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

Poll: Should Britain be in the EU?
Yes (101)
48.1%
No (96)
45.71%
Unsure (13)
6.19%
Ben Butler
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(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.
I should pay more attention to my Law and Ethics lessons in Journalism. Thanks though, you're correct.
0
quote
reply
username521600
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by L i b)
Nope, that's nationalism. Completely different and, indeed, conflicting ideology.

Its power is weaker than the House of Commons due to the nationalism you advocate.

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.

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.

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.
You can call it nationalism. I can call it democracy. Whatever the word, I believe that laws/legislation/policies/etc should be in the interest of citizens of Britain.

The European parliament may be weaker because there are many other powerful bodies in the EU. But if you compare the EU as a whole to the British political system, I still believe the EU as a whole holds too much power.

What do you mean by identity politics? It isn't about identity in the sense of ethnicity or anything, but just that we as a country have rights to decide for ourselves; which is also why I call it freedom. How can we just throw those rights of our country away? The point of WW2 was to keep this state free from any forces in Europe, and not the other way round.

You may say that David Cameron shouldn't be the PM because he was elected from a constituency with only 78,000 people. But that is where party leadership elections come in, which is nationwide for all members. But even in the general election, people knew which MP and party they were voting for, which meant they knew which leader they were voting for, as well as that leader's potential cabinet.

The President of European Council, Rompuy, has more than just the title of 'president'. He actually represents us on the world stage. You see him at the G8 meetings and tons of other meetings. If he is going to have that much power, then we should have a say.


(Original post by HJV)
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).
When I say they are undemocratic, I mean so in two senses. In that many bodies aren't elected, and also in the sense that the EU doesn't represent the will of the people in the UK and our wishes. Yes, the EU could become more democratic in the elected sense, but I would still be against it. Either way, the EU has become way too powerful over the years. I believe in member states rights, and that is the reason why I am mainly anti-EU. Member states have the right to stay in the EU if they wish. So I'm not saying the EU should be completely abolished. But with the UK, most people want to get out. If the huge majority want to get out, then there should be a referendum on it. The Green Party leader loves the EU, but she supports a referendum as most people in the UK want one. Now, that is democracy.
0
quote
reply
HJV
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by Samwest1992)
The President of European Council, Rompuy, has more than just the title of 'president'. He actually represents us on the world stage. You see him at the G8 meetings and tons of other meetings. If he is going to have that much power, then we should have a say.
Now when Rompuy was chosen by the member states you complain that "we" don't have a say, thus implying he should have been chosen by the Parliament (the directly elected institution).

If it was the case that he had been nominated by the Parliament you would complain that your member state's (the UK's) interest had not been taken into account and that your member state should have been able to veto the decision.

Either way, you'd complain.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
When I say they are undemocratic, I mean so in two senses. In that many bodies aren't elected, and also in the sense that the EU doesn't represent the will of the people in the UK and our wishes.
No, it represents the will of the people in the 27 states. The UK is only one member state and has about 12% of the total population.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
I believe in member states rights, and that is the reason why I am mainly anti-EU.
And thus, you believe that the EU should become less democratic. If you wished it was reverted back to an intergovernmental organisation, you are implying it should therefore become less democratic.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
But with the UK, most people want to get out. If the huge majority want to get out, then there should be a referendum on it. The Green Party leader loves the EU, but she supports a referendum as most people in the UK want one. Now, that is democracy.
The public opinion is, quite unfortunately, very skewed due to the press misrepresenting the EU. If the EU does something good, the government takes credit in the press instead of credit being given to the EU.
0
quote
reply
username521600
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by HJV)
Now when Rompuy was chosen by the member states you complain that "we" don't have a say, thus implying he should have been chosen by the Parliament (the directly elected institution).

If it was the case that he had been nominated by the Parliament you would complain that your member state's (the UK's) interest had not been taken into account and that your member state should have been able to veto the decision.

Either way, you'd complain.

No, it represents the will of the people in the 27 states. The UK is only one member state and has about 12% of the total population.

And thus, you believe that the EU should become less democratic. If you wished it was reverted back to an intergovernmental organisation, you are implying it should therefore become less democratic.

The public opinion is, quite unfortunately, very skewed due to the press misrepresenting the EU. If the EU does something good, the government takes credit in the press instead of credit being given to the EU.
Firstly, we didn't get to decide whether we want a President of not. I believe most wouldn't want one. It just creates one person with so much power, who is supposed to be above the British PM and other leaders in EU member states. Creating all these EU president positions and what-not just takes away member states power. Plus, we must think of all the bureaucracy and costs Rompuy has created.

Of course in some matters we get a say, but it is simply influence. Influence isn't power. It can be agreed that in the EU, the UK only has between 3-12% of the influence (depending on which EU body it is). I know it is supposed to act on behalf of the EU, but most people don't want to share this power with 26 other countries, especially when our interests aren't always met. If we leave the EU, autonomy would be restored and more of our interests met.

Whether it is or should become more or less democratic, the point is that it has gone beyond its powers. And because I doubt the EU will roll back its power over us, it is time to leave.
0
quote
reply
HJV
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by Samwest1992)
Firstly, we didn't get to decide whether we want a President of not. I believe most wouldn't want one.
By "most" are you referring to the most of the EU's population or most of the UK's population?


(Original post by Samwest1992)
It just creates one person with so much power, who is supposed to be above the British PM and other leaders in EU member states.
No it doesn't. The President of the European Council has hardly any concrete powers. He just replaces the rotating presidency which was previously held by the head of government of each member state in their turn. Surely it's better to have a president elected by the member states rather than a random guy who happens to have the turn then?

The President has zero legislative power.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
Creating all these EU president positions and what-not just takes away member states power. Plus, we must think of all the bureaucracy and costs Rompuy has created.
No it doesn't. I'd argue that the presidency actually increases the states' power because now they can choose the president. Previously the president was determined by the member state who got the turn of the rotating presidency. These turns were pre-determined years in advance. Thus, if for example some nutty guy became the prime minister of Hungary and it became Hungary's turn, then the nutty guy would hold the presidency for half a year.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
especially when our interests aren't always met.
That tends to be a characteristic of any political system, even national ones. At times, the interests of Cornwall aren't met in decisions regarding all of England.

(Original post by Samwest1992)
If we leave the EU, autonomy would be restored and more of our interests met.
The UK would have to adopt most of the EU regulations anyway, with no say to them. (Unless of course you advocate complete isolationism and return to the Middle Ages). At the moment, Norway adopts more than 90% of EU regulations with no say to their content.
0
quote
reply
Stanley Baldwin
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
No because it takes away many powers of national governments - a good example is over VAT on fuel. You actually have to apply to Brussels to do that. It just doesn't seem right.

I love the economic elements of the EU - but I hate the political aspects. For that reason... OUT, OUT, OUT!!!
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (137)
18.49%
No (450)
60.73%
Not really bothered about them (154)
20.78%

Watched Threads

View All