTA and being outside of it, linked by a trade deal though. EFTA has a court, a secretariat, and the various agreements necessitate the implementation of legislation made by the EU. That's a categorically different situation to what South Korea finds itself in, where regulatory alignment beyond the scope of its original trade agreement is voluntary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    There seems to be a bit of a miscommunication here. I was replying to the shock and horror I would have if the Connies got rid of the Human Rights Act.

    Then, I suggested that the EU would help against some of the more extreme conservative policies. Competition laws, and other personal freedoms, the freedom to travel throughout Europe -- all things which bring great benefit to the UK.
    Fair enough. Objection withdrawn.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    In all frankness, yes, trade deals do impinge on sovereignty quite often. That's why many have things like Investor-State dispute settlement clauses that go over the level of national courts to separate tribunals. In both cases, in theory the country could ultimately just walk away and say they're not playing any more - which is perhaps some sort of sovereignty - but meanwhile they are often bound into doing things they don't much like.

    There are considerable differences between EFTA and being outside of it, linked by a trade deal though. EFTA has a court, a secretariat, and the various agreements necessitate the implementation of legislation made by the EU. That's a categorically different situation to what South Korea finds itself in, where regulatory alignment beyond the scope of its original trade agreement is voluntary.
    That is subtly different to what you have said, which is that as an external trade partner Britain would still be bound by EU rules. In this case, the EU and South Korea are both bound by rules to which both had to give unanimous consent and which cannot be changed at the discretion of one party. In other words in the case of the South Korea-EU free trade agreement, Brussels is as much bound by Seoul as vice-versa, and Brussels has no power to force Seoul to change or expand the agreement.

    South Korea seems to provide a good argument why we should ultimately seek to be in neither the EU nor the EFTA.
 
 
 

3,225

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.