Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why are people voting to remain in Europe? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    TTIP will introduce IDS which allows multi-national corporations to sue other governments (who sign TTIP) if they don't a particular law they have.
    It's not as simple as that.

    They have only just been leaked so I'm not sure how everyone has had the time to thoroughly read and analyse 248 pages of dense negotiations and have such a strong opinion. All the media have done is quote Greenpeace who leaked the documents and who are obviously biased with regards to GM food, etc. It's curious how all eurosceptics have suddenly become ardent Greenpeace supporters.

    At first it may have started out that way, now it's being turned into a corporate super-state with it's own army, so what started out with peaceful intentions will likely result in more war/instability as witnessed in the Ukraine.
    Ukraine isn't in the EU - the conflict was the direct result of movement towards EU accession and only highlighted the extremely obvious need for it.

    There is no EU army.

    We haven't had a world war since the EU was created. The focus has been on reforming the Middle East to our Western standards and improving our own. We have seen huge improvement in equality and European peace since post-WW2.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HOLA255)
    You're voting away your own control of the borders, when the time comes, don't bother moaning about rampant immigration in the UK.
    because regardless of the immigration issue, that's not all that being in the EU is about...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    It's not as simple as that.

    They have only just been leaked so I'm not sure how everyone has had the time to thoroughly read and analyse 248 pages of dense negotiations and have such a strong opinion. All the media have done is quote Greenpeace who leaked the documents and who are obviously biased with regards to GM food, etc. It's curious how all eurosceptics have suddenly become ardent Greenpeace supporters.
    http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultati...?consul_id=179

    (Original post by macromicro)
    Ukraine isn't in the EU - the conflict was the direct result of movement towards EU accession and only highlighted the extremely obvious need for it.

    There is no EU army.

    We haven't had a world war since the EU was created. The focus has been on reforming the Middle East to our Western standards and improving our own. We have seen huge improvement in equality and European peace since post-WW2.
    Why is there a need for it?

    It doesn't yet but that's the general direction.

    You mean imposing our will on the middle east?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I know what ISDS is, it's not exactly new to free trade agreements! That doesn't explain anything in terms of the current stage of TTIP and ISDS, and the Greenpeace scaremongering.

    Why is there a need for it?
    That's a whole other can of worms. The point is that it isn't part of the EU, which has been war free for over 60 years.

    I am not necessarily against an EU army considering the high threat level from the East but it is not "the general direction" at all, as your own link highlights, and can be vetoed. It's certainly not a priority nor can it be assumed wrong with no reasons as you are attempting to do.

    You mean imposing our will on the middle east?
    Yes. Reformation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Personally I think it's a good thing, having unrestricted movement across EU borders.
    It gives employers are larger pool of potential candidates to hire from, making it easier for them to get the best person for the job. If someone from the UK wants a particular job in Europe, it makes it easier to just go and get it rather than having to worry about the right to live or work there. It makes the market far more efficient.
    While there are those who advocate 'Brexit' b/c it no longer works, the fact remains that the EU does work to an extent. The ability to move from one country to another to work is particularly enticing, not only for employers but employees too. While the UK market offers so much, the EU market offers more BUT the EU market, the Single Market, that allows these things, does NOT require EU membership to be able to work and live there.

    There are 44 recognised countries in Europe according to the UN; 28 are members of the EU, 4 are part of the EFTA (making up 32/44 having access to the Single Market) with remaining 12 self-governing completely - perhaps complacent with WTO trading,which one Professor argues was what the UK could do in a 'Brexit' BUT there is no need to do that at all! Especially since the UK was one of the founding members of the EFTA.
    One may then ask -does this mean I will have a right to live and work there? - Under Article 28 EEA Agreement, EFTA/EEA citizens have the same rights as EU citizens in respect of where to live and where to work - same position we would be in as being in the EU, except the UK will be restored control, than be overruled by the European Court of Justice to allow non-EU immigrants.

    (Original post by Drunq)
    Now there are plenty of reasons why I'm voting to stay within Europe. Here are some of my reasons.
    The first reason is that I would like to have the chance to work within another country who is registered in the EU, without having to pay any extra tax etc.

    The second reason I'd like us to stay within the EU is because we'll look stronger as a country.If we were by ourselves we won't be as much of a threat as if we were within the EU. The alliance we'd have with the EU and America, make it easier for the world to become one. We need to go into the future where the whole world has formed an alliance with each other, and voting to get out makes it look like we're taking a step back in time, just before the second world war (just before the EU was formed).

    However there is one thing I don't agree with, is that the amount of money we're spending to be in the EU. Some countries are benefiting massively with the money the EU give to them for development. A lot of the cases, they are receiving more than they are giving.

    Luckily we are a rich country, even though we are giving more than what we are receiving, we still have the trading systems in place, so we are getting something in return also with a lot of power towards other countries.

    These are some of my points, the list goes on, of course there are drawbacks too, however I think the advantages outweigh them.
    First of all, I would like to express some admiration to the fact that you are clearly weighing things up and considering both sides. It is a particularly weighty decision on our shoulders and one where pressure comes from both camps and it is hard to discern facts from fiction, with 'Leave' advocating a 'Brexit' for the UK to standalone and trade on its own, while 'Remain' advocates what will be lost. I believe there are pro's and con's to both arguments, but sadly the battlelines prevented some unity in a 'Brexit' scenario. However, if the nation votes for a 'Brexit', then we'll see some change in attitude I believe. David Cameron even said himself how possible it was for the UK to function outside the EU, but I certainly would not go to extreme of 'pulling up the drawbridge' as Clegg exaggerated.

    This vote is about US and OUR future as a nation and if we are better inside the EU or not. This does not mean we won't work with the EU, though outside does mean that the amount of money sent to Brussells will remain with us to spend on public services and defend our national interests/businesses which have been denied,such as the protection of British Steel which the UK was outvoted on, as admitted by David Cameron (I provided a link in another post of mine on this thread, but can re-link by request) - it has even been suggested by an economist (link also in thread) that considering the savings made and considering how the savings will be used in the next 14yrs, it will be possible to repay the national debt if we 'Brexit'.

    Now; you mentioned first your desire to work in another country without extra tax by not being an EU citizen - however - the Free Movements come under the umbrella of the Single Market, where you don't need to be an EU member to have access to it - this is possible by rejoining the EFTA and signing upto the EEA agreement, which under Article 28 (as mentioned in my reply above) gives EFTA/EEA citizens the samerights as EU citizens, so being outside the EU will still allow you to work ina EU/EFTA country by virtue of being part of the Single Market - discrimination on this ground is not tolerated

    In relation to your second by how the country looks...I can say that history is not always respected by everyone, but in my eyes, history is important to understand how the present came about. History would have Britain as a large empire following Rome, that expanded and colonialised across the globe. It was during colonialism that Britain dictated terms of what the colonies should do, but Britain failed to take into account the interests of the colony, until rightfully, the colonies became independent, with each self-governing today and prospering. I am not saying the EU is likened to Britain's colonial days, but to emphasise that independence helps reflect/reinforce national interests that were not protected before.

    Why I use this? - is b/c history is important and the history of a war-torn Europe remains on everyone's minds and rightfully so b/c we don't want one repeated. However,seeing the history of India when it broke away and now is a prospering nation that is self-governing and one of the countries that 'remain' argue, hinders our chance to be strong because of rising powers across the globe. My question,is why cannot the UK break away to be self-governing and be among them?

    As Full-Fact confirms that while we trade more with the EU, the share of our exports with the EU are decreasing while those outside are increasing - so a 'Brexit' can build up on that - trading more outside will build the UK up and trading with the EU will build the EU up. It is foolhardy to suggest the EU will ignore countries outside its jurisdiction, as why does it go after Canada and the US.

    However, in terms of strength, let's explore that. As the EU stands, being party of the EU is strength diplomatically, though it is possible to be strength militarily if the EU's foreign policy deems it to be so - such as Ukraine (highly controversial)- however! Strength militarily is mainly represented in NATO which includes some EU members, EFTA members and US/Canada - so the UK would still be part of/that/ alliance - while diplomatically,the UN & more specifically, the Council of Europe (which works with the EU,now that the EU has established itself) which united the nations of Europe and putting forward the Convention of Human Rights to be signed by all nations and to abolishing the death penalty (though another controversial area of some seeking its return)

    (Original post by brainhuman)
    The UK is not in Schengen.

    While they might have to take EU citizens, they are under no obligation whatsoever to take any non-EU immigrants if they don't want to.

    Not to mention, not everyone is selfish like you
    While this was not specifically addressed at me, it does suggest, indirectly, that all those who advocate 'Brexit' are selfish because of the immigration issue. TBH the OP doesn't help set the tone for the thread, which is why my own opening was that the issue is towards the control of immigration as opposed to immigration,having benefited from immigration personally to meet some fantastic people.Besides, if one suggests it is bad for Europeans to move to the UK, then surely it is bad for Britons to move to Europe XD

    However, it can well be a concern towards control a Member State has, and this concern was shared across Britain in the European Elections, followed by the Conservative-majority Government being elected last year, to arm Cameron in Britain's re-negotiation to address how many come in - resulting in the 'emergency brake' provision which can be used if the European Council accept its application first and foremost, and agree for Britain to use it when it affects their citizens. I would like to think that this is a done deal BUT will it prevent the European Court of Justice from repeating how they treated the Danish-EU deal?? -

    Also, you mention,'they are under no obligation whatsoever' BUT they are IF the European Court of Justice says a Member State should allow - as the Court has ruled against the UK before to allow a non-EU immigrant in without the required residence permit- for while we opt-out of Schengen and its application is not directly applicable, it is indirectly applicable from states who are under Schengen.

    Schengen as of late is causing much tension, as France calls for more control (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-borders.html) and Juncker has responded that you can have control, but it will be our control and not to the Member States (http://www.politico.eu/article/junck...-here-to-stay/),in addition to granting them status of the State they are in, which the Hungary PM is openly opposed for it means accepting what Brussells tells them to do and if a referendum cannot stop Brussells then they will lose control (http://www.euractiv.com/section/just...ngen-2-0-plan/)

    HOWEVER if a referendum wants to do something the EU plan to do, is it adhered to? If you look at the Dutch referendum to say NO to Ukraine, it still goes ahead and said 'we'll handle it' (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...402.1458079126) and what about the 97% public consultation saying NO to TTIP or at least ISDS (investor-state powers) and yet, it still goes ahead, even after a European Citizens' Initiative campaigned against it and was rejected (https://stop-ttip.org/ttip-study-ratification/) - so! How will the Schengen plan fare? How will Schengen affect us? And is it truly selfish to be concerned about borders and control, when that is exactly what is being called for - If more Europe won't fix it, 'Brexit' will fix it

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I really don't know why you are debating with me when I agreed with the idea that it is ludicrous to stay in a flawed system simply because we feel it is 'better than the unknown'.
    I don't believe my reply suggested I was in any way opposed to what you said, but reinforcing what you said. Whenever adding on someone's arguments or critiquing someone's argument, I'm taught to quote them, not necessarily meaning a quote=debate=opposition XD not what I intended at all - but glad to see we're on the same page.

    I can understand why there are those who prefer to keep things as they are, while some feel strongly to have the ability to change things from within, but I wished to highlight a few facts that change is not necessarily easy to come by and so ought to take into account in weighing up a decision.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by animus01)
    I don't believe my reply suggested I was in any way opposed to what you said, but reinforcing what you said. Whenever adding on someone's arguments or critiquing someone's argument, I'm taught to quote them, not necessarily meaning a quote=debate=opposition XD not what I intended at all - but glad to see we're on the same page.

    I can understand why there are those who prefer to keep things as they are, while some feel strongly to have the ability to change things from within, but I wished to highlight a few facts that change is not necessarily easy to come by and so ought to take into account in weighing up a decision.
    Apologies, I seem to have misunderstood the whole thing!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by animus01)
    This vote is about US and OUR future as a nation
    This vote is about US and OUR future as a planet
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    This vote is about US and OUR future as a planet
    It is quite interesting for you to pick out this point out of all the points I mentioned in the post you linked to, especially not to quote the entire sentence and suggest those advocating Brexit for legitimate reasons, don't care about the planet XD

    (Original post by animus01)
    This vote is about US and OUR future as a nation and if we are better inside the EU or not.
    My question therefore is how the EU contributes to the planet? - for this, I have read all your preceding comments; the EU is change, we should continue our step forward to co-operation, we should push for change in the EU, should not give up hope for unity and return to the dog eat dog world, not return to pre-WW2 state of borders and seclusion, the EU seek to prevent war and optimise trade/migration, the EU involved themselves in Ukraine due to movement towards EU accession, the fight has been to reforming the Middle East

    Yet! you also suggest the EU is but a baby and be allowed to mature (in recognition of its 'teething problems'), the UK could be stronger individually and become a superpower to lead potentially, we should put pride for the human race over national pride and be satisfied with being a small fish in the EU pond, ISDS is totally legit as far as FTA's are concerned and yet the arguments against ISDS are argued to be linked to Greenpeace scaremongering

    Therefore, what I have concluded from these arguments and from what you took from my post, is that we should remain in the EU for global unity sake, regardless of how the EU functions because it achieves that goal - and it is an admirable goal and one I appreciate, however:
    • To start with, are your conflicting points that we ought to push for change within the EU, whilst pushing aside national interest as a small fish in the EU pond...the only change that would perhaps be effective is one that affects all members, when all the small fishes are in agreement, but when the small fish wants to swim in another direction, it is difficult to obtain change - a point I addressed in the quoted post when Britain was outvoted to protect British steel, when British MEP's (that represent twice as many voters as the average MEP) are outvoted in 80% of measures they vote against and the effect of Britain's Renegotiation that has some opposition by MEP's
    • Secondly, you say we should not give up hope (Brexit) for unity (EU) and I admire the fact that you do recognise both sides of the hope Brexit brings despite its challenges. Either way there are changes as the EU has its problems, which is precisely why my statement was a question towards whether our nation is best in or out the EU - as Juncker, the President of the European Commission admits the EU meddles too much but does not seek to change how the EU acts and that the 'deal' is as far as the EU is willing to go (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...els-chief.html)
    • Thirdly, the EU has been compared to being a 'baby' that needs maturing, but a baby has no capacity to reason and yet the EU does. As mentioned above, the EU has heard the concerns of how the EU interfere and they accept that but not doing anything about it.
    • This leads to the TTIP point raised. You argued the animosity of TTIP is a direct result of Greenpeace, contrary to the link otester shared that the public were consulted about it in 2014, which! as mentioned in my quoted post, resulted in 97% against TTIP or TTIP with ISDS and yet it has gone ahead. As shared in another post, the EU and the US are agreed they don't want TTIP-light and while TTIP is not finalised, the EU and Canada already have ISDS in CETA that is due to be ratified this year, which extends to Canadian subsidies so the US can still sue through CETA - Canada has warned as a result of their FTA with agreement with the US, they have become the most sued country whenever they have sought to amend envionmental laws in particular, as ISDS arms corporations to sue if their profit is damaged - so! does TTIP/CETA with EU approval help the planet - and is not Greenpeace for protecting the planet?
    • In order to address co-operation, not being part of the EU does not mean we are not co-operating. As previously mentioned, NATO is made up of EU members, EFTA members, the US and Canada - so a 'Brexit' does not mean we will not be co-operating in unity and that is notwithstanding our membership of the UN - and for this reason, as NATO was established 4yrs after WW2 ended, we will not be returned to a pre-WW2 state - likewise is our membership of the Council of Europe, also set up 4yrs after WW2 that unites European states in global policies that affect them, and due to the recognition of the EU, the Council of Europe works with the EU anyway
    • It is also argued a 'Brexit' would return us to seclusion and borders. However, again as mentioned in my earlier post, a European Border is being put in place to protect Schengen, which you can see above rather than me quoting verbatim

    Moving onto more global issues...
    • There is only so much the EU can do, as the EU is not the world and so their role is more towards 'let's all do this'. However, most unified global issues are dealt with by the UN, with certain countries leading the way. In 1967 it was America (http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/5principles.asp) and now the EU wishes to lead the way in the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, which involves nations outside the EU - the EU's answer? economic pressure on Israeli products (EU involvement) + advancing a UN resolution to the situation UN involvement) + setup a regional peace conference (COE involvement) - which reinforces my point that it is not the EU alone that the UN and COE have a part to play in global unity (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...goods-un.html#)
    • What about global issues that affect China? When we had a State visit from China, the UK-China Joint Statement makes reference to the UN and G-20 and the desire for China and the UK to co-operate together. The only mention of the EU is the possibility of a future FTA (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...statement-2015) - influence on the world outside the EU does not come exclusively from the EU
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    I agree it looks bleak at times but equally the EU is only a baby. It's experiencing teething problems that we all knew would occur and nothing that is remotely surprising - power, sovereignty, governance, migration, trade, etc. Who didn't expect these concerns? It will be a long process until the EU is in harmony both internally and externally.

    Our options are to let the EU mature and negotiate issues over a much longer (more realistic) period of time or return to a state of seclusion and borders pre-WW2, and most likely lose 10% of our population and 40% in size as a direct result.

    The main argument I take seriously from the eurosceptics is that the UK could perhaps be individually stronger than as part of the EU - it may have more flexibility and opportunity to become a superpower and hence lead the planet. There is no real way to know this. It takes huge assumptions for the future and biased readings of history to say one way or another. I'm trying to make the decision based on the long-term goals of global unity and co-operation, the end of war and maximising human progression. Do we risk leaving what was created in pursuit of those three things? Are we simply insulted at being a small fish in the big EU pond? How much national pride over pride for the human race is in the decision to leave the EU? These questions are difficult to answer! I want to pick the choice that brings the entire planet closer to optimal progression regardless of how well the UK itself is doing - at the moment staying in the EU seems more fruitful to this end.
    You do raise some very valid points. My real concern with the EU is the leadership and how autocratic it can seem to be at times. Juncker has said on numerous occasions that the union will not negotiate at any cost. Perhaps time is the solution with a younger leadership who may be more accommodating to change. Either way, I feel that both options have a great deal of uncertainty attached with it; 'Remain' just seems to have less of it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.