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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What would be wrong with being a citizen of the EU as a superstate?
    1) less democracy for the UK, by definition.
    2) the EU isn't a nation, so why should it have a state? nations are things containing language, culture, history, (etc), so how is the EU one of those? there are commonalities between england, scotland, wales and NI enough to justify a federation, but the commonalities between, say, the UK, france, poland, romania etc is the fact that they are in one continent. that's pretty much it. they have vaguely similar value systems (well, western europe does, but not shared by eastern europe) but why should that be the reason to federalise nations? japan has similar values to some european countries, but that doesn't mean that japan should join europe
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    1) less democracy for the UK, by definition.
    errrr... no. Each individual has proportionate representation in the relative state size. It's still 1:1 representation rate.

    2) the EU isn't a nation, so why should it have a state? nations are things containing language, culture, history, (etc), so how is the EU one of those? there are commonalities between england, scotland, wales and NI enough to justify a federation, but the commonalities between, say, the UK, france, poland, romania etc is the fact that they are in one continent. that's pretty much it. they have vaguely similar value systems (well, western europe does, but not shared by eastern europe) but why should that be the reason to federalise nations? japan has similar values to some european countries, but that doesn't mean that japan should join europe
    'Nation' is an outdated concept which should be abandoned ASAP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    errrr... no. Each individual has proportionate representation in the relative state size. It's still 1:1 representation rate.
    not really - do you think, for example, that each maltese individual is represented by the same number/share of MEPs as each UK individual? certain nations in the EU are technically overrepresented and some nations are under-represented. the last time I checked, I think it was france that was the most under-represented while malta was the most overrepresented. and this is in the EU parliament we're talking about, not some kind of senate

    'Nation' is an outdated concept which should be abandoned ASAP.
    but surely it would only be outdated if people believed that it was outdated, yet today they still see legitimacy in nation-states over remote bureaucratic organisations which they have almost no power over. a good indication of this would be the turnout rate of the UK 2015 general election being so much higher than the turnout rate for the 2014 EU parliament election in the UK
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    not really - do you think, for example, that each maltese individual is represented by the same number/share of MEPs as each UK individual? certain nations in the EU are technically overrepresented and some nations are under-represented. the last time I checked, I think it was france that was the most under-represented while malta was the most overrepresented. and this is in the EU parliament we're talking about, not some kind of senate
    yeah whatever, so it's slightly less democratic than optimal, not exactly a big problem

    but surely it would only be outdated if people believed that it was outdated, yet today they still see legitimacy in nation-states over remote bureaucratic organisations which they have almost no power over. a good indication of this would be the turnout rate of the UK 2015 general election being so much higher than the turnout rate for the 2014 EU parliament election in the UK
    the greater turnout for the UK election is because the UK election has more impact on people's lives than the EU one - because the UK government is still sovereign. If there was a single EU superstate, turnout would be the same.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    yeah whatever, so it's slightly less democratic than optimal, not exactly a big problem
    do you like more democracy or less democracy? bearing in mind that there is no constitutional aspect to that question, because between the EU and the UK there is practically no dimension of constitutionality that blocks policies

    the greater turnout for the UK election is because the UK election has more impact on people's lives than the EU one - because the UK government is still sovereign. If there was a single EU superstate, turnout would be the same.
    exactly - that was my point. the UK is consensually "sovereign" (it's technically not practically sovereign since 1972) whereas the EU isn't detectably desired to be sovereign to the same extent. people aren't wanting to give powers to Brussels - in fact, if anything, you are going to find that the reality of the situation is that people have always *resented* it when our government give more power to Brussels, wouldn't you say?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    do you like more democracy or less democracy? bearing in mind that there is no constitutional aspect to that question, because between the EU and the UK there is practically no dimension of constitutionality that blocks policies
    There is a constitutional element, because the UK can still elect to reject any single EU policy by simply leaving the EU (if that's even necessary, there are certain EU legislative procedures which give vetos and/or exceptions, and of course there can be deals reached).

    exactly - that was my point. the UK is consensually "sovereign" (it's technically not practically sovereign since 1972) whereas the EU isn't detectably desired to be sovereign to the same extent. people aren't wanting to give powers to Brussels - in fact, if anything, you are going to find that the reality of the situation is that people have always *resented* it when our government give more power to Brussels, wouldn't you say?
    Not at all. The problem is the most vocal people in most areas about the EU are those who understand very little about the EU, and simply speak based on xenophobia. Don't understand me to be saying that all Brexit supporters are xenophobic, because that's blatantly not true - but the impression that there has long been considerable support for leaving is almost purely created by crass, loud xenophobes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    So you are scared, don't take risks and don't like change. Well if we had that attitude we would still be cavemen scared of fire.
    I love change when the outcome will be positive. I don't like change when the change is stupid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is a constitutional element, because the UK can still elect to reject any single EU policy by simply leaving the EU (if that's even necessary, there are certain EU legislative procedures which give vetos and/or exceptions, and of course there can be deals reached).
    look, that *really* wasn't a cue for you to jump on that question - by "constitutional element" I meant something stopping a majoritarian dictatorship, e.g. a constitutional bill of rights. the ECHR isn't an institution of the EU, that's why I said there wasn't a constitutionality question regarding it.

    Not at all. The problem is the most vocal people in most areas about the EU are those who understand very little about the EU, and simply speak based on xenophobia. Don't understand me to be saying that all Brexit supporters are xenophobic, because that's blatantly not true - but the impression that there has long been considerable support for leaving is almost purely created by crass, loud xenophobes.
    so why even bother judging the leave side based on the most vocal advocates...? I could substitute the word "xenophobic" which "ill-informed/short-sighted" for the leave side vis-a-vis the most vocal "remainians" too
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    look, that *really* wasn't a cue for you to jump on that question - by "constitutional element" I meant something stopping a majoritarian dictatorship, e.g. a constitutional bill of rights. the ECHR isn't an institution of the EU, that's why I said there wasn't a constitutionality question regarding it.
    Apologies, I misunderstood you.

    so why even bother judging the leave side based on the most vocal advocates...? I could substitute the word "xenophobic" which "ill-informed/short-sighted" for the leave side vis-a-vis the most vocal "remainians" too
    I'm saying until recently, the leave campaign was a small number of eccentrics. I suspect that if voting was mandatory, the leave campaign would be absolutely crushed, because the main problem for the remain campaign is mobilising the demographics which vote for them.

    Also, FWIW, I tend to find that significantly more Brexiters are ill-informed than the remainers (for instance, it seems that about half the people I hear arguing to leave equate the EU with either the Euro [bad] or the ECHR [worse]).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I love change when the outcome will be positive. I don't like change when the change is stupid.
    why is the UK making its own self-interested trade deals stupid though? take a long view on that - in the long term, why would the UK suffer? why would we lose out when we are one of the richest countries on earth and why would the EU tariff us when that would harm its own economy? the EU is a *very* mixed bag, economically. you have the good countries, and then you have the countries like poland, romania, croatia, latvia, etc - why would india (etc) want to trade more with the EU (for the purpose of trading with the UK) with countries like those when it could trade better and more efficiently with one single nation via one single efficient trade deal with the UK that doesn't give some of the benefits to an undeserving nation like estonia?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    why is the UK making its own self-interested trade deals stupid though? take a long view on that - in the long term, why would the UK suffer? why would we lose out when we are one of the richest countries on earth and why would the EU tariff us when that would harm its own economy? the EU is a *very* mixed bag, economically. you have the good countries, and then you have the countries like poland, romania, croatia, latvia, etc - why would india (etc) want to trade more with the EU (for the purpose of trading with the UK) with countries like those when it could trade better and more efficiently with one single nation via one single efficient trade deal with the UK that doesn't give some of the benefits to an undeserving nation like estonia?
    The idea that the European Union is going to give us a sweetheart deal, better than an of the other countries inside it get, is ludicrous and naive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The idea that the European Union is going to give us a sweetheart deal, better than an of the other countries inside it get, is ludicrous and naive.
    why would they give turkey, canada, mexico (etc) "sweetheart" deals but not us? we're wealthier than those nations. they need us. to detriment us would be to shoot themselves in the foot, because political protectionist measures always harm *both* parties. also, norway and switzerland (the nations most independent from the EU) are the wealthiest nations in europe by a lot of respectable measurements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    why would they give turkey, canada, mexico (etc) "sweetheart" deals but not us? we're wealthier than those nations. they need us. to detriment us would be to shoot themselves in the foot, because political protectionist measures always harm *both* parties.
    None of those countries has a good a deal as we do at the moment. Canada have to pay many tariffs.

    The European Union will want to discourage others from leaving and are certainly not going to give us a sweetheart deal which would encourage others to leave and conflict its main aim of creating a closer Europe.

    The reality is that if we leave we will still have to have free movement and many things we don't like just to be part of the single market:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    why would they give turkey, canada, mexico (etc) "sweetheart" deals but not us? we're wealthier than those nations. they need us. to detriment us would be to shoot themselves in the foot, because political protectionist measures always harm *both* parties. also, norway and switzerland (the nations most independent from the EU) are the wealthiest nations in europe by a lot of respectable measurements
    If we got a deal which was the same as any of those countries it would destroy the service-based UK economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If we got a deal which was the same as any of those countries it would destroy the service-based UK economy.
    what, a free-trade agreement? how? why are you assuming that our services are *that* bad?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    what, a free-trade agreement? how? why are you assuming that our services are *that* bad?
    The deals Turkey and Mexico have leave significant tariffs on services and the Canada deal doesn't extend to services at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    None of those countries has a good a deal as we do at the moment. Canada have to pay many tariffs.
    they *almost* have a free trade agreement. they don't have "many" tariffs if you're saying that the number they have is enough to suggest that their deal isn't basically one of free trade.

    The European Union will want to discourage others from leaving and are certainly not going to give us a sweetheart deal which would encourage others to leave and conflict its main aim of creating a closer Europe.
    1) why would they be so willing to harm the UK when it necessarily involves harming themselves? if a referendum settles this question and not politicians of the UK state, who would they be punishing? the UK population? that's stupid and would only give the EU terrible publicity.
    2) you think the UK leaving the EU would encourage all the other nations to leave as well? why? would that be because...*um*...the EU is unnecessary?

    The reality is that if we leave we will still have to have free movement and many things we don't like just to be part of the single market:
    no we wouldn't - we don't need free movement simply to trade. what about turkey?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The UK's economy is primarily based on services so we need access to the single market(which includes free movement of peoples) to allow free movement of our country's services in Europe as well, this is a fact not a scare tactic. This negates the argument for a Brexit to reduce EU immigration as(contrary to the what the Daily Mail say) almost all EU migrants come here to work and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future due to our strong economy.

    The Turkish and Mexican free trade agreements are useless for us to use as benchmark to emulate since they only cover goods and not services. IMO the EU isn't perfect but I don't see a compelling case for leaving.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a post of mine on a different thread from last week that explains my reasons (regarding immigration) for wanting to leave. I'll include the comment that this was in response to, I'll leave the poster anonymous though.

    "the Beakers arrived circa 2,500BC, the Celts arrived some time after that, the Romans arrived in 55BC, the Saxons arrived sometime after 400AD, the Vikings started coming in the 7th century, the Normans arrived in 11th century. These guys often came with armies and the intention of dominating the locals, and yet the British far right, most of whom could probably do with a history lesson, integrate this into part of their national identity. In contrast, the migrants arriving today are like "can i have some work please, i'll work for cheap", or alternatively "air strikes left my house in rubble, can i please live here?" and people are freaking the **** out as if the viking hordes are on the shore."


    "People really don't care for this narrative. The liberal 'everyone is an immigrant' nonsense really doesn't have much impact. As you say, the last wave of 'migrants' came in the 11th century,one thousand years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that nearly 1,000 years of relative isolation (compared to today's standards) hasn't had an impact on overall British ethnicity? Why do British people look different Scandinavians, French people, the Dutch and Germans if we are all among us a random group of mongrels? There is even a marked difference between the British Home Nations and to deny this fact really is regressive and degenerate social engineering.

    Regardless of that, British 'isolation' certainly has had an impact on our culture and national identity. Many of the migrants today simply don't hold European values, let alone British ones, and the arrival of these people into our societies is damaging to our social values and structure, the products of 1000 years of shared history, culture and stability.

    By all means let's bring in the world's civilised people - The many people from the Commonwealth who've had a taste of British customs and concepts such as free speech, parliamentary democracy, common law, institutionalised fairness and the like. Indians, Nigerians, people from the Caribbean and of course the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. People who share our values.

    There are a multitude of reason why people oppose the levels mass immigration we have seen in the 21st century. There are legitimate economic fears, concerns about national infrastructure and the like. The way in which many people, like yourself, immediately throw accusations of intolerance and even racism really is inappropriate and often times part a concerted effort to limit discussion. We can discuss the aspect of purported cultural intolerance in Europe to migrants however as it seems that you are alluding to it in your post.

    Europe, whether for better or worse, is undoubtedly the continent home to the largest number of liberal and secular people and countries. Historical events such as the Enlightenment and the decline of religious fundamentalism paved the way for the flourishing of arts and sciences, the adoption of 'liberal' policies, the implementation of wide-reaching educational programs, the conception of modern charities - all the sorts of benign social systems that are lacking in the underdeveloped regions of the world.

    Over the last few decades we have made great advancements in Womens' rights, LGBT rights, animal rights and environmental protection. These aren't trends that can continue however as we continue to import people who have beliefs fundamentally incompatible with the products of hundreds of years of advanced European civilisation.

    Britain has been the most successful country in the world regarding modern multiculturalism. The Afro-Caribbean community, Sikh community, Hindu community, East Asian community and many others have mixed into British society comparatively well. This is because there isn't the fundamentalist, poisonous, fascistic and oppressive ideology of Islam preventing them from abandoning backwards customs in favour of civilised British and European societal norms.

    We should never tolerate the barbarians of the Middle East and North Africa who continue to practice Female Genital Mutilation, domestic violence and slavery, beheading and stoning to death and the like. The news reports of mass beheadings, live burnings, rape of women and execution of minorities and homosexuals from Syria and the Middle East are bloodier than any tale of Viking raids on 9th century Britain.

    It's a shame that the one organisation that could prevent the destruction of Europe in this manner is pressing for more migration from the backwards and degenerate regions of the Earth. That is why I shall be voting to leave the EU. It might be too late to save Europe but we can still save ourselves."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Curious of the unknown.
 
 
 
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
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.