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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Can you give us some examples. I don't mean examples that you have made up that show contradictions, I mean references to posts that real people have made.
    You look them up!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I'm glad we can agree that there is no evidence on to prove either sides of the argument.
    Yes, but you are choosing to misrepresent what I wrote - you are arguing to change the status quo, therefore the burden of evidence is on you, not me.

    I was just using Simon's case for demonstration purpose. It could have been 'Lisa' on the Remain side making a decision based on statistics she interprets as supportive of remaining.
    To be clear, I am not saying that there is no value in trying to plan for the future. But I am saying that using one data point (or very limited data points) to do that has very little value - that is a guess, that is not planning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    You look them up!
    It's your claim, it is up to you to prove it. I take it you are declining that invitation?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Please give some examples. It seems to me it is the LEAVErs who say "we can still trade with the EU the same as we do now", "we can still be in the single market but not have free movement of people", "we can leave and all the regulation government relies upon will magically disappear"...

    As I posted above, both Juncker and Tusk have indicated that, if there ever was a federalist secret plan, there no longer is. Even if this is the underlying conspiracy, then UK legislation makes it clear that any loss of sovereignty triggers a referendum. If these things come to pass, the time to debate and vote on them is at that time, not when you're developing your fantasy ideas for the nightmare future of the EU.
    There is no conspiracy in the EU, Junker and Tusk have made it abundantly clear that the final stage of Eurogroup unification is political union. They have even given a date: 2025.

    Honest campaigners would say "look, full political union in 2025 will cause another referendum, that is only 9yrs away so unless you want politcial union with the EU vote Leave now".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    This referendum is about the fact that, within 30 years a Remain vote will end self government in the UK.
    This is a product of your over-active imagination.

    The migration debate itself is an example of the disingenuous remainders. They know that anything can be said or indeed given away to win this referendum because, after a Remain vote, within 30 years they get what they want anyway.
    How is the REMAIN campaign being disingenuous about migration?

    Are you saying that everyone in the REMAIN camp is a federalist?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    What is the difference between Nationalism and Nationalistic by definition? They are the same.

    Also what is wrong with freedom, and what exactly does it have to do with Nationalism?
    One's a noun and one's an adjective.

    He doesn't get that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This is a product of your over-active imagination.

    How is the REMAIN campaign being disingenuous about migration?
    Stating that the UK has an opt out because it is not a member of Schengen is disingenuous when the Schengen countries are busily making migrants into EU citizens.

    Are you saying that everyone in the REMAIN camp is a federalist?
    No, I am saying that the Eurogroup already has a finance committee with a President that deals with the Eurogroup economy and, after political union it will have a single government on all issues. That leaves a de-facto federal EU with a single government and the UK and Denmark. Our choice in 2025 will be to join them or leave the EU.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    There is no conspiracy in the EU, Junker and Tusk have made it abundantly clear that the final stage of Eurogroup unification is political union. They have even given a date: 2025.

    Honest campaigners would say "look, full political union in 2025 will cause another referendum, that is only 9yrs away so unless you want politcial union with the EU vote Leave now".
    You are denying that Juncker and Tusk are saying there is no appetite for federalism, and making the claim that, by existing treaty obligations, the UK will be forced to dismantle its government and join a federal European state?

    This just seems like fantasy and denial of the obvious facts.

    If there is a threat to UK sovereignty then this triggers a referendum. I don't think it matters very much if another referendum occurs in only nine years time (by your fantasy estimate) given that the UK will have had two national referenda between 2011 and the end of 2016, as well as seven major regional referenda since 1997.

    I say people should vote on the issues at hand, given that any significant change triggers a new referendum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Yes, but you are choosing to misrepresent what I wrote - you are arguing to change the status quo, therefore the burden of evidence is on you, not me.



    To be clear, I am not saying that there is no value in trying to plan for the future. But I am saying that using one data point (or very limited data points) to do that has very little value - that is a guess, that is not planning.
    I don't think I have misinterpreted you in any way.

    There is no 'burden of evidence' on either side, this is just your personal expectation I'm afraid.

    Everyone is entitled to their own decision in this referendum and nobody is required to justify their decision to anyone, especially given the highly personal nature of the issue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Stating that the UK has an opt out because it is not a member of Schengen is disingenuous when the Schengen countries are busily making migrants into EU citizens.
    This has always been an issue at a certain level - individual states making their own immigration policy, and that may eventually give each migrant full EU access. This is nothing really to do with Schengen. I suspect that in the future this issue will be tackled directly in a treaty.

    No, I am saying that the Eurogroup already has a finance committee with a President that deals with the Eurogroup economy and, after political union it will have a single government on all issues. That leaves a de-facto federal EU with a single government and the UK and Denmark. Our choice in 2025 will be to join them or leave the EU.
    Well, you talk as if the only EU members not in the euro are the UK and Denmark, which is obviously not true. I think you also overstate "political union", this is not really what is on the cards at all. If this is our choice in 2025, then we can make that choice then - you can help by spending the next nine years building some coherent arguments.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I don't think I have misinterpreted you in any way.
    It is my opinion that you have.

    There is no 'burden of evidence' on either side, this is just your personal expectation I'm afraid.
    In order to make a change from the status quo it is necessary to bring forward some evidence to argue that such a change will result in a positive outcome. This is the normal course of things, where one does not live in a vacuum.

    Everyone is entitled to their own decision in this referendum and nobody is required to justify their decision to anyone, especially given the highly personal nature of the issue.
    I'm not asking anyone to justify their opinion, I am just indicating that without a certain level of analysis, that requires substantially more than one data point (and some strawman arguments from Nigel and Boris), such opinions do not represent a high degree of rationality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You are denying that Juncker and Tusk are saying there is no appetite for federalism, and making the claim that, by existing treaty obligations, the UK will be forced to dismantle its government and join a federal European state?

    This just seems like fantasy and denial of the obvious facts.

    If there is a threat to UK sovereignty then this triggers a referendum. I don't think it matters very much if another referendum occurs in only nine years time (by your fantasy estimate) given that the UK will have had two national referenda between 2011 and the end of 2016, as well as seven major regional referenda since 1997.

    I say people should vote on the issues at hand, given that any significant change triggers a new referendum.
    There we are again. Remainders cannot stop it. Here are the facts:

    The Eurogroup now has a banking union, the ECB controls the Eurozone banks. The Eurogroup countries have an economic committee with a President that decides on the strategy for EU member states and even approves their national budgets. The Eurogroup meet before EU Council meetings to decide policy and then speak with a single voice on finance in the EU Council. This all happens, it is Stage 1 of Eurogroup unification. It has been achieved on schedule. Stage 2, political union, will begin in 2017 and be complete by 2025. All the leaders of the Eurogroup have stated publicly that political union will be achieved.

    The facts are given above. The Eurogroup will control almost 90% of the vote in the EU Council by 2025 and there are now almost no vetoes. So what do you say? You say I am:

    "...making the claim that, by existing treaty obligations, the UK will be forced to dismantle its government and join a federal European state?"

    Well yes, either that or hold another referendum within 9yrs. You know that Stage 1 of unification is almost complete. That alone is serious enough. You know that all Eurogroup politicians see political union as the future. Yet here you are, suggesting it will never happen. Carry on, you are proving the OP.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    It is my opinion that you have.



    In order to make a change from the status quo it is necessary to bring forward some evidence to argue that such a change will result in a positive outcome. This is the normal course of things, where one does not live in a vacuum.



    I'm not asking anyone to justify their opinion, I am just indicating that without a certain level of analysis, that requires substantially more than one data point (and some strawman arguments from Nigel and Boris), such opinions do not represent a high degree of rationality.
    You may be still focusing on Simon, who doesn't exist and does not represent me. As I said he is purely for demonstration purpose to show the philosophy of any decision making as nothing but educated guess.

    I'm sure if you ask nicely, many users here will give you their evidence that they interpret as supportive of their decision. It is then entirely down to your judgement whether you feel that they are 'good enough'.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    ???

    No EU laws affect us.

    Apart from these important ones?

    Is this the strength of the remain argument out in full force?

    Oh, I get it
    I was under the impression that these were enforced by the ECHR so leaving the EU wouldn't change anything - we literally can't exempt ourselves from the ECHR considering we set it up...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It is irrefutable, purely on an economic level we pay in a lot to the EU - the real question is do we get enough out of it? Yet again, I stress I purely looking at this economically, not looking at free movement and the environment etc.

    In 2015 we paid £13bn in membership fees to the EU (including our £5bn "discount"), in return we received £4.5bn in public sector receipts. Leaving us with £8.5bn per year as to what we will pay for the EU, this is what we value so to speak. However it is worth noting an estimated £1.4 billion is paid from the EU directly to the private sector. (as can be seen here). Thus our 'value' of the EU is £7.1bn per year (This is just short of how much was spent on GP services in 2013). It is hard to quantify our benefits from the EU in cash. Thus here two non-numeric, yet economic facts:

    - Over the last ten years all EU countries other than three sold more to us than they bought—Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta. (see here)
    - If you treated the UK as if it were out of the EU it would have made up 16% of the EU's goods exports in 2014. Meaning the UK would be the EU's largest trade partner. (see here)

    Thus the EU need us as much as we need them, as can be seen by Cameron securing the EU reform deal, in which all countries obliged to a yes vote. There is fear mongering by the Remain campaign that if we leave, we are locked out and the key is thrown away. This is simply wrong, countries such as Norway and Iceland are part of the EEA but not the EU; this, in theory could be suitable for us too? I am not saying a Leave vote does not carry risk, however it does carry, in my opinion, at least equal possible benefits for us.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The Leave Argument:

    The EU is literally Hitler. Trillions of jihadis are on their way to the UK RIGHT NOW and all we can do to stop them is leave the EU. In 2 years we'll be part of the United States of Europe. Is this what our ancestors died for?!?!?!

    On a more serious note, I don't really understand why "the EU might be a political union in 30 years" is a reason to leave the EU now. We could leave at any point. If we didn't want it to become a political union we could single-handedly prevent it. But you want to pre-emptively leave because of something that just might happen in 30 years.
    The point of the original post is that those who espouse the Remain argument do so in a disingenuous fashion, almost as if they wish to subvert people into voting Remain.

    Their typical argument might be "Why worry about the EU ruling us? If you don't like that idea you can always vote to leave later". But wait a minute, why on earth would you get linked, possibly inextricably linked, to an organisation that you would want to leave? You are proving the OP.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The point of the original post is that those who espouse the Remain argument do so in a disingenuous fashion, almost as if they wish to subvert people into voting Remain.

    Their typical argument might be "Why worry about the EU ruling us? If you don't like that idea you can always vote to leave later". But wait a minute, why on earth would you get linked, possibly inextricably linked, to an organisation that you would want to leave? You are proving the OP.
    I don't understand how you think we could just suddenly, unintentionally become inextricably linked to the EU. These things don't just happen, it'd be a conscious decision.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I don't understand how you think we could just suddenly, unintentionally become inextricably linked to the EU. These things don't just happen, it'd be a conscious decision.
    You are missing my point. You are proposing that we should simply go along with the EU because any bad things can be undone or avoided. This is obviously untrue but even if it were true why would you try to entice people into such a position? The OP is about the disingenuous nature of the Remain arguments and you are proving it.

    The Remain camp don't just use negative arguments and fear, when these don't work they use subversion. Why on earth cant you just say "lets remain, give up self government and throw in our lot with the EU" instead of all these creepy arguments?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    MEPs per capita:
    France (66.42 million / 74) 897,567
    UK (64.88 million / 73): 888,767
    Spain (46.45 million / 54): 860,185
    Germany (81.2 / 96): 845,833
    Italy (60.8 / 73): 832,876
    I didn't know that France had exactly one MEP more than Britain and Italy.

    I wonder how many thousands of hours were spent extracting that concession.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:

    On sovereignty: Hardly any EU laws affect the UK
    On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them

    On migration: We can protect our borders, we are not members of Schengen
    On migration: All EU citizens have a right to come to the UK just as we have the right to go there, yes refugees will become EU citizens

    On the eurozone: The Eurozone will succeed when it achieves political union and shares out the wealth fairly and is about to enter Stage 2 of political union
    On the eurozone: The Eurozone will never operate as a single political union and so govern the EU

    On defence: We need to be part of the EU so that we can stand up to the large countries such as Russia and guarantee the Baltic, Balkans and Ukraine. The EU Defence force is already being formed
    On defence: Dont worry, the UK will never let the EU have an EU army.
    I have noticed a similar trend whereby every development in the EU is denied as scaremongering when first proposed, then admitted but defended as unimportant when it is going through, and finally presented as necessary, inevitable, and irreversible once it has been established.

    The same people who originally regarded the proposal as scaremongering - implicitly agreeing that it is bad - seem to slide very comfortably into full support of the proposal once no one can do anything about it.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.