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

Why I will vote to Leave the EU - From an alternative viewpoint watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    VOTE LEAVE!!! We will be better off outside the EU! We wont have to wait 10 years or be at the back of the queue, like Obama "threatned"!

    Vote leave! Tell yo mum, yo dad, yo dog, yo cat!!! Tell everyone!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I think perception is the issue here, it is not a good assumption to make that I have ignored some aspects of the debate. In fact I have addressed all of them with evidence and explanation.
    You have not.

    From my background, I along with many others have learnt the hard way the importance of democracy and the many things that erodes it, and the tactics usually used.
    The problem here is that you then want to delegate power to settle disputes upon the UN and the WTO - where there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.

    The fact is the EU is heading for federalisation. It is not only from my political instinct and experience, but also confirmed by the EC President himself this week.
    When making a claim like this it is normal to cite a source.

    I hope you can refrain from accusing me of not using logic in forming my decision, in fact it is the very thing which drives me, and many other Leave voters to make such a bold decision.
    The problem with your logic is that you somehow think that the outcome from a UK exit from the EU will be modelled on your ideals. Unfortunately there are many different recipes, and many different chefs, arguing for the Brexit cause, and not many of them appear to agree on very much: some don't care about migration, some want to ban it, some think we can make friends with the developing world and earn our livings there (someone ought to let them know that the whole economy of the rest of the world, without the EU and the G7, is somewhat less than a third of the global total - and every nation in the world is trying to get a slice of it), others think we just have a different relationship with the EU, some think we can remain in the single market, and we all know Mr Gove doesn't want that…

    Oh, and some think we can become Switzerland or Norway.

    If you have any sense you should be able to discern that there is absolutely no certain outcome in an exit. While it may be true that there are variables in staying in the EU, they are not of the same magnitude. And if we are "in" we are at the table to talk about reform.

    People who talk of reform discussions being pointless seem to be ignoring the simple fact that the EU is a developing organism, that has undergone significant change and reform across its lifetime. That change may not go in the direction that you would like, but unfortunately that is democracy (you know, that thing you claim to hold so dear).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    As I asked you previously, this is our ratio of population across the EU - how can you talk of democracy and at the same time seemingly make the claim that "our" voice is more important than "theirs"?
    I have also explained, actually from my original post, that this is NOT our ratio of population in the EU, not even roughly.

    Also I am stating that our voice and needs are most important for our own country, and the same for other countries. It is only natural that only one's country's citizens will truly understand and represents one's needs.

    Introducing foreign forces into deciding a country's policies is not democracy. This has never been the definition of democracy and never will be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I did not 'forget' that we were partly involved in the voting process, but a voting power of 10% is not enough to secure our interests. We can be easily outvoted by other member states who have different interest to ours. Please also read my original post on points made regarding under-representation.
    Please show how the UK's voting weight in the EU is radically different to its share of population in the EU.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have also explained, actually from my original post, that this is NOT our ratio of population in the EU, not even roughly.
    No, this is all you wrote:

    This places the UK with the 2nd highest population per MEP figure, meaning most countries have a higher representative in the EU when considering their populations.
    There is no data and no source. Please show your calculation: prove that the population of the UK (that is those who can vote in UK parliamentary elections, or EU elections if you like) is out of proportion to its voting weight in the EU compared to its population in comparison to the rest of the EU.

    I really don't think anyone cares whether Malta has more MEPs than it strictly deserves.

    Also I am stating that our voice and needs are most important for our own country, and the same for other countries. It is only natural that only one's country's citizens will truly understand and represents one's needs.
    Then why are you advocating leaving decisions to the UN and WTO?

    Introducing foreign forces into deciding a country's policies is not democracy. This has never been the definition of democracy and never will be.
    I understand that English is not your first language, but using the word "forces" usually means "military forces" - that is not what is going on within the EU. As many people have pointed out to you time and time again, the UK has democratically decided to form a cooperative accord with other democratic countries, in our mutual interests for economic, cultural and security reasons. The EU is not something that has been imposed upon the UK, it is something that the UK has been at the forefront of shaping.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have also explained, actually from my original post, that this is NOT our ratio of population in the EU, not even roughly.
    Ok, don't worry about my challenge to come up with the data, I'll do it for you:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...e-whole-story/

    It’s correct that the formal voting weight of the UK in the important EU Council of Ministers has decreased over the years. 8 per cent was right before a recent change in the system that pushes the UK’s influence back up to around 13 per cent. While this is the formal position, the EU’s culture encourages countries to all agree on decisions. On some issues, the rules require this.
    So, the UK population is roughly 65 million, the EU overall is 508 million (source http://europa.eu/about-eu/facts-figu...g/index_en.htm). 65 million is 12.7952755906% of 508 million - so it seems that we are almost exactly weighted by our population.

    There are 751 MEPs, the UK has 73 of these. This makes our weighting in the European Parliament 9.72%. This is clearly below our 13% population weighting. However this was set by the Treaty of Lisbon, and is regularly adjusted. If you look at this Wikipedia page you can see some of the history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apport...ean_Parliament

    The page here cites 2006 population of the UK, which is obviously out of date. What may also be a factor here is what proportion of the UK population is EU citizens (ie not UK citizens) or from elsewhere - these may be factors in the calculation.

    On these points I say that there is obviously more substance to the issue than is evidenced by the simple rations suggested, and that if you want to have a debate about such issues it i up to you to present the facts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You have not.
    Can you quote which part I have not explained?


    The problem here is that you then want to delegate power to settle disputes upon the UN and the WTO - where there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.
    These organisations are formed specifically for peacekeeping, and has countless more interventions than EU in the past. The nature of NATO is that an attack on one member's country is an attack on all others, it is legally binding for all NATO members to react should this happen. The UN also has sanction powers and had imposed sensible sanctions in past and recent history. I cannot believe anyone could argue that EU is the superior defense solution of the three, it does not have an army, it requires legislation and financial control of member states and it has weaker sanctioning power than the UN. I was surprised at the first place when you introduced wars in the EU referendum debate, it really isn't the EU's primary function and most countries would naturally look at NATO and the UN first.

    I have also never stated that the WTO is a defensive measure, it is not.

    When making a claim like this it is normal to cite a source.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36224839


    The problem with your logic is that you somehow think that the outcome from a UK exit from the EU will be modelled on your ideals. Unfortunately there are many different recipes, and many different chefs, arguing for the Brexit cause, and not many of them appear to agree on very much: some don't care about migration, some want to ban it, some think we can make friends with the developing world and earn our livings there (someone ought to let them know that the whole economy of the rest of the world, without the EU and the G7, is somewhat less than a third of the global total - and every nation in the world is trying to get a slice of it), others think we just have a different relationship with the EU, some think we can remain in the single market, and we all know Mr Gove doesn't want that…

    Oh, and some think we can become Switzerland or Norway.

    If you have any sense you should be able to discern that there is absolutely no certain outcome in an exit. While it may be true that there are variables in staying in the EU, they are not of the same magnitude. And if we are "in" we are at the table to talk about reform.

    People who talk of reform discussions being pointless seem to be ignoring the simple fact that the EU is a developing organism, that has undergone significant change and reform across its lifetime. That change may not go in the direction that you would like, but unfortunately that is democracy (you know, that thing you claim to hold so dear).
    The problem is that the current 'recipe' is the worst one, for me and most Leave campaigners. You cannot obtain a truly democratic system when the system does not allow such. I have more faith in the UK people's judgement on the best 'recipe' upon leaving the EU than the EU's. I think you ought to have more faith in your own people. They naturally would want the best for one's country, not people in other EU states.

    Just because some people think differently to you, does not mean they are not 'logical' or wrong. I am speaking for myself, and those who shares my view. Some people genuinely believe that we can control our economy and policies without being in the EU, this is sensible and is not impossible in any way. I see merits in that and I believe we can.

    There is also no point stating that 'there is absolutely no certain outcome in an exit', everybody on both sides knows that. Our confidence on the judgement and ability of the British public is different and I respect that. I have explained my logic countless times before and I feel like this is becoming a ping-pong argument. You have accused me of ignoring aspects of the debates when I have clearly addressed them all individually. I have recognized the viewpoints and reasoning behind Remainers and I have stated my own. However you seem to be on the offensive side trying to make me sound illogical when I have stated my logic many times. I love debate and arguments, but not ping-ponging and repetitions.

    Please refrain from using the aggressive tone on your replies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Can you quote which part I have not explained?
    You have not provided any data or any citations to back up your claim that the UK is under-represented within the EU.

    These organisations are formed specifically for peacekeeping, and has countless more interventions than EU in the past. The nature of NATO is that an attack on one member's country is an attack on all others, it is legally binding for all NATO members to react should this happen. The UN also has sanction powers and had imposed sensible sanctions in past and recent history. I cannot believe anyone could argue that EU is the superior defense solution of the three, it does not have an army, it requires legislation and financial control of member states and it has weaker sanctioning power than the UN. I was surprised at the first place when you introduced wars in the EU referendum debate, it really isn't the EU's primary function and most countries would naturally look at NATO and the UN first.

    I have also never stated that the WTO is a defensive measure, it is not.
    As I have repeated, several times, security is about economics, not just armed forces or peacekeepers. You continue to ignore this point. All of these organisations have arbitration functions, and none of them have democratic mandates. You back these organisations over the EU, which does have a democratic mandate.

    Erm, I think your point here is somehow that the EU is heading towards federalism. I can't find anything in the article you cite that indicates this (perhaps you can quote the bit that supports your point?). Here's what Jean-Claude Juncker says (in that article):

    Mr Juncker - a former Prime Minister of Luxembourg - said the old "shared sentiment" of common policy-making in the EU "has totally gone".
    European Council President Donald Tusk, said the EU's priority must be to make its external borders secure in the current migrant crisis.

    He suggested that there was no point pursuing an ideal of a "European nation". He spoke of the need for "political common sense".

    "The idea of one EU state, one vision... was an illusion," said Mr Tusk, a former Polish Prime Minister.
    This seems exactly opposed to the point to seem to be trying to make.

    The problem is that the current 'recipe' is the worst one…
    No, it is a long way from that, you clearly have no sense of European history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    No, this is all you wrote:



    There is no data and no source. Please show your calculation: prove that the population of the UK (that is those who can vote in UK parliamentary elections, or EU elections if you like) is out of proportion to its voting weight in the EU compared to its population in comparison to the rest of the EU.

    I really don't think anyone cares whether Malta has more MEPs than it strictly deserves.



    Then why are you advocating leaving decisions to the UN and WTO?



    I understand that English is not your first language, but using the word "forces" usually means "military forces" - that is not what is going on within the EU. As many people have pointed out to you time and time again, the UK has democratically decided to form a cooperative accord with other democratic countries, in our mutual interests for economic, cultural and security reasons. The EU is not something that has been imposed upon the UK, it is something that the UK has been at the forefront of shaping.
    The population figures on here is for 2013, which I judge to be fairly accurate to present level.

    I am stating that for collective defensive (which is different to individual defense) we can rely on NATO and the UN. These are the default collective defense solutions for most countries, not the EU.

    Also it might be surprising to you, but English is actually my first language. I am also a mathematician/engineer so by 'forces' I was using it in the vector concept, but I am glad you can translate what I meant correctly. As I stated from my previous post, take away all the spins and repackaging, the EU is not democratic in reality, and by definition. On legislations that we agree, there is a mutual interest, but on those we don't agree, there isn't. Hence the referendum as many people sees the need for a system in which the policies we pursue will be representative of our views and interests, and safe from dilating our interests in the EU.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You have not provided any data or any citations to back up your claim that the UK is under-represented within the EU.



    As I have repeated, several times, security is about economics, not just armed forces or peacekeepers. You continue to ignore this point. All of these organisations have arbitration functions, and none of them have democratic mandates. You back these organisations over the EU, which does have a democratic mandate.



    Erm, I think your point here is somehow that the EU is heading towards federalism. I can't find anything in the article you cite that indicates this (perhaps you can quote the bit that supports your point?). Here's what Jean-Claude Juncker says (in that article):





    This seems exactly opposed to the point to seem to be trying to make.



    No, it is a long way from that, you clearly have no sense of European history.
    You can find the source on my previous 2 posts, and you can do the calculations yourself. It is a simple division between 2 figures.

    The article shows their admission it was their intention, from foundation of the organisation to now, to form a single European power bloc, the President also complained that the vision is undermined by national self-interests.


    No, it is a long way from that, you clearly have no sense of European history.
    This would the final reply I will give you. It seems that you are using this forum as a way to vent your aggression, and sometimes passive-aggressiveness. You are not interested in the respectful spirit of debate. I have asked you multiple times to refrain from using this tone as it adds nothing but unneeded tension in the argument. It is regrettable that mutual respect is not something many can try to keep, in a political forum section. It really shows more about yourself, than me.

    It is ironic that you are so concerned about the EU's role on peace, but being the very person who breaks the peace in an otherwise respectful debate. Hopefully we can continue this debate in friendlier terms when you can demonstrate your ability to carry your arguments in a respectful manner.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The population figures on here is for 2013, which I judge to be fairly accurate to present level.
    As a "mathematician" please show your workings. I've shown mine (you don't seem to be objecting to them).

    I am stating that for collective defensive (which is different to individual defense) we can rely on NATO and the UN. These are the default collective defense solutions for most countries, not the EU.
    NATO is outward looking, it is not inward looking. It has been set up to defend against external enemies, not intra-European threats. The UN has no military function except through its member states and by agreement with all parties.

    Peace in Europe has come about through mutual economic interdependence and cooperation - not military might. Even Liam Fox acknowledged this, and he is in the LEAVE camp.

    Also it might be surprising to you, but English is actually my first language.
    Then I can only assume it is not a British idiom.

    I am also a mathematician/engineer so by 'forces' I was using it in the vector concept, but I am glad you can translate what I meant correctly.
    Then this is not the "normal" understanding. I'm glad I have assisted you.

    As I stated from my previous post, take away all the spins and repackaging, the EU is not democratic in reality, and by definition.
    Please say why. Quote the figures, cite the articles in the treaties, prove something. You keep repeating the same point, but you have proved nothing.

    On legislations that we agree, there is a mutual interest, but on those we don't agree, there isn't.
    Please provide a list showing the legislation upon which "we" (I take it you mean the UK) did not agree.

    Hence the referendum as many people sees the need for a system in which the policies we pursue will be representative of our views and interests, and safe from dilating (sic) our interests in the EU.
    The referendum is purely about internal Conservative party politics - it really has nothing to do with the population's view on the EU.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You can find the source on my previous 2 posts, and you can do the calculations yourself. It is a simple division between 2 figures.
    Please show your workings and your figures, I have shown mine, and they contradict yours.

    The article shows their admission it was their intention, from foundation of the organisation to now, to form a single European power bloc, the President also complained that the vision is undermined by national self-interests.
    I'm not sure it does show that, but even if it did the clear point those you cite are making is that the EU is not heading for federalism, but in the opposite direction. You don't argue that the parts I quoted are in direct opposition to the point you were attempting to make?

    This would the final reply I will give you. It seems that you are using this forum as a way to vent your aggression, and sometimes passive-aggressiveness. You are not interested in the respectful spirit of debate. I have asked you multiple times to refrain from using this tone as it adds nothing but unneeded tension in the argument. It is regrettable that mutual respect is not something many can try to keep, in a political forum section. It really shows more about yourself, than me.

    It is ironic that you are so concerned about the EU's role on peace, but being the very person who breaks the peace in an otherwise respectful debate. Hopefully we can continue this debate in friendlier terms when you can demonstrate your ability to carry your arguments in a respectful manner.
    I have asked you to make your points based on logic and data. You have not done this but rather keep repeating the same points. Please show how the UK is under-represented in the Council of Ministers, please show how the UK is under-represented in the European Parliament - when carrying out this task please show how these figures are derived from EU treaties and what factor foreign nationals living in the UK play in the voting weights.

    This is your claim, I am giving you the parameters by which you can prove it. It is a fairly simple logic and maths problem.

    It is indeed unfortunate that you take such offence at being told you have no understanding of European history - there are clearly far worse outcomes in recent European history than the "recipe" we have mutually constructed for the EU. Perhaps you could prove the contrary?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    This thread was started because I felt it would be a good contribution to the debate to add my point of view on the referendum, and to see if some people could relate to my less-mainstream background and motivations. There are some replies I have received which I found helpful, and adds insight and understanding to both sides to the debate. However some members of this forum have demonstrated an inability to convey their views in a respectful manner. As such I have no further interest to reply to them, as they have no interest in the respectful spirit of debating. I urge you to not satisfy their needs to vent out their aggression in a political forum section.

    I hope this thread has been a good demonstration of some of the views both sides hold, and adds some mutual understanding in what forms our decision on the referendum.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Maker)
    Because none of it is original, all your points have been bought up many times before.
    So whenever anybody says "I think we should do x because of y" that y mist be completely original. I'll bear that in mind next time you make any post

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    VOTE LEAVE!!! We will be better off outside the EU! We wont have to wait 10 years or be at the back of the queue, like Obama "threatned"!
    I don't understand this argument. It is like stating that you will get into a nightclub despite having being turned away by the bouncers. If the US votes Hilary, you basically get Obama. If they vote Trump who hates the idea of free trade, the idea of 10 years to negotiate looks pretty ambitious.

    Whilst talking about trade deals are we aware that they not only allow us to sell products and services abroad, but also to allow foreign companies to come to the UK and compete directly with our own? On the one had the Brexit folks are saying they don't like immigration and the taking of our jobs by Europeans, but on the other hand they are hoping to create trade deals with the rest of the world which would have the same effect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I don't understand this argument. It is like stating that you will get into a nightclub despite having being turned away by the bouncers. If the US votes Hilary, you basically get Obama. If they vote Trump who hates the idea of free trade, the idea of 10 years to negotiate looks pretty ambitious.

    Whilst talking about trade deals are we aware that they not only allow us to sell products and services abroad, but also to allow foreign companies to come to the UK and compete directly with our own? On the one had the Brexit folks are saying they don't like immigration and the taking of our jobs by Europeans, but on the other hand they are hoping to create trade deals with the rest of the world which would have the same effect.
    Do you really believe that if we leave, that we may be rejected or not be a priority when it comes to trades? The moment we leave the EU, we will become their number one trade partner! We can, and will, still have access to the single market. Why? Because we are more important (financially, militarilly etc.) to the EU then say Norway, who have access but are not bound by EU law. It's all fear mongering to keep us in.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I don't understand this argument. It is like stating that you will get into a nightclub despite having being turned away by the bouncers. If the US votes Hilary, you basically get Obama. If they vote Trump who hates the idea of free trade, the idea of 10 years to negotiate looks pretty ambitious.

    Whilst talking about trade deals are we aware that they not only allow us to sell products and services abroad, but also to allow foreign companies to come to the UK and compete directly with our own? On the one had the Brexit folks are saying they don't like immigration and the taking of our jobs by Europeans, but on the other hand they are hoping to create trade deals with the rest of the world which would have the same effect.
    Very few trade deals have free !movement of people, you do realise that? You do also realise the back of the queue comment was a load of *******s and we would likely be right at the front of the queue given we will be the biggest nation both in terms of GDP and trade that they could get a deal with.

    I have also never heard Trump being anti FTA, I've heard him say he's against things like TTIP where it is with massive groups of nations, preferring bilateral agreements, bit that's sensible, things like TTIP are negotiated for a decade and then get nowhere, bilateral agreements take a couple of years and are signed.

    Finally, it might come as as a surprise to you, but we are able to trade with counties we don't have FTAs with. Our second biggest export partner, just missing out on first, and by a mile biggest import partner is the US where there is no FTA. China is above France for imports; UAE, South Korea, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia are all above about 75% of the EU members and I think among them we only have a FTA with the Koreans. The same goes for businesses setting up here or basing themselves here, we don't need a FTA with their home nation, Nissan have a massive factor here, no FTA and creating jobs, but also lots of manufacturing left Britain decades ago, not because of free trade but because it was cheaper.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    Do you really believe that if we leave, that we may be rejected or not be a priority when it comes to trades?
    No. But similarly, I don't believe we can do better? David Cameron got a few poxy and grudging concessions from the EU. Were we to leave, do you really think we would be in a strong position to negotiate a better deal with the EU than we have at present? I mean really? If we want to trade with Europe, that is going to include the free movement of people. That is one of the founding principals of Europe and is non-negotiable.

    The one thing I have learned from business is that when you think you have a monopoly, or something people want, you generally haven't. Just because Germany sells cars to us, does not mean their whole economy hinges on the UK. We stand to lose more than the EU over this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Very few trade deals have free !movement of people, you do realise that? You do also realise the back of the queue comment was a load of *******s and we would likely be right at the front of the queue given we will be the biggest nation both in terms of GDP and trade that they could get a deal with.
    Again - I don't understand it. If I told you, 2+2 is 4, you would swear it was 5. If the position of the US is for us to be at the back of the queue why on earth would they say that if they didn't mean it? You do understand the political fallout from having to perform U-turns on stuff like that?

    Trade deals are complex things. They take years to negotiate and there is give and take. Brexit are only talking about the take. What would we give in return?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Again - I don't understand it. If I told you, 2+2 is 4, you would swear it was 5. If the position of the US is for us to be at the back of the queue why on earth would they say that if they didn't mean it? You do understand the political fallout from having to perform U-turns on stuff like that?

    Trade deals are complex things. They take years to negotiate and there is give and take. Brexit are only talking about the take. What would we give in return?
    Tell us, who is ahead of us in the queue? If negotiations started this summer the deal would probably be ready to sign by the time exit actually happens, years means generally less than two when bilateral. What are we to America? 5th biggest export and 7th biggest import partner and a massive consumer of our financial services. One of the closest relationships in the world based on mutual goals. We're just this little island with very strong ties which helps them make stronger inroads into Europe

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.