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

Why I will vote to Leave the EU - From an alternative viewpoint Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I was referring to the recent sanctions on North Korea by the United Nations Security Council, which voted unanimously impose the sanctions.
    Great, but there are many, many instances where the UN has been unable to do anything at all, due the veto of one of the permanent members. How would the UN impose sanctions on Russia for its violations in Georgia and Ukraine when Russia can just use its veto?

    The UN is a voluntary organisation and does not impose legislations on its members, except on areas concerning human rights. As such there is not as much need for a fully democratic representation.
    UN treaties have no legal effect in the UK, even on human rights. You might note that the EU is also a voluntary organisation - the UK voluntarily entered into the EU treaties and right now we're in the process of a referendum to leave the EU.

    You must also understand there are events in which sanctions will not be enough to ward off an aggressor. You will find that in these events the aggressor would have already been sanctioned. Any form of punishment other than sanctions is beyond the capability of the UN or the EU. It is then the role of NATO and for individual countries to intervene militarily.
    I think you will find that NATO has no power to order military intervention - it's always up to the member states to decide what to do. Are we really going to go to war if Turkey shoots down another Russian aircraft?

    Anyway, this is off topic, but I notice you did not tackle the other points I have made, so my assumption is that you concede on those.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Great, but there are many, many instances where the UN has been unable to do anything at all, due the veto of one of the permanent members. How would the UN impose sanctions on Russia for its violations in Georgia and Ukraine when Russia can just use its veto?



    UN treaties have no legal effect in the UK, even on human rights. You might note that the EU is also a voluntary organisation - the UK voluntarily entered into the EU treaties and right now we're in the process of a referendum to leave the EU.



    I think you will find that NATO has no power to order military intervention - it's always up to the member states to decide what to do. Are we really going to go to war if Turkey shoots down another Russian aircraft?

    Anyway, this is off topic, but I notice you did not tackle the other points I have made, so my assumption is that you concede on those.
    To be honest I don't quite understand your logic. On one point you said that we are stronger in EU because it has collective power to impose sanctions on aggressors. On another point you said that countries are allowed to impose their own sanction, regardless of its political affiliation. On your final point you stated that we are free to leave the EU or the UN because membership is voluntary. So what impact does being in the EU have on peace specifically, if by your argument countries are able to impose their own individual sanctions anyway and neither the UN or the EU is compulsory?

    Regarding your previous post:

    1. You must respect that for some people, under-representation, especially on such a massive scale is not a 'marginal issue'. As a country we have voiced our dissatisfaction on this issue but it was not accepted on the 2014 amendment by the European Commission. Regarding the flaws the UK's electoral system, as I said on my previous post, "the fact remains that the UK is still 100% responsible for electing its government and in deciding its local policies.", "The fact that our existing Democracy is not perfect does not mean we should not seek a fairer and a more representative system to govern us. I'm sure more work needs to be done however I think the EU impedes us in making the best decisions on the UK as a whole. I believe accepting a knowingly less-than-perfect democratic system as a step-down is far from a logical solution to an important issue."

    2. As I also said on my previous post, I have no issue with immigration, free movement of people and goods, membership fees etc. I believe the EU has been beneficial to the UK economy as a whole. However this does not mean that leaving the EU will harm the UK economy. One thing to note is that Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market. I believe this is the ideal model for the UK to take.

    3. I am looking at the situation numerically. If you consider that the value EU export to the UK is greater than the converse, it means that we buy more from EU businesses than they do from us. You can think of this from the importer's perspective and the argument would be totally reversed. The point is that there is substantial trade between the EU and the UK and it is not realistic to expect that all trades between the EU and the UK to evaporate all in a sudden because of the exit. The procedure will be stretched out to allow time to draft new legislations and trade treaties as confirmed by the government and the EU.

    4. On the last part of your post, the view that "there is no Federal Europe and there is no plan for a Federal Europe" is entirely your own opinion, and I hope you can understand that there are millions of people who feel the complete opposite to your belief.

    Regarding peace before the EU, I would just like to note that there was no major peace-keeping organisation until 1891 so naturally the outbreak of wars before this era have no relation to the formation of any peace-keeping organisation, and it is impossible to suggest that such organisations would have prevented wars. Another fact to note is that the EU was only founded in 1993, 48 years after the last World War ended. Therefore again it is not possible to deduct that the EU is effective in withholding peace given that it had only existed for 23 years. Another fact to consider is that Europe had not been immune to war since the EU's foundation, especially during recent times. One final thing to consider is the nuclear states increased capability to deter aggressors with mutually assured destruction since WW2. This could be the true reason why major war had not broken out yet. I think you may have credited the EU with too much confidence, without considering other forces at work.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Economically I believe the EU is beneficial to the UK, but our deals and treaties with them can be arranged with their member states externally - like Norway and Switzerland. About 44% of UK export goes to the EU and 8% of EU export comes to the UK. This means we export £226.7b to the EU and the EU export £288.3b to the UK. On a purely numerical basis, the EU needs the UK for trade more than the UK needs them.
    Clearly the percentages are more relevant here than the raw numbers
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    Clearly the percentages are more relevant here than the raw numbers
    Please refer to point 3 of my last post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Please refer to point 3 of my last post.
    I agree that UK-EU trade isn't just going to disappear of course, but when it comes to negotiating a new deal, the way you're looking at it doesn't make sense. It implies we'll have the bargaining power, but in reality they will, because if a deal doesn't materialise (or is less efficient, causing a major decrease in trade), then they're losing less than 10% of their trade, we're losing nearly half. We clearly need the deal more and are therefore going to have to make more allowances and basically come out worse from the deal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    I agree that UK-EU trade isn't just going to disappear of course, but when it comes to negotiating a new deal, the way you're looking at it doesn't make sense. It implies we'll have the bargaining power, but in reality they will, because if a deal doesn't materialise (or is less efficient, causing a major decrease in trade), then they're losing less than 10% of their trade, we're losing nearly half. We clearly need the deal more and are therefore going to have to make more allowances and basically come out worse from the deal.
    The core assumption of your argument is that both parties involved are motivated primarily by volume of trade, which is not necessarily the case. Macro-economical and political forces, for example, play a major role in negotiations. Britain does have a number of assets it can use to leverage a deal in its favour (e.g. access to jobs, investment opportunities, etc...). My worry, however, arises from the trade in services, which Britain remains a large proportion of its exports.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The problem for Britian if we leave is not negotiating one or two trade deals, its negotiating with dozens of countries and trading blocs at the same time because all the trade agreements we have through the EU would be void. Even if some agreements were unaffected , the other parties to the agreements may also want to re-negoitate to take advantage of Britain's weaker position to get a better deal.

    Britain will be under tremendous pressure from exporters and importers to conclude dozens of trade agreements as quickly as possible and the other countries know this and will use it to their advantage by screwing Britain.

    Given the time it takes conclude any trade agreement, I doubt 2 years will be enough to get dozens of agreements done.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The problem for Britian if we leave is not negotiating one or two trade deals, its negotiating with dozens of countries and trading blocs at the same time because all the trade agreements we have through the EU would be void. Even if some agreements were unaffected , the other parties to the agreements may also want to re-negoitate to take advantage of Britain's weaker position to get a better deal.
    You're indeed correct to state that there is a high probability that many affected parties will be eligible to re-negotiate their trade agreements. However, there are a number of likely scenarios, of which yours is only one.

    Trade agreements, especially those with the EU, fall into a number of broad contexts, from purely trade relationships to elaborate relationships, of which trade is but one factor. Whether a trade agreement will need to be renegotiated needs to take a wide spectrum of issues into context, and to conclude that renegotiation will be to the UK's disadvantage is simply impossible to conclude at this stage.

    (Original post by Maker)
    Britain will be under tremendous pressure from exporters and importers to conclude dozens of trade agreements as quickly as possible and the other countries know this and will use it to their advantage by screwing Britain.
    Again, far too hypothetical. You aren't taking the wider net of influencers on trade agreements into consideration. You're indeed correct in stating that exporters will be placing pressure (importers have considerably less sway in these issues as tariffs are far more significant); However, my concern will be instead in the negotiation of treaties for the export of services (an area that remains crucial to Britain and one not even Switzerland has been able to successfully do).

    (Original post by Maker)
    Given the time it takes conclude any trade agreement, I doubt 2 years will be enough to get dozens of agreements done.
    Valid point. Negotiations are usually broken down into 'rounds', which may take a long time to conclude.

    Despite these concerns, I don't think 'Brexit' should be a concern for trade. It will be a difficult and tedious process but it should not deter the voters from choosing a different direction for the country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    To be honest I don't quite understand your logic. On one point you said that we are stronger in EU because it has collective power to impose sanctions on aggressors. On another point you said that countries are allowed to impose their own sanction, regardless of its political affiliation. On your final point you stated that we are free to leave the EU or the UN because membership is voluntary. So what impact does being in the EU have on peace specifically, if by your argument countries are able to impose their own individual sanctions anyway and neither the UN or the EU is compulsory?
    I don't believe I wrote many of the things you are ascribing to me. I believe it is your argument that the UN fosters peace, and I say that the UN does more or less nothing because any actions are down to individual members. Of course membership of the EU is voluntary - no one else made the UK join, no one else can make it leave and it can leave at any time.

    The EU impact on peace is that it fosters an economic interdependence.

    1. You must respect that for some people, under-representation, especially on such a massive scale is not a 'marginal issue'. As a country we have voiced our dissatisfaction on this issue but it was not accepted on the 2014 amendment by the European Commission. Regarding the flaws the UK's electoral system, as I said on my previous post, "the fact remains that the UK is still 100% responsible for electing its government and in deciding its local policies.", "The fact that our existing Democracy is not perfect does not mean we should not seek a fairer and a more representative system to govern us. I'm sure more work needs to be done however I think the EU impedes us in making the best decisions on the UK as a whole. I believe accepting a knowingly less-than-perfect democratic system as a step-down is far from a logical solution to an important issue."
    I think the problems with UK democracy are for more serious than those in the EU. Additionally the UK's democratic system is far older than that of the EU - there is room for change in the EU, and we should continue to strive for further democracy. But as previously, it is the Eurosceptics that have held this back, campaigning against further representation.

    2. As I also said on my previous post, I have no issue with immigration, free movement of people and goods, membership fees etc. I believe the EU has been beneficial to the UK economy as a whole. However this does not mean that leaving the EU will harm the UK economy. One thing to note is that Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market. I believe this is the ideal model for the UK to take.
    If you believe that "the EU has been beneficial to the UK economy as a whole" then I think the logic dictates that leaving the EU would be "detrimental to the UK as a whole". You cannot have a benefit as a member without that benefit disappearing if the UK were to leave.

    As previously, although you may not be interested in the immigration issue, many LEAVErs are, 15% of Switzerland's population are EU citizens. I think this represents an incoherent argument on behalf of the LEAVE campaign. Although Switzerland is not part of the EEA it is a member of EFTA, implements at least some EU legislation, is a member of the single market and a member of Schengen. Again this position seems at odds with many of the LEAVE campaign's objectives.

    3. I am looking at the situation numerically. If you consider that the value EU export to the UK is greater than the converse, it means that we buy more from EU businesses than they do from us. You can think of this from the importer's perspective and the argument would be totally reversed. The point is that there is substantial trade between the EU and the UK and it is not realistic to expect that all trades between the EU and the UK to evaporate all in a sudden because of the exit. The procedure will be stretched out to allow time to draft new legislations and trade treaties as confirmed by the government and the EU.
    No one expects all trade to halt. But it is more than reasonable to assume that some costs to trade will be imposed. You are out of step with many others in the LEAVE campaign - there it is accepted that the UK will need to negotiate new treaties with the EU. If we take a look at the state of trade with the USA (whom LEAVErs also say we'll have free trade agreements with) there are currently barriers to trade by way of administrative burdens (regulations, documentation, etc), taxation (VAT on imports) and tariffs (many goods imported have tariffs attached).

    Is that the position you want the UK to be in with the EU before the mythical free trade agreement materialises?

    I think your other problem is that you are trying to use the argument that the EU is a single block with a single vote on its future relationship with the UK. It is not. Individual member states will have their own trade concerns, and those may be that they want to protect their market from UK imports.

    4. On the last part of your post, the view that "there is no Federal Europe and there is no plan for a Federal Europe" is entirely your own opinion, and I hope you can understand that there are millions of people who feel the complete opposite to your belief.
    There is no federal Europe. That is a fact. There is no treaty in place to progress to a federal Europe. That is a fact.

    You can argue whatever you like about the future direction of the EU, but all this just amounts to loose speculation.

    Regarding peace before the EU, I would just like to note that there was no major peace-keeping organisation until 1891 so naturally the outbreak of wars before this era have no relation to the formation of any peace-keeping organisation, and it is impossible to suggest that such organisations would have prevented wars. Another fact to note is that the EU was only founded in 1993, 48 years after the last World War ended. Therefore again it is not possible to deduct that the EU is effective in withholding peace given that it had only existed for 23 years. Another fact to consider is that Europe had not been immune to war since the EU's foundation, especially during recent times. One final thing to consider is the nuclear states increased capability to deter aggressors with mutually assured destruction since WW2. This could be the true reason why major war had not broken out yet. I think you may have credited the EU with too much confidence, without considering other forces at work.
    There is some debate about the origins of the EU, some might say that its gestations started as early as 1945, but it certainly was born in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome (European Economic Community) - this is the treaty controlling the EEC when the UK joined in 1973.

    The 1992 Maastricht Treaty gave the EEC the new name the European Community. The EU name was adopted at this time too, to describe the three pillars of the organisation. With the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the entire organisation was formally named the EU.

    I have never indicated that the EU is a peacekeeping organisation, only that the trade arrangements between the member states is a greater influence on peace than any army could achieve in the previous 1,000 years. it is specifically not a peacekeeping force on states outside its membership (except of course those in the EEA or EFTA), so I make no claims as to peacekeeping in wider Europe. But please let me know which member states have have had disputes that led to military intervention in the period they were members.

    Nuclear options have not prevented dozens of wars on the EU's doorstep, including those involving states with nuclear weapons. All of these were outside the EU when they took place. Other organisations (ie the UN) have seen their member states slip into cross-border or civil wars.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Whether a trade agreement will need to be renegotiated needs to take a wide spectrum of issues into context, and to conclude that renegotiation will be to the UK's disadvantage is simply impossible to conclude at this stage.
    Surely it is equally impossible to conclude that renegotiation will be to the UK's advantage?

    Despite these concerns, I don't think 'Brexit' should be a concern for trade. It will be a difficult and tedious process but it should not deter the voters from choosing a different direction for the country.
    Isn't it obvious that, at least in the short term (ie perhaps up to ten years, and in all probability at least five years), uncertainty will be introduced and that this will impact trade, and actually lead to a long term loss (it is hard to make up 5-10 years worth of lost investment or trade*)?

    * I don't indicate that we will lose all investment and trade, only that there will be a certain percentage lost, which will not be trivial.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There does appear to be a habit among Brexiters I have encountered to turn every statement warning about the economic harm of Brexit into a case of excluding the middle and erecting strawmen. When a Remainer says 'Brexit will cause the economy to shrink in the short term' or 'Brexit will mean having to renegotiate trade deals with disadvantages', they interpret this as 'Brexit will destroy the economy!' or 'Brexit will mean nobody will trade with us!'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Britain does have a number of assets it can use to leverage a deal in its favour (e.g. access to jobs, investment opportunities, etc...). My worry, however, arises from the trade in services, which Britain remains a large proportion of its exports.
    But this essentially means free movement of people/labour, which is one of the cornerstone objections from the LEAVE campaign!? There's no logic whatsoever in saying that we can leave the EU, and then countering those indicating the problems with this by advocating re-adopting current positions on EU relations (that form the main arguments for LEAVE).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    But this essentially means free movement of people/labour, which is one of the cornerstone objections from the LEAVE campaign!? There's no logic whatsoever in saying that we can leave the EU, and then countering those indicating the problems with this by advocating re-adopting current positions on EU relations (that form the main arguments for LEAVE).
    As I said from my post, I for one have no problem with free movement of people/labour. It is unfair to assign this believe to every Leave campaigner when many like me have do not object to these policies.

    To me in the grand scheme of things, the most important issue is not the EU in its current state, but the direction it is heading and the erosion on our country's democracy in the future.

    There is no way to predict what will happen in the organisation if we stay and whether reforms will be made. What we can be certain is by staying in the EU, we are at the mercy of people who do not have our interests at heart and certainly not accountable to our country's electorates. I hope more people can address this problem, instead of repeatedly debating on non-issues and deflecting the argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    There does appear to be a habit among Brexiters I have encountered to turn every statement warning about the economic harm of Brexit into a case of excluding the middle and erecting strawmen. When a Remainer says 'Brexit will cause the economy to shrink in the short term' or 'Brexit will mean having to renegotiate trade deals with disadvantages', they interpret this as 'Brexit will destroy the economy!' or 'Brexit will mean nobody will trade with us!'
    If you look at my previous posts, you can see that I agree that there will be impacts to the UK economy in the short term. This may not be induced by policy changes but the uncertainty businesses feel leaving the EU would bring. Regarding trade treaties, renegotiating takes time and hence why leaving would be a long and stretched out process, before which the UK would still be a member of the EU. I also believe that the UK will be able to transition more smoothly if we join the EFTA or the EEA.

    You should keep an open mind to the opposite argument and not stereotype, as you would in any debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Surely it is equally impossible to conclude that renegotiation will be to the UK's advantage?
    Or vice versa. No real conclusion can be predicted as trade negotiations are dependent on a number of factors. My issue is with conclusions that both sides are making on this subject ("We're going to lose everything!" or "Trade will not be affected").

    (Original post by typonaut)
    Isn't it obvious that, at least in the short term (ie perhaps up to ten years, and in all probability at least five years), uncertainty will be introduced and that this will impact trade, and actually lead to a long term loss (it is hard to make up 5-10 years worth of lost investment or trade*)?

    * I don't indicate that we will lose all investment and trade, only that there will be a certain percentage lost, which will not be trivial.
    Without a doubt. The issue in question is not whether bilateral deals will be affected (the terms of the agreements have changed and as such both parties are eligible to re-negotiate). The issue instead is with either side making ludicrous claims (see above reply).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If you look at my previous posts, you can see that I agree that there will be impacts to the UK economy in the short term. This may not be induced by policy changes but the uncertainty businesses feel leaving the EU would bring. Regarding trade treaties, renegotiating takes time and hence why leaving would be a long and stretched out process, before which the UK would still be a member of the EU. I also believe that the UK will be able to transition more smoothly if we join the EFTA or the EEC.

    You should keep an open mind to the opposite argument and not stereotype, as you would in any debate.
    I should have qualified with 'most', I wasn't directing it at you specifically

    What do you mean by 'join the EEC'? If we leave the EU, we can't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I should have qualified with 'most', I wasn't directing it at you specifically

    What do you mean by 'join the EEC'? If we leave the EU, we can't.
    My bad, it should be EEA, of which UK is already a member. Joining the EFTA would mean being in the single market with EEA countries, if the UK is required to leave the EEA in order to leave the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    My bad, it should be EEA, of which UK is already a member. Joining the EFTA would mean being in the single market with EEA countries, if the UK is required to leave the EEA in order to leave the EU.
    EEA membership would be likely yes, although given how many are motivated to vote LEAVE because of a) sovereignty concerns and/or b) immigrant fears, I would find it utterly bizarre and inconsistent if we did.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I don't believe I wrote many of the things you are ascribing to me. I believe it is your argument that the UN fosters peace, and I say that the UN does more or less nothing because any actions are down to individual members. Of course membership of the EU is voluntary - no one else made the UK join, no one else can make it leave and it can leave at any time.

    The EU impact on peace is that it fosters an economic interdependence.



    I think the problems with UK democracy are for more serious than those in the EU. Additionally the UK's democratic system is far older than that of the EU - there is room for change in the EU, and we should continue to strive for further democracy. But as previously, it is the Eurosceptics that have held this back, campaigning against further representation.



    If you believe that "the EU has been beneficial to the UK economy as a whole" then I think the logic dictates that leaving the EU would be "detrimental to the UK as a whole". You cannot have a benefit as a member without that benefit disappearing if the UK were to leave.

    As previously, although you may not be interested in the immigration issue, many LEAVErs are, 15% of Switzerland's population are EU citizens. I think this represents an incoherent argument on behalf of the LEAVE campaign. Although Switzerland is not part of the EEA it is a member of EFTA, implements at least some EU legislation, is a member of the single market and a member of Schengen. Again this position seems at odds with many of the LEAVE campaign's objectives.



    No one expects all trade to halt. But it is more than reasonable to assume that some costs to trade will be imposed. You are out of step with many others in the LEAVE campaign - there it is accepted that the UK will need to negotiate new treaties with the EU. If we take a look at the state of trade with the USA (whom LEAVErs also say we'll have free trade agreements with) there are currently barriers to trade by way of administrative burdens (regulations, documentation, etc), taxation (VAT on imports) and tariffs (many goods imported have tariffs attached).

    Is that the position you want the UK to be in with the EU before the mythical free trade agreement materialises?

    I think your other problem is that you are trying to use the argument that the EU is a single block with a single vote on its future relationship with the UK. It is not. Individual member states will have their own trade concerns, and those may be that they want to protect their market from UK imports.



    There is no federal Europe. That is a fact. There is no treaty in place to progress to a federal Europe. That is a fact.

    You can argue whatever you like about the future direction of the EU, but all this just amounts to loose speculation.



    There is some debate about the origins of the EU, some might say that its gestations started as early as 1945, but it certainly was born in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome (European Economic Community) - this is the treaty controlling the EEC when the UK joined in 1973.

    The 1992 Maastricht Treaty gave the EEC the new name the European Community. The EU name was adopted at this time too, to describe the three pillars of the organisation. With the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the entire organisation was formally named the EU.

    I have never indicated that the EU is a peacekeeping organisation, only that the trade arrangements between the member states is a greater influence on peace than any army could achieve in the previous 1,000 years. it is specifically not a peacekeeping force on states outside its membership (except of course those in the EEA or EFTA), so I make no claims as to peacekeeping in wider Europe. But please let me know which member states have have had disputes that led to military intervention in the period they were members.

    Nuclear options have not prevented dozens of wars on the EU's doorstep, including those involving states with nuclear weapons. All of these were outside the EU when they took place. Other organisations (ie the UN) have seen their member states slip into cross-border or civil wars.
    1. Regarding your points about peace, please allow me to quote you:

    'The truth is that closer economic ties make war a futile venture, and those closer ties have been fostered by the EU.' - this implies that you believe the EU has collective power in defence when its countries are economically dependent on each other.

    'The UN has no direct power, it relies upon the implementation of member states. We have also seen time and time again, in the Security Council, some of the permanent members (ie China, USA, UK and France) use their vetos to prevent resolutions from passing.' - This implies that countries are allowed to impose their own sanction, regardless of its political affiliation. As to the EU, sanctions require a unanimous vote of the European Council, minus the offending state, meaning any member country can veto.

    'You might note that the EU is also a voluntary organisation' - you agreed that the EU is a voluntary organisation, just like the UN.

    Therefore I believe I have justly applied your statement on my previous point.

    2. Improving the EU's democracy does not mean that the UK's democracy will be improved, and vice versa, nor do I believe this is likely. We should not use a comparison mentality when it comes to achieving a better democracy overall. Although our democracy is not perfect does not mean it is not a democracy, in fact it is one of the most advanced democracy in the world. I am more interested in what is definite in the political future, than speculations. What is being speculated is whether the EU will become more democratic if we continue staying. What is definite is that the EU's parliamentary system is under-representing the UK and we only yield a 10% voting power. What is also definite is that by leaving the EU, the UK will be 100% responsible for its laws and legislations. When facing definite disadvantage situations it is illogical to resort to speculative solutions, this also deflects from the argument as I have noticed repeatedly. A 'let's hope' mentality is not enough, especially when you have only 10% influence of the outcome.

    3. The believe that the UK has benefited from the EU membership is not exclusive to my believe that the UK will benefit from the EFTA and staying as a part in the single market.

    4. Given the massive difference in standards and distance, I do not believe it is reasonable to liken the outcome of Brexit on trade to the US.

    The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements. Upon joining your concerns on tariffs and administration should be well addressed.

    5. Your statement that there is "no plan for a Federal Europe" is not a fact. What is not being planned publicly does not mean the EU have no ambition to create a federal body. In politics what is being planned is not always available to the public. It is merely your belief and there is no evidence to back up as such. My argument on the future direction of the EU is also my belief, and I have always stated as such.

    6. It is true that trade between countries have an effect on maintaining peace. Being an EFTA member effectively allows a country to trade with other EEA countries, so why would Brexit diminishes this effect?

    Regarding peace, you will find that most wars in recent history did not involve a nuclear state, and when it does it is always the nuclear state that have declared war. It is also worth noting that there is a higher concentration of nuclear states in Europe, so this could be more effective in deterring wars as each nuclear state act as a deterring party and each individually likely to invoke the deterrent in the event of war.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    EEA membership would be likely yes, although given how many are motivated to vote LEAVE because of a) sovereignty concerns and/or b) immigrant fears, I would find it utterly bizarre and inconsistent if we did.
    I am sure if and when Brexit happens, it will become a give and take situation just like right now. We cannot expect all the benefits of the EU without sacrificing some of our own, however I believe there are more sovereignty power to be obtained back if we leave the EU and reconsider our relationship with Europe (possibly by joining EFTA).
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.