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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    at least concede that these "workers rights" came via authoritarian decree. no UK representation led to their creation. the commission handed it down to us.

    and if you're saying that it's justifiable that you get your preferred policies via dictates, I think you're kind of in favour of any kind of diktat so long as it suits you. that's kind of unprincipled, isn't it? I don't think the body of laws in the UK are ideal at all to my political principles, but you know what? at least we have *some* means of control over them. and that's the thing - it's preferable to have a bad parliament to a good dictatorship - because one day, that dictatorship might be horrific, whereas at least the parliament can change for the better in the future.
    The workers rights come from regulations passed by parliaments.
    And why would I care where thy came from? I'm glad we have them.

    Certain things should be above politics, things like ensuring our food is hygienic to buy and that workplaces are not dangerous to be in.

    The European Union does a fine job of that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The workers rights come from regulations passed by parliaments.
    And why would I care where thy came from? I'm glad we have them.

    Certain things should be above politics, things like ensuring our food is hygienic to buy and that workplaces are not dangerous to be in.

    The European Union does a fine job of that.
    yeah, regulations that are based on directives from the european commission -_- they'd be binding upon the UK legal system whether our parliament passed it or not - it would simply mean that if we left the EU, all the EU-based laws wouldn't suddenly disappear along with it
    and if you think the EU is beyond realpolitik or political ideologies you're in for a surprise
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    well...the EU kind of is a state though, isn't it - it's a confederation. a confederation is a form of state.
    the only thing it lacks is its own independent arm of execution
    but the member states do that for it *and* it has obvious ambitions for an army.
    so basically, it *is* a state. it has a parliament. it has an administration/civil service. it has leaders. it has a supreme court. it has a legal system. it makes treaties with other states. it has the same representations as states in bodies like the WTO. it has a flag and an anthem. it has a border policy. like I said, the only thing missing is a police/army, and that's a very superficial necessity for a state when its constituent sections have their own police/army forces.
    It. Certainly performs many of the functions of a state and has many attributes of a state but is too constrained by the heads of member states so, it's often a semi paralysed state , democratisation and turther integration though is ultimately inevitIt able.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Fallacy #1: The EU is undemocratic.

    Since the Treaty of Lisbon, no body which is not directly elected has unilateral legislative power within the EU. The EU is at least as democratic as the UK itself.

    Fallacy #2: The EU has uncontrolled immigration.

    As of Regulation 492/11, Member States are not required to take EU migrants who cannot prove they can support themselves in the destination state. Insofar as EU immigration is uncontrolled, it is the fault of the UK government, not the EU.

    Fallacy #3: The EU has unnecessary control over UK laws.

    The EU operates according to a principle of subsidiarity, which requires that law is made at the level which is most appropriate. While, for instance, regulations which are necessary to the operation of the internal market clearly need to be made at EU level, planning law, for instance, remains under UK control.

    Fallacy #4: The UK could operate as effectively as regards non-EU economies outside the EU.

    Like it or not, the EU has exceptional bargaining power due to the sheer size of the market involved. The UK could not get nearly as good a deal with China, the USA etc on its own (for reference I'm not a fan of the state liability provision of TTIP but that's one of the only downsides of EU membership).

    Fallacy #5: EU membership affects UK sovereignty.

    The UK can unilaterally leave the EU, without a referendum, simply by repealing the European Communities Act. 'Sovereignty' is a legal, not a political concept. Sure, the EU limits what the UK government is capable of doing, but that is due to accession to an international treaty. If you want to leave the EU due to sovereignty concerns, by the same logic you are committed to wanting to leave NATO, international intellectual property organisations, the UN, etc.

    Fallacy #6: EU membership clearly negatively affects the UK economy.

    While the preponderance of studies show that EU membership benefits the UK economy (see recent PwC, Oxford Economics, KPMG studies as well as the Treasury report), there is not an undeniable case either way. Nevertheless, taking the raw net contribution number and using that as conclusive proof that the UK is harmed by EU membership is economically inept at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    It. Certainly performs many of the functions of a state and has many attributes of a state but is too constrained by the heads of member states so, it's often a semi paralysed state , democratisation and turther integration though is ultimately inevitIt able.
    further integration is expected, given the trend, but is democratisation really expected? how so?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Fallacy #1: The EU is undemocratic.

    Since the Treaty of Lisbon, no body which is not directly elected has unilateral legislative power within the EU. The EU is at least as democratic as the UK itself. unless you're suggesting that UK constituencies are just as legitimate as sovereign entities as nations are :|
    nah. the EU blurs our representation into a collective of many other countries. at least the UK represents our nation as a single entity.

    Fallacy #2: The EU has uncontrolled immigration.

    As of Regulation 492/11, Member States are not required to take EU migrants who cannot prove they can support themselves in the destination state. Insofar as EU immigration is uncontrolled, it is the fault of the UK government, not the EU.
    wow. that's really setting the bar low. how about us controlling our quantities of EU immigrants?

    Fallacy #3: The EU has unnecessary control over UK laws.

    The EU operates according to a principle of subsidiarity, which requires that law is made at the level which is most appropriate. While, for instance, regulations which are necessary to the operation of the internal market clearly need to be made at EU level, planning law, for instance, remains under UK control.
    yes, because I'm sure the shape of bananas is extremely necessary to regulate

    Fallacy #4: The UK could operate as effectively as regards non-EU economies outside the EU.

    Like it or not, the EU has exceptional bargaining power due to the sheer size of the market involved. The UK could not get nearly as good a deal with China, the USA etc on its own (for reference I'm not a fan of the state liability provision of TTIP but that's one of the only downsides of EU membership).
    nah, not really. it all comes down to the question of "who benefits from what deal?" - all members of the EU benefit from a free trade deal. why would france, germany, italy, spain, etc, damage themselves just to damage the UK? why would the constituents of those states put up with more unemployment and less sales just for some childish realpolitik that will go nowhere once a referendum settles the question fairly? it just makes the EU look like it's throwing an imperial tantrum

    Fallacy #5: EU membership affects UK sovereignty.

    The UK can unilaterally leave the EU, without a referendum, simply by repealing the European Communities Act. 'Sovereignty' is a legal, not a political concept. Sure, the EU limits what the UK government is capable of doing, but that is due to accession to an international treaty. If you want to leave the EU due to sovereignty concerns, by the same logic you are committed to wanting to leave NATO, international intellectual property organisations, the UN, etc.
    again, that's setting the "sovereignty" bar laughably low! -_- the ECA'72 basically says "from now on, until this act is repealed, the UK parliament is not sovereign". that has been the interpretation in UK case law - it's a fact! it's like you're saying that even if the ECA72 was permanent, we are still sovereign because we have the technical capability of staging an armed revolution :|

    Fallacy #6: EU membership clearly negatively affects the UK economy.

    While the preponderance of studies show that EU membership benefits the UK economy (see recent PwC, Oxford Economics, KPMG studies as well as the Treasury report), there is not an undeniable case either way. Nevertheless, taking the raw net contribution number and using that as conclusive proof that the UK is harmed by EU membership is economically inept at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.
    I wouldn't say that's even a widespread claim - it's just a fact that the UK would best suit itself with its own trade deals compared with an EU-wide one where there is no clear benefit to our nation in particular (as there is no UK-self-interest at work).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    I would vote to leave if economic wasn't a problem.
    how is it a long-term problem, though?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    it's preferable to have a bad parliament to a good dictatorship - because one day, that dictatorship might be horrific, whereas at least the parliament can change for the better in the future.
    That's a very good point which needs to be addressed. Quite simply in my view this is wrong and misleading on two fronts.


    Firstly; you need explain what you mean by parliament. Presumably you mean a democracy. Now what is the difference between a 'bad' democracy and a bad 'dictatorship?' If you look at somewhere like Egypt under the MB that difference is going to be pretty small.

    Secondly; no nuance. No country is a pure democracy whilst only perhaps North korea is a pure dictatorship.


    This is one alternative model which some have based the EU on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_government
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    yeah, regulations that are based on directives from the european commission -_- they'd be binding upon the UK legal system whether our parliament passed it or not - it would simply mean that if we left the EU, all the EU-based laws wouldn't suddenly disappear along with it
    and if you think the EU is beyond realpolitik or political ideologies you're in for a surprise
    So you want to pull out the European Union so we have safe drinking water and workplaces?
    I'd rather have them then not. I'm glad to be in a Union which guarantees certain rights to workers to prevent exploitation and guarantees certain Heath and safety standards.

    Who cares how they're enacted if the end result is the same? And there's the fact I don't trust Boris johnson to legislate to keep such worker rights and protections.

    The European Union isn't perfect but I'm pretty pleased with it. There has not been a sensible alternative offered either.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    Or more importantly, British goods become cheaper overseas.
    What about home?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    BubbleBoobies


    I'm off to work now but I noticed two things in particular that needed addressing.

    The EU would not be throwing an imperial tantrum if the UK left it would be ensuring the best deal for its remaining members. Just if we wouldn't give Scotland everything it wanted if it left the UK- it's not because the UK hates Scotland it's because it wouldn't be fair for Wales, England and NI to have a free rider.

    The banana things a long discredited euro myth.

    Plenty of studies show the EU having a benefit to the UK economy. None show that leaving would improve it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    how is it a long-term problem, though?
    If we only grow 0.9% average and recession in between in short term, we'll knock out top 10 and go around 11-20th and if other nations also grow around 2-3.2% then we will end up worse off in long-term.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    What about home?
    Short run price increases is a price worth paying, if you pardon the pun.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    Short run price increases is a price worth paying, if you pardon the pun.
    Higher cost = less money = average households are worse off in the short-term.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    nah. the EU blurs our representation into a collective of many other countries. at least the UK represents our nation as a single entity.
    The importance of democracy is that every individual is representative. If the EU is less democratic because of the greater population, then I expect to see strong support from you for independence for individual regions of the UK.

    wow. that's really setting the bar low. how about us controlling our quantities of EU immigrants?
    Irrelevant. There is very clear economic data that incoming migrants who can support themselves benefit a country's economy. This becomes even more so the more skilled they are. The only form of immigration for anyone who isn't the kind of daft **** who accuses people of 'cultural marxism' is the unemployed migrant (incidentally, the EU requirement essentially limits migration to skilled migrants because unskilled people will be incapable of securing a job in a non-local area).

    yes, because I'm sure the shape of bananas is extremely necessary to regulate
    This is a really disingenuous point to make. The banana regulation is part of regulating the fruit internal market, which can obviously only be performed at EU level. The reason it exists is to prevent individual Member States setting their own requirements for the shape of bananas (which would be a massive problem for the internal market).

    nah, not really. it all comes down to the question of "who benefits from what deal?" - all members of the EU benefit from a free trade deal. why would france, germany, italy, spain, etc, damage themselves just to damage the UK? why would the constituents of those states put up with more unemployment and less sales just for some childish realpolitik that will go nowhere once a referendum settles the question fairly? it just makes the EU look like it's throwing an imperial tantrum
    It's not a zero-sum game. The EU is powerful for the same reason that unshackled trade unions are powerful. Every single EU member is able to get a better deal for their country as regards individual other economies due to EU membership.

    again, that's setting the "sovereignty" bar laughably low! -_- the ECA'72 basically says "from now on, until this act is repealed, the UK parliament is not sovereign". that has been the interpretation in UK case law - it's a fact! it's like you're saying that even if the ECA72 was permanent, we are still sovereign because we have the technical capability of staging an armed revolution :|
    It's really not, it's setting the sovereignty bar accurately. The Brexit crowd don't know what the word 'sovereignty' means, or they wouldn't make this argument. The EU affects sovereignty no more than TRIPS affects sovereignty (and the fact that you probably have to google TRIPS just illustrates my point).

    I wouldn't say that's even a widespread claim - it's just a fact that the UK would best suit itself with its own trade deals compared with an EU-wide one where there is no clear benefit to our nation in particular (as there is no UK-self-interest at work).
    The preponderance of studies indicates that the UK's self-interest is best served economically by EU membership. It's clearly the single most 'political' (in the sense of deliberately obscuring the truth) thing that the Brexit campaign do - citing the contribution number without context.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Higher cost = less goods for the same amount of money = average households are worse off in the short-term.
    ..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The importance of democracy is that every individual is representative. If the EU is less democratic because of the greater population, then I expect to see strong support from you for independence for individual regions of the UK.
    oh my god.

    I don't have the time to go through all this now but honest this one just begs a response...

    firstly, I *am* a supporter of country-based UK federalism. not regional federalism because there is no logical reason for this that can be made sense of merely via geography (for reasons I'll go on to explain)

    secondly, do you really think "regions" as arbitrary land masses have the safe self-governing claims as countries? really? :| you think geography, as opposed to culture, history, language, etc, is the only criteria for federalising a country/state? (I'm referring to the languages in wales/ireland and the cultural and historical distinctions of scotland). switzerland's catons, for example, used to be their own self-governing entities, and the states of america, india, germany (etc) used to be self-governing entities as well - that's why there is federalism, or else why would they unify without some kind of independence amongst the increase in overall nation-based power?

    also, do you think every country in the EU feels like it is in unison with the other countries of the EU? I am making an argument about consensus here; do you think the UK as a nation feels like part of an EU-organ just like every other EU member nation? I would say "definitely not". because you can't just create nations (the EU for instance, as we're comparing it to a nation) out of nowhere. however, in contrast, do you think manchester and kent feel as if they are part of a unified political community (in england)? how on *earth* would you really think not?

    there is no coherent reason to compare regions of a country to regions (member-states) of the EU. because if you do that without some kind of logical criteria, you might as well just say "democracy isn't as good as individualist anarchism because the lower down the chain the power for the individual, the better", seeing as you're saying "having power closer to home is the best" - in that case, democracy gives the individual less power than individual self-government.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    oh my god.

    I don't have the time to go through all this now but honest this one just begs a response...

    firstly, I *am* a supporter of country-based UK federalism.

    secondly, do you really think "regions" as arbitrary land masses have the safe self-governing claims as countries? really? :| you think geography, as opposed to culture, history, language, etc, is the only criteria for federalising a country/state? (I'm referring to the languages in wales/ireland and the cultural and historical distinctions of scotland)

    also, do you think every country in the EU feels like it is in unison with the other countries of the EU? I am making an argument about consensus here; do you think the UK as a nation feels like part of an EU-organ just like every other EU member nation? I would say "definitely not". because you can't just create nations out of nowhere. however, in contrast, do you think manchester and kent feel as if they are part of a unified political community? how on *earth* would you really think not?

    there is no coherent reason to compare regions of a country to regions (member-states) of the EU. because if you do that without some kind of logical criteria, you might as well just say "democracy isn't as good as individualist anarchism because the lower down the chain the power for the individual, the better", seeing as you're saying "having power closer to home is the best" - in that case, democracy gives the individual less power than individual self-government.
    Okay, that's fine, but the logic dictates that you support not just federalism (the EU is a weaker form than federalism), but actual independence. Geography is no less arbitrary a factor than language or culture. History, except insofar as it affects culture, language etc., is essentially irrelevant to everything. Countries exist, but they are just arbitrary constructs, not necessary elements of global cohesion. Indeed, the world would work better with fewer, larger states.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, that's fine, but the logic dictates that you support not just federalism (the EU is a weaker form than federalism), but actual independence. Geography is no less arbitrary a factor than language or culture. History, except insofar as it affects culture, language etc., is essentially irrelevant to everything. Countries exist, but they are just arbitrary constructs, not necessary elements of global cohesion. Indeed, the world would work better with fewer, larger states.
    I wouldn't necessarily mind independence (seeing as my nation, england, has a lot of power independently compared to scotland, wales, etc), but I think that england, scotland, wales and northern ireland don't feel like such distinct countries that they wouldn't consent to federalism over individual constituent-independence. the thing about federalism is that there is usually some kind of power argument amongst the consent. the EU might be powerful, but where is the consent, really? we'll have to see in june. I see, however, the overall trend as being less consent the more the power of the EU increases. that's why we originally joined - because it had much less power. now we're saying we might want to leave because the power of the EU has increased so much
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    I wouldn't necessarily mind independence (seeing as my nation, england, has a lot of power independently compared to scotland, wales, etc), but I think that england, scotland, wales and northern ireland don't feel like such distinct countries that they wouldn't consent to federalism over individual constituent-independence. the thing about federalism is that there is usually some kind of power argument amongst the consent. the EU might be powerful, but where is the consent, really? we'll have to see in june. I see, however, the overall trend as being less consent the more the power of the EU increases. that's why we originally joined - because it had much less power. now we're saying we might want to leave because the power of the EU has increased so much
    What would be wrong with being a citizen of the EU as a superstate?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.