Turn on thread page Beta

Why you should vote to LEAVE* the European Union watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    That doesn't have to do with it not being binding. This is simply the rule that Parliament is sovereign, and any new act supersedes the previous if the two contradict. This is true of any other act currently.

    Nonetheless, this depends entirely on the courts, and they tend to make legislation abide to the convention even if the original act may be somewhat contrary. One notabe example is Ghaidan v Mendoza.
    I suppose it would be more accurate to word it as 'its binding until the govt decide it isnt' however there are no legal ramifications for breach of the HRA "2) If an Act of Parliament breaches these rights, the courts can declare the legislation to be incompatible with rights. This does not affect the validity of the law – the HRA maintains parliamentary sovereignty as it remains up to Parliament to decide whether or not to amend the law." (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...ghts-act-works)

    Yes i definitely see they attempt to stay in line with Europe as far as is possible (I'm going to take your case as read, im too tired to research it but i know of examples myself) however they can sometimes make it up as they go along (Austin v Metro Comm) which is why i say the HRA is not an unfailing legal obligation. Of course this all comes down to the individual judge anyway
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I suppose it would be more accurate to word it as 'its binding until the govt decide it isnt' however there are no legal ramifications for breach of the HRA "2) If an Act of Parliament breaches these rights, the courts can declare the legislation to be incompatible with rights. This does not affect the validity of the law – the HRA maintains parliamentary sovereignty as it remains up to Parliament to decide whether or not to amend the law." (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...ghts-act-works)

    Yes i definitely see they attempt to stay in line with Europe as far as is possible (I'm going to take your case as read, im too tired to research it but i know of examples myself) however they can sometimes make it up as they go along (Austin v Metro Comm) which is why i say the HRA is not an unfailing legal obligation. Of course this all comes down to the individual judge anyway
    Yes, the Supreme Court (as of now) cannot invalidate primary legislation. The ECtHR, however, can. The Government has failed to obey its ruling Just once and has had to pay fees.

    As for your first point, again, that is true for any Act of Parliament. It is not the government (in the sense of the executive) that makes these decisions. Only parliament can.

    Again, all this is irrelevant to the EU. EU law has much greater force and the ECJ can directly disapply national provisions no questions asked (even national courts can). The HRA does not "represent" EU law, it represents Council of Europe law, which applies to many more countries than the EU.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Yes, the Supreme Court (as of now) cannot invalidate primary legislation. The ECtHR, however, can. The Government has failed to obey its ruling Just once and has had to pay fees.

    As for your first point, again, that is true for any Act of Parliament. It is not the government (in the sense of the executive) that makes these decisions. Only parliament can.

    Again, all this is irrelevant to the EU. EU law has much greater force and the ECJ can directly disapply national provisions no questions asked (even national courts can). The HRA does not "represent" EU law, it represents Council of Europe law, which applies to many more countries than the EU.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well its entirely possible my lecturer is full of s**t aha but i was led to believe by him and the readings that the ECtHR only has binding impacts on law imposed under the European Communities Act 1972 (and subsequent legislation/treaties also) which specifically refers to EU law and that is why the HRA isn't applicable under ECtHR in terms of it cannot effect change to British actions or legislation that oppose its judgement, it can only issue a declaration of incompatibility (as the HRA is British Law) which is why prisoners not voting has had no consequences for the UK particularly as the UK is only obligated to consider EU rulings which is why Austin was ruled contrary to EU law (and good sense).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Well its entirely possible my lecturer is full of s**t aha but i was led to believe by him and the readings that the ECtHR only has binding impacts on law imposed under the European Communities Act 1972 (and subsequent legislation/treaties also) which specifically refers to EU law and that is why the HRA isn't applicable under ECtHR in terms of it cannot effect change to British actions or legislation that oppose its judgement, it can only issue a declaration of incompatibility (as the HRA is British Law) which is why prisoners not voting has had no consequences for the UK particularly as the UK is only obligated to consider EU rulings which is why Austin was ruled contrary to EU law (and good sense).
    If your lecturer said this, I'd sign a petition to fire him, lol.

    The ECA 1972 refers to EU law. It's what empowers the initially reluctant courts to disapply national provisions (basically the ECJ forced them to do it).

    The HRA, on the other hand, incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. That is NOT EU law. It is Council of Europe law based on the convention itself. As the convention itself was not directly binding, the HRA made it so. This, once again, refers to ECHR provisions only. Even if it is removed, EU law would still be superior to national provisions.

    The only case were EU law would not be superior is if the ECA were withdrawn and consequently a Brexit occurred.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I provided multiple examples showing the ECHR isnt relevant in Britain...............

    Yes but taken into account isnt a binding legal point, we could still as I originally said pull out of both Europe and the HRA quite easily as we arent even bound by it currently for example prisoners not being allowed to vote.
    It is a legally binding point. If you don't take it into account then it is illegal.

    If it wasn't legally binding then there wouldn't be any point in leaving.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    If your lecturer said this, I'd sign a petition to fire him, lol.

    The ECA 1972 refers to EU law. It's what empowers the initially reluctant courts to disapply national provisions (basically the ECJ forced them to do it).

    The HRA, on the other hand, incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. That is NOT EU law. It is Council of Europe law based on the convention itself. As the convention itself was not directly binding, the HRA made it so. This, once again, refers to ECHR provisions only. Even if it is removed, EU law would still be superior to national provisions.

    The only case were EU law would not be superior is if the ECA were withdrawn and consequently a Brexit occurred.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To be fair chances are I'm being a dipshit aha.

    I should have just asked you lol that was what i was rather illiterately getting at, my only point is - as you seem to know a lot I'll pose this as a question - that we arent bound by ECHR/HRA judgements anyway they must simply be taken into account. Our legislation or indeed our courts can in theory rule differently as the ECHR isnt binding and the HRA is an act of British Parliament, correct?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    It is a legally binding point. If you don't take it into account then it is illegal.

    If it wasn't legally binding then there wouldn't be any point in leaving.
    Ah i see what you're getting at (im using the excuse i was replying at 3am), my point is however the courts can go 'yeah we totally took it into account for realsies' and still judge differently so it doesnt force the court to make a certain decision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theomo)
    Could you please reference all of these statistics you are stating? Unless I'm missing something, our exports to EU states accounts for around 26.5% of our total combined exports:Exports41801.00 GBP MillionDec/15Exports to European Union11073.00 GBP MillionNov/15Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/importsYes that's a pretty big number but as Drewski has very correctly stated:.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/intern...t-/sty-eu.html

    " Exports from the UK to EU and non-EU countries have grown on average by 3.6% and 6.5% respectively in each year between 1999 and 2014. However, the stronger export growth to non-EU countries has resulted in the proportion of UK exports destined for the EU falling from 54.8% in 1999 to 44.6% in 2014 "

    https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statisti...n-EU_Data.aspx

    " The proportion of total exports to the EU is 38 per cent in December 2015. Over the past 18 months, this has ranged from 38 per cent to 49 per cent. The proportion of total imports from the EU is 55 per cent in December 2015. Over the same period, this has ranged between 49 per cent and 55 per cent."


    (Original post by theomo)

    You also mentioned that trade within the EU is encouraged via tariffs on non-eu imports, so why is it it that our joint second biggest trading partners behind Germany (13%), are China (8 percent) and the United States (8 percent).
    If anything that proves that tariffs work since those are two biggest economies in the world and German trade alone is almost as big as both of them put together.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treen98)
    That's what the said about the Scottish Independence Referendum... Now look at what's happening. Immediately after the result was declared they were talking about another.
    There will be plenty of opportunities to make a change you don't need to go so drastic and all out at the first opportunity


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The only people talking about a second referendum are the scottish. Nobody else is. Personally, I wish the scots had voted to leave, then we won't have to heat their whining again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andythepiano007)
    The only people talking about a second referendum are the scottish. Nobody else is. Personally, I wish the scots had voted to leave, then we won't have to heat their whining again.
    Don't be such a narrow-minded, conceited trawler. We are a union and everyone must be heard equally and considered as one entity. If you're sick of the drama then don't partake- its not difficult. Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland are one and will decide together to remain in the EU or stay out of it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treen98)
    Don't be such a narrow-minded, conceited trawler. .
    Lol. Well that is a first.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Lol. Well that is a first.
    Autocorrect
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) the concept that we need to be in a political union (a confederation, more accurately) to trade freely with europe is berserk. mexico freely trades with the EU, but they're not members of the EU - how is this possible when the stay side are implying that we need the EU for our trade? scaremongering. the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU; we're the biggest exporters to them. less than half of our trade is with them. we will thrive outside of the political union. we will finally have the autonomy to make trade deals not in the "european" interest, but rather "our" national interest. that seems very fair. I won't claim that the EU creates 75% of our laws like perhaps some like daniel hannan and nigel farage may do, but it is still a numbers game. it is something like 50% - but both the labour party and conservative party leaders have stated this. this involves both laws, statutory instruments, delegated legislation, case law, etc. so that's half of our laws being made by us (or our representatives) and another half made by those that have almost nothing to do with us.

    You are using an inherently flawed law argument. How many laws do YOU "create" in the UK? You are a voter out of 60 million. That means (60M - 1)/60M of laws you follow are created by other people.

    As long as you are cooperating with someone, you won't have more than 50% say about anything ...

    The essence of any UNION (including the UNITED kingdoms) is that the benefit of mutual cooperation outweighs the decrease in independence.

    The only way to get more control over your laws is to form a smaller voter base. Leaving the EU may acheive this, but in that case why shouldn't individual nations and regions within the UK declare independence too?

    You set the arbitary limit to independence at a national level, but this is an economically unwise decision. Let me move on to that now...

    4) the EU is a stagnating trade union. it is the only trade bloc in the world that is. the EU is holding us back. if we make free trade deals with all the countries that the EU doesn't., we will do better economically. also, it costs £40 million a day to stay in this declining trade union too. and we get practically nothing in return, materially. because we are a rich country of the union - the money is going to the poorer countries. this is what the idea of union is all about. why should we give away our money (and our world power, on another note) to these countries? why should we be held down into these trade deals which impose illiberal tariffs onto other countries when we could free-trade and gain from it (basic economics!)? I wish I could merely call it a "trade union" like it was in 1972 but it's not. it's a supranational confederate (semi-federal) political union with a flag, an anthem, a currency (for most) and its own leaders.
    It's not that easy. The EU provides a large common market and the flow of people makes it extremely attractive to industries. THAT is basic economics, and corporations agree to it.

    The "free trade" that you suggest will happen after we leave the EU will be influenced by ruined diplomatic relations with our physically closest trading partners, and if you think that the UK has any other viable partner, that is wrong. The USA is strongly interested in the UK remaining in the EU because it gives it an anglo-speaking, sympathetic medium with which it can interact with Europe politically and economically, and it is natural that the two largest Western entities will want to be close. UK's out-of-place nationalism will not be favoured by either. Who will you trade with now? Very quickly all other countries disappear from radar, because they would rather trade with a huge global market than a particular nation.

    2) immigration, within the EU, and regarding EU countries, is uncontrolled. we have no european borders. regardless of our interests regarding employment, housing, wages, local school and hospital places, we can't stop people coming in regardless of the space or other vital considerations. the most important, or at least the second (behind "the economy"], issue in UK politics right now and has been for about a decade "immigration" because the EU has made chaos of our immigration figures. leaving the EU will bring stability and control regarding this very important issue. we are one of the most densely populated nations in the entire world - technically we're the *2nd* most densely populated western nation after belgium. it is time we *finally* sort out this immigration mess. it's not about who's coming (usually) - it's about how many of them are coming in. we want GOOD and SKILLED immigrants, but because of the EU, we can't discriminate between good and bad/unskilled immigrants.

    3) if you believe in democracy, you will see significance in the issue of how we are under a proxy policy of control from the unelected european commission. for example, when do you remember having a say on the election of "lord hill", or "baroness cathy ashton"? the line of power is *incredibly* remote; the UK elects MPs; MPs elect the PM; the PM appoints the commissioner and the commissioners elect the head of the commission. that's not democratic, that's *bureaucratic*. and before I'm told "the EU parliament is elected": 1) the EU parliament is relatively powerless; it has no power to introduce or amend legislation, and has no powers to propose appointees to positions/offices. it can simply say "yes" or "no" which is, for its role, an uncritical rubber stamp position, and 2) the UK makes up something like a tenth of representatives - we get a 10% say, currently, in this rubber stamp chamber. if we left the EU, the UK parliament would give us 100% say on the issues we've given away to the EU. 100%>10%. more democracy is better than less. more localism is better than remote rulership. the ECJ is also, under the EECA1972 sovereign over our own "supreme" court. the UK people ought to be as close as possible to the laws that are allocated to them. there should be legal representation along with legal responsibility. what's worse is that I am fairly sure that we have the WEAKEST parliament in the world concerning "democracies" (the EU parliament, I mean). what parliament other than the EU parliament has no power to propose or amend legislation? they could have made the EU parliament democratic from day one and they STILL haven't.
    I put these two together because these are issues that could be solved both with and without EU membership, but haven't been. If democracy is the problem here why do we have the house of Lords? Clearly there is very little concern with who has power over us. And immigration does not at all call for getting rid of a very beneficial union, especially when it is full of sympathisers. It will be just as easy to work with the EU to stop immigration across all of it as leaving and then stopping it.

    At best, you are gambling on the chance that there will be enough momentum to leave and stop immigration to the level you want. But that is a risky option, for an issue that is pretty much temporary because it will soon be acknowledged by the rest of the EU, but may not be solved either way, and with massive side effects.

    5) the idea that we ought to stay in the EU for world power and prestige is either cosmetic or downright imperial. number one - in order to have more power in the EU, the EU would need to have some kind of collective foreign policy. number two - regarding sanctions, the UK can already impose sanctions. if we want to impose sanctions at the same rate as the EU, we can freely do that. number three - who cares about active world power? what is this, the cold war? are we *looking* for another war? it's funny because the people who seem to want power from the EU are usually, hypocritically, those that seem to oppose war. besdies, we already have the UNSC (of which we have a veto power) *and* NATO, *and* the WTO (especially post-EU). sme even say, in realtion to this, that the EU "stops wars" - where is the evidence for this? if anything, the institutional frictions that the EU has generated between major european countries has more likely made things *worse*. if you want to stop wars, then free trade is a brilliant way to do it, but we're not talking about a mere free trade concept any more. we can freely trade via treaties, not political unions. end of story.
    The world is not only becoming a global economy, where the only way to prosper is to join up to large international economic blocs (which a Brexit would put in jeopardy, see above) but it is also becoming dangerous with enormous teams dividing the planet. How do you expect a small country who wants to get rid of trident to have enough power to negotiate it's own safety, let alone make any sort of domination?

    Relating to the economic issues, the UK's leave might inspire a bulkload of other countries to leave, and a lot of independence movements within countries (e.g. Spain) to gain momentum. With the state of the world as it is, and Europe's weakness, the last thing we want is the entire union to collapse because of our selfishness. A divided Europe with bitter politics cannot hold it's ground in global politics. We are possibly the last sensible people on Earth, considering Trump et al in America.

    6) the european court of human rights isn't the same thing as the european court of justice. the latter is a body of the EU and the former is a body that was established in 1948. people who think we would be automatically leaving the ECtHR via leaving the EU are either lying or are completely ignorant.
    All this tells me is that the multitude of bodies that already exist and include the UK will still affect it, but the UK won't have any say in them.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treen98)
    Don't be such a narrow-minded, conceited trawler. We are a union and everyone must be heard equally and considered as one entity. If you're sick of the drama then don't partake- its not difficult. Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland are one and will decide together to remain in the EU or stay out of it.
    If everyone needs to be heard equally they have to realise they are a tiny part of the population of the U.K. And this is a uk wide referendum


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Bump
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) I used to hear people saying that "half our exports go to the EU" - it's not half. it's less than half. 45% at the most. therefore, that's a "lie".
    But it's just a lie that you made up. Who says half of our trade is with the EU? Cite the evidence.

    2) "we'll lose jobs if we leave the EU" - if we have more prosperous trade, how on earth can that be true? the jobs we'll lose will either be jobs that never deserved to exist (e.g. the ones that ould be failing without uncompetitive EU subsidies - farming being a prime example all over the EU) or the ones that are the EU bureaucratic offices!
    See that bit where you say "if", that's the problem with your argument. Also, I think you are deluding yourself if you think that subsidies for UK farmers will disappear if we leave the EU - the government will just do this itself. It already subsidises agriculture by letting farmers have red diesel, for example, which costs much less than diesel for ordinary motorists.

    3) "only 10% of our laws are made by the EU" - I've already answered that lie.
    That certainly is a lie. In the last parliament there were over 100 Acts of parliament or amendments to acts, only four of these were influenced by EU law.

    4) "EU uncontrolled immigration is fine" - in what possible sense?
    It seems that the country needs more labour, and has been stated, EU migrants contribute more to the economy than other migrants, or even UK citizens. I think it also worth understanding that, as EU citizens are unrestricted in their movement, they can move back and forth between the UK and other EU states as their labour is required. This was evidenced in the downturn in 2008/09. In contrast the same is not true of migrants from outside the EU, who are incentivised to hang on in unsustainable roles, because if they leave the UK they may not be able to come back.

    5) "the EU parliament is democratic" - fat lie. already explained how.
    The European Council is made up of members of the governments of each member state. It follows that this must be a democratic institution because the governments are democratically elected. The European Parliament is directly elected by the citizens of the EU. In fact in the UK this is the only body you will be able to elect by proportional representation - which is arguably more democratic than the UK's normal "first past the post" system. No legislation goes through the EU without the co-decision making process, which requires both the European Council and the European Parliament to agree.

    It is entirely wrong to describe the European Commission (EC) as being the controlling hand in the EU. The EC is merely the civil service of the EU, as such it shouldn't be surprising that its members are unelected (but appointed by the governments of the member states), any more than the UK's civil servants are unelected.

    6) "we need the EU for power" - we are one of the most powerful countries in the whole world. the EU is like a ball and chain around us if they make us *share* that power. they're even wanting us to give up our UNSC seats too, along with france.
    The UK is a relatively small county in a growing world. Our power in the world was dissipating over 100 years ago, and has continued to do so. What we have left is merely the legacy of that, which is continuing to decline with the rise of other states. If you do not understand that then you must be stuck somewhere in the 19th century.

    Can you point to some evidence that the EU wants the UK and France to withdraw from permanent membership of the UN security council?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    But it's just a lie that you made up. Who says half of our trade is with the EU? Cite the evidence.
    I have said it multiple times, just because I couldn't be bothered to find the exact percentage.

    ONS

    The EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6% of UK exports of goods and services,

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...t-/sty-eu.html

    I should also point out that the figure of 44.6% does not include exports that have come as a result EU negotiated agreements with Non EU countries such as South Korea.

    Tbh, he is just grasping at straws. 50 vs 45% is irrelevant. The point is that we are far more dependent on EU exports than Vice versa.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Tbh, he is just grasping at straws. 50 vs 45% is irrelevant. The point is that we are far more dependent on EU exports than Vice versa.
    Ok, so he is just repeating your lie.

    I agree, the difference between 45% and 50% isn't central to the argument - whatever way you look at it it is a significant slice of our exports.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) the concept that we need to be in a political union (a confederation, more accurately) to trade freely with europe is berserk. mexico freely trades with the EU, but they're not members of the EU - how is this possible when the stay side are implying that we need the EU for our trade? scaremongering. the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU; we're the biggest exporters to them. less than half of our trade is with them. we will thrive outside of the political union. we will finally have the autonomy to make trade deals not in the "european" interest, but rather "our" national interest. that seems very fair. I won't claim that the EU creates 75% of our laws like perhaps some like daniel hannan and nigel farage may do, but it is still a numbers game. it is something like 50% - but both the labour party and conservative party leaders have stated this. this involves both laws, statutory instruments, delegated legislation, case law, etc. so that's half of our laws being made by us (or our representatives) and another half made by those that have almost nothing to do with us.
    These free trade deals take years to negotiate; and frankly EU has absolutely no incentive to do so - yes EU exports more to UK than vice versa but they have a much larger economy to compensate. If UK-EU free trade collapses, UK looks 45% of its exports - EU looses 12.6% of its export; and frankly it'd be in their interest to do so to avoid sending a message to other countries in the future that they can leave and get awesome deals.
    But even that number is misleading because trade with EU isn't perfectly distributed - yes UK has trade deficit with countries like Ireland, France and Germany, but we have quite large surpluses with countries like Italy ($12.3 Billion), Spain ($7.9 Billion), Belgium ($7.5 billion); these countries have power of veto against any deal and they do use it (Italy 2010 agreement with South Korea).
    Idea that UK can eat it cake and still have it is silly, trade to EU matters more to UK than vice versa - EU can take the hit of 12.6% to send a message, UK doesn't have that luxury with 45% of its exports. Not to mention, to get free trade with EU you better persuade 27 countries, many of whom have sizeable trade deficits with UK to give us a free pass because reasons.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    2) immigration, within the EU, and regarding EU countries, is uncontrolled. we have no european borders. regardless of our interests regarding employment, housing, wages, local school and hospital places, we can't stop people coming in regardless of the space or other vital considerations. the most important, or at least the second (behind "the economy"], issue in UK politics right now and has been for about a decade "immigration" because the EU has made chaos of our immigration figures. leaving the EU will bring stability and control regarding this very important issue. we are one of the most densely populated nations in the entire world - technically we're the *2nd* most densely populated western nation after belgium. it is time we *finally* sort out this immigration mess. it's not about who's coming (usually) - it's about how many of them are coming in. we want GOOD and SKILLED immigrants, but because of the EU, we can't discriminate between good and bad/unskilled immigrants.
    Firstly EU immigrants are a net benefit to UK, Secondly with regards to population density, EU is roughly neutral with regards to immigration about 2.2 million British people live in EU; about 2.3 million EU citizens (exc. UK) live in UK.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    3) if you believe in democracy, you will see significance in the issue of how we are under a proxy policy of control from the unelected european commission. for example, when do you remember having a say on the election of "lord hill", or "baroness cathy ashton"? the line of power is *incredibly* remote; the UK elects MPs; MPs elect the PM; the PM appoints the commissioner and the commissioners elect the head of the commission. that's not democratic, that's *bureaucratic*. and before I'm told "the EU parliament is elected": 1) the EU parliament is relatively powerless; it has no power to introduce or amend legislation, and has no powers to propose appointees to positions/offices. it can simply say "yes" or "no" which is, for its role, an uncritical rubber stamp position, and 2) the UK makes up something like a tenth of representatives - we get a 10% say, currently, in this rubber stamp chamber. if we left the EU, the UK parliament would give us 100% say on the issues we've given away to the EU. 100%>10%. more democracy is better than less. more localism is better than remote rulership. the ECJ is also, under the EECA1972 sovereign over our own "supreme" court. the UK people ought to be as close as possible to the laws that are allocated to them. there should be legal representation along with legal responsibility. what's worse is that I am fairly sure that we have the WEAKEST parliament in the world concerning "democracies" (the EU parliament, I mean). what parliament other than the EU parliament has no power to propose or amend legislation? they could have made the EU parliament democratic from day one and they STILL haven't.
    1. Which laws instituted by EU, would UK not have enacted?
    2. You could say same thing about being ruled by London; why not set rulership to as far as your eye can see and have direct democracy among limited people? Larger blocks, provides much larger influence, more economic opportunity and is the way of future.
    3. Yes EU could do with more democratic process, but frankly given its limited jurisdiction - its fine.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    4) the EU is a stagnating trade union. it is the only trade bloc in the world that is. the EU is holding us back. if we make free trade deals with all the countries that the EU doesn't., we will do better economically. also, it costs £40 million a day to stay in this declining trade union too. and we get practically nothing in return, materially. because we are a rich country of the union - the money is going to the poorer countries. this is what the idea of union is all about. why should we give away our money (and our world power, on another note) to these countries? why should we be held down into these trade deals which impose illiberal tariffs onto other countries when we could free-trade and gain from it (basic economics!)? I wish I could merely call it a "trade union" like it was in 1972 but it's not. it's a supranational confederate (semi-federal) political union with a flag, an anthem, a currency (for most) and its own leaders.
    1. I'm not sure where the idea that EU is 'stagnating' came from; its GDP grew by 0.4% compared to 0.5% in UK. Its growing slowly but it is growing.
    2. You missed the investment of £4 billion EU directly makes; driving down that cost to £8.5 billion a year (£23 million a day) - 1.1% of UK budget. In return we get influence in the EU, we get free trade with largest trading block resulting investment for that purpose, and say in shaping European policy. I'd say that is a worth the cost.
    I don't particularly care about world power thing, true or otherwise - what I do care about is free trade and economic impact - being part of larger group is important for that.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.