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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Malta has 15 times more representatives per capita than we do in the Council - stinks of the days before we got rid of Rotten Boroughs. True gerrymandering. (If you're interested, Malta is a more modest ten times better represented than us in the Parliament.)
    This thread is about what legislation would be likely to change upon Brexit. I'm happy enough to engage you on this particular issue if you want to start another thread (although this point was thoroughly discussed in another thread recently).

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4036945

    To be brief: you are wrong. Each member state has one representative in the Council - but the voting weight is strictly by the population of that state. In the European Parliament Malta has six MEPs, the UK has 73 - so it is clear enough that the UK has far more weight than Malta. Indeed, if you check, I believe that the UK has more votes than the eight smallest member states combined.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The ones that says we may not negotiate our own trade deals and provide state aid for our own industries.
    Well, obviously if we are not in the EU then we would be able to negotiate our own trade deals. I'm not sure that this in itself means that we'd do better deals.

    As to the state aid thing. The EU does not bar state aid, that's a line that UK government's spin up from time to time to give themselves an excuse to do nothing. Surely the UK gave plenty of state aid to the banking industry in recent memory?

    The reason you can give state aid is that you just frame it in another way: national security, for example. Which is a general excuse to avoid many of the rules of the EU. It's a reasonable argument that protecting steel production in the UK is a matter of national security.

    The UK government doesn't want to get into the business of steel, so it won't use these arguments to protect steel production.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    The right to have our own country. We can't fix our country when it isn't our country.
    Of course we can, unless you think British people posses some kind of intelligence that the rest of the world doesn't. Which, given the state of British politics, I find very hard to believe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    I like the way you have listed them all, one per line, to make the psychological impact greater. Perhaps a more truthful method would have been to compare the number of Laws passed by each.
    Also, you haven't addressed what may be a simple answer over here: perhaps we have more say democratically over the Laws passed in Britain then the ones passed in the EU?
    Having less of a say in something does not make that something undemocratic. Not this again please.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This thread is about what legislation would be likely to change upon Brexit. I'm happy enough to engage you on this particular issue if you want to start another thread (although this point was thoroughly discussed in another thread recently).

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4036945

    To be brief: you are wrong. Each member state has one representative in the Council - but the voting weight is strictly by the population of that state. In the European Parliament Malta has six MEPs, the UK has 73 - so it is clear enough that the UK has far more weight than Malta. Indeed, if you check, I believe that the UK has more votes than the eight smallest member states combined.
    Per capita, you fool
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Well, obviously if we are not in the EU then we would be able to negotiate our own trade deals. I'm not sure that this in itself means that we'd do better deals.

    As to the state aid thing. The EU does not bar state aid, that's a line that UK government's spin up from time to time to give themselves an excuse to do nothing. Surely the UK gave plenty of state aid to the banking industry in recent memory?

    The reason you can give state aid is that you just frame it in another way: national security, for example. Which is a general excuse to avoid many of the rules of the EU. It's a reasonable argument that protecting steel production in the UK is a matter of national security.

    The UK government doesn't want to get into the business of steel, so it won't use these arguments to protect steel production.
    "Therefore, the Treatygenerally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development."
    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/stat.../index_en.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesthehustler)
    well there a lot of stupid stuff the eu step up in their favour and our expensive and so we could save the economy before it's all gold bars and carbine rifles
    When you say "EU in their favor" - UK is part of the EU, hence you just said it's in the favor of the UK.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    In terms of legislation, most EU regulation on products is a thing Leave voters want gone.
    I'm not sure why people would want to abandon common standards on products, if that's what you are saying. For example the EU was instrumental in introducing the standard that all mobile phones should be USB chargeable.

    If the UK leaves the EU, and the Brexiteers are right that we'll just go on trading with it as before, then UK manufacturers are going to have to make products that comply to EU standards - or not serve that market at all. It seems unlikely to me that manufacturers are going to want to produce goods to multiple different standards, so they are going to discourage government from introducing legislation that departs from the EU standards.

    Some states outside the EU are starting to adopt EU standards as their own national standards (Singapore and India, for example) - precisely because it gives them an advantage in selling goods across the world.

    Another thing is that we, the UK, would stop getting sued by the political union we're in. Recently the EU prepared a lawsuit against the UK for charging foreign lorries an extra toll in order to pay for the upkeep of roads. If an MP attempts to provide redress of greivance in a matter of EU competence? That's a lawsuit.
    So, in fact you want to introduce more legislation and red tape?

    Also stops other nations fishing our fishing stocks, allows us to increase our fish output without changing stress on fish stocks (we just fill the gap left that the EU took)
    Not sure on the logic of this allowing us to expand our fish output - most of the UK's fisheries are depleted. It is only EU wide policy that is reversing this problem (clue: the fish don't know where the borders are). At the moment we have the option to fish anywhere in EU waters, or in Norwegian waters.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    I am actually qualfied enough to act as an expert witness and the EU cookie law was half baked. They have recently made a fuss about facebook while ignoring other real problems. They do not know about technology and are either attacking it superstitiously or milking it with fines to line their own coffers. They made one or two efforts in principle but now are completely out of their depth.
    Maybe all true. But do you think the UK government or governments to come are better?

    Or are you happy as long as the *****y laws being made are made by the UK and not the EU, because well then you brought it on yourself at least, not by others?

    I don't think anyone is denying there are some silly laws out there. The point is, is it really worth getting out for some silly laws? That in all likelihood would have occurred anyway?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    (clue: the fish don't know where the borders are)
    Spoken like an art student who forgot his primary school biology. Remember what a habitat is? The species we want to fish live in our waters.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    At the moment we have the option to fish anywhere in EU waters, or in Norwegian waters.
    Oh, splendid, time to go and fish all the other stocks that don't have the fish people want.
    We have the rest of the EU fishing one region. If it doesn't strike you that an entire continent fishing one range might cause population depletion you might be an idiot.

    The common fisheries is one of the main reasons Norway, Iceland, Greenland etc stayed outside the EU - their fishing industry is as important as our virtually dead one was.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Maybe all true. But do you think the UK government or governments to come are better?

    Or are you happy as long as the *****y laws being made are made by the UK and not the EU, because well then you brought it on yourself at least, not by others?

    I don't think anyone is denying there are some silly laws out there. The point is, is it really worth getting out for some silly laws? That in all likelihood would have occurred anyway?
    Yes. Unlike the EU, we can unelect our government every general election and have a new government undo the bad things the previous one did. If the EU does something awful? **** you. We aren't elected, and we aren't going to go back on our word either. To quote Juncker -

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Yes. Unlike the EU, we can unelect our government every general election and have a new government undo the bad things the previous one did. If the EU does something awful? **** you. We aren't elected, and we aren't going to go back on our word either. To quote Juncker -

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
    That is rather naive.

    Sounds like politics should be a yoyo, every election a new party should come in and magically fix the country, according to them. Next election the other party fixes things back.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    That is rather naive.

    Sounds like politics should be a yoyo, every election a new party should come in and magically fix the country, according to them. Next election the other party fixes things back.
    If that's what it has to be, so be it, but you're being fallacious. We've lived in a democracy for the past few hundred years and it doesn't "yo-yo". Parties find middle ground and make minor changes. If a party did make major changes, we could flip it back.

    The fact you cannot reverse what the EU does nor unelect the Commission is simply inexcusable in 2016.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    This is another one.

    Nearly all the decisions made in the Council are done by qualified majority voting now. We're hugely outnumbered in QMV (It's why we lose 100% of the time we oppose a vote).
    Here is some good data:

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does...-of-ministers/

    Up to 2009 the UK was on the losing side in votes only 2.6% of the time. Since then it has been on the losing side only 12.7% of the time. Could it be that this is a factor of a Conservative government, rather than a real reflection of the EU dominating the UK?

    Additionally, what you can see is that all other countries take the same position as the UK in 84-90% of votes.

    Your figure as to losing 100% wen we vote against a measure is almost meaningless: you don't give any references to back this up, and it could be the case this is almost always what happens (if a state votes against the mainstream they will always lose). You can see that it clearly says Germany has also lost votes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trumpo Trumpu)
    The bureaucrats who run the EU and set it up are bankers, it benefits germany more than any other country (big on exports)

    As for reducing immigration from Asia I recommend that we do not issue any or limited Visas for Asian people and not re-new expiring Visa's- we can control that. There is still a way Asians can get into Britain through the EU, lets say the Visa application is rejected- they can then still come to England VIA Germany, France or any other EU country, whats hard to grasp about that? all these so called "refugees" who have been accepted by Germany now have the unconditional right to come to the UK. Its not just immigration from Asia , in my area of Birmingham there has been a sharp influx of Polish people. Are you not concerned about current levels of immigration?
    Germany has paid most in bailouts that the UK's finance sector played a key role in.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesthehustler)
    maybe it the fact i have aspergers so have a far more rationalised complex mind and can see thing in the long term where the common market will still exist remain makes it the mercedes, versace and rolex will all just leave and not come back and we will do the same when we have rolls royces, mclarens, jaguars, minis, graffs
    to be fair rolex was founded in london for christ sakes
    Special snowflake... You have more in common with harvey price mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    If that's what it has to be, so be it, but you're being fallacious. We've lived in a democracy for the past few hundred years and it doesn't "yo-yo". Parties find middle ground and make minor changes. If a party did make major changes, we could flip it back.

    The fact you cannot reverse what the EU does nor unelect the Commission is simply inexcusable in 2016.
    That is exactly my point, because the ideal scenario you described doesn't happen in reality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Here is some good data:

    http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does...-of-ministers/

    Up to 2009 the UK was on the losing side in votes only 2.6% of the time. Since then it has been on the losing side only 12.7% of the time. Could it be that this is a factor of a Conservative government, rather than a real reflection of the EU dominating the UK?

    Additionally, what you can see is that all other countries take the same position as the UK in 84-90% of votes.

    Your figure as to losing 100% wen we vote against a measure is almost meaningless: you don't give any references to back this up, and it could be the case this is almost always what happens (if a state votes against the mainstream they will always lose). You can see that it clearly says Germany has also lost votes.
    No, it does hold meaning that we are always outvoted. When the EU takes a vote at the disadvantage of the UK, but at the advantage of the rest of the EU - say, they're going to sell the Crown Jewels to pay for the 1 in 10 members of the EU staff that are paid more than Cameron - we are powerless to stop them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    That is exactly my point, because the ideal scenario you described doesn't happen in reality.
    Not to the extremes, but governments do alter the systems every new parliament. The EU commission cannot. You literally can't argue this point, it totally undermines democracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Not to the extremes, but governments do alter the systems every new parliament. The EU commission cannot. You literally can't argue this point, it totally undermines democracy.
    I don't think every new government comes in and first thing it says is "well let's look at all the silly, all the red tape laws that were introduced and get rid off them".

    1. I disagree that it does.
    2. Why is democracy the be all end all?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.