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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Then that is not the basis for a debate, which is what you are trying to engage in. You are also claiming that there can be rationality in these decisions, but you're now saying that rationality doesn't matter - no one has to prove anything.
    You are not debating anything with me to be very honest. What I stated to you are all facts and philosophical principle. If you read my replies I am simply demonstrating the logic and philosophy of decision making. You cannot prove the future, this is a fact. There is no 'burden of prove' for both sides, no one is required to explain to you their decision just because you ask for it. It is also your judgement that there is less 'burden of prove' for the Remain side. I must repeat, they really are your personal expectations and you must accept this. Unless you can demonstrate that everyone is legally required to explain their positions, or that Leave voters are more legally required to provide 'prove' then they are your expectations.

    I claimed that personal judgement is required in this referendum which is natural because as I said the future cannot be proven but only interpreted.

    'Simon' (who does not exist) was used to prove a philosophical example, but you keep focusing on him using 1 set of data for clarity's sake. This is like complaining about Santa or the Tooth Fairy when they really do not exist.

    I think you may be looking into things I have never stated nor implied, or just trying to find a bone to pick with. There is no need to argue about something when there isn't an argument to start with.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I'm not sure where you are getting this from. The 12-starred flag dates from the time when there were actually 12 member states (1986). The 12 stars also appear on the coins and bank notes of the eurozone states. I don't see how this can have been an aim of the 2004 Constitution when the symbols obviously pre-date that treaty.

    This article tells how it was first designed in 1955 and adopted by the EEC in 1985:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Europe
    My point is not that the claims of EU supporters are honest or in accordance with reality; quite the contrary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    There are few assumptions in your question. The main one is that import/export would remain the same. Another significant assumption is that tariffs would be balanced. Let's say that is the case, and that, magically more money flows into government coffers.
    Yes and this also applies the other way - substitution of UK exports to the EU by internal consumption and exports to non-EU states will also reduce the tariffs paid to the EU.

    This seems like a win, doesn't it?

    How about this: if we face tariffs exporting to the EU then UK manufacturers/service providers will find it more difficult to compete. If there are tariffs on imports then importers will have higher costs, and those costs will be passed on to consumers (it doesn't seem likely that UK production of goods will become suddenly cheaper).

    Oh, and of course there is more paperwork, and that costs money too.

    These two entities aren't arms of government, and I think it is unlikely that they are going to get any real benefit from government receiving more in tariffs.
    I am not arguing that trade wars are good. I am saying that tariffs paid to the UK exchequer counterbalance the costs you identified, costs it seems you were planning to double count. Increasing the funding of the UK government does benefit people within the UK; not necessarily the same people, but that is beside the point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This just such nonsense. Germany believed that it had territorial claims on these areas, stemming from the settlement in the Treaty of Versailles (which the Germans obviously did not like).

    The origins of the ECSC is that, at that time (immediately after the second world war), coal and steel were national security issues, and it was important to see those industries recover and secure investment. Anything else you make of it is just an after the fact conspiracy theory.
    The ECSC was first attempted after the First World War:

    Name:  ecscfoundation.jpeg
Views: 24
Size:  18.6 KB

    Click on image to see - source: http://www.let.uu.nl/~Arend-Jan.Boek...ntegration.pdf

    The German occupation of N.France, Netherlands and Belgium meant that the coal and steel industry was integrated into the German Steel Konzern (Konzerns were vertically integrated, state licensed industrial combines - a modified form of this idea still exists widely in Continental Europe). Post WWII the plans for an ECSC were re-instated and much easier, thanks to the unification during the war which ensured interoperation between the various components in the 5 countries involved. Jean Monnet was appointed by the Allies (USA ) to oversee the project, it being central to the Marshal Plan. The Marshall Plan had the creation of a customs union amongst recipients as a precondition of aid (The Act of Congress sanctioning the Marshall Plan specified that aid was contingent on fulfilling the recommendations of the CEEC report - the blueprint for Marshall Plan Aid See
    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...iew=1up;seq=44 and
    See US Foreign Assistance Act 1948 (p. 151). The CEEC was the forerunner of the OECD).

    None of this is conspiracy theory, its history.
    .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You really need a history lesson, or two. The Nazis were a German nationalist movement, born out of dissatisfaction of the territorial losses and reparations imposed on Germany from its defeat in the First World War (encoded in the Treaty of Versailles). Although there were other fascist movements in Europe there were no Nazi offshoots taking control across the continent (I'm sure there were individuals across Europe who had shared ideas about the "Aryan" people).

    The reason the Second World War started was due to Germany making those territorial claims real in invading Northern Czechoslovakia and then Poland. By the time the UK declared war Hitler was well on his way to invading Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg and dodging the Maginot Line into France.
    National Socialism had spread across Europe and the world, the Germans, Italians, Japanese, Spanish, Yugoslavs (at first), Vichy French, Bulgarians, Austrians, Argentines were all National Socialists by choice. Hitler greatly admires Mussolini in "Mein Kampf" for having founded the idea.

    The focus in the Cold War on WWII being solely a German problem was because Germany was the pre-eminent military power in the Axis and because the Allies were petrified that the other ex-Axis States would become communist so invented the myth that they had not been the enemy.

    How an idea that gave rise to an attempt at world hegemony has come to be taught as "Nationalism" must be a puzzle to you. However, do remember that it was a few Nation States who refused to surrender that defeated the Axis plan for world domination.

    BTW, Britain declared war on 3rd Sept 1939 and the German invasion in the West of Europe did not happen until 10th May 1940.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them
    As if, prior to the EU, there was no equality, fairness, or freedom, for the people of the UK, and populations outside the EU live in the dark ages :mmm:

    yes refugees will become EU citizens
    ..and then be free to come as and when. We, the people of this country, feel that we have more than enough Third world/Muslim migrants as it is

    On the eurozone: The Eurozone will succeed when it achieves political union and shares out the wealth fairly and is about to enter Stage 2 of political union
    1) The Eurozone will stack when French/Italian banking crisis hits and/or South European nations rise up and revolt against crippling austerity

    2) We will never be part of any such political union

    3) The North Euroepan nations (Germany, in particular) will never share out the wealth with nations they hold in utter contempt (unfortunately many think of the Greeks as corrupt, lazy, and wasteful peasants)

    On defence: We need to be part of the EU so that we can stand up to the large countries such as Russia and guarantee the Baltic, Balkans and Ukraine
    Hell no. The EU is a major part of the problem regarding the Ukrainian conflict. You lack depth and impartiality in your understanding of complex matters of international relations and strategy

    The EU Defence force is already being formed
    Which should be of grave concern to everyone. When was the last time Europeans tried to unite the continent under one flag? Clue: middle of the 20th century. And how did that work out? :rolleyes:

    On defence: Dont worry, the UK will never let the EU have an EU army
    The UK can't stop it, and it can scarcely stop its own armed forces being 'harmonised' and being sucked into 'progressive common defence policy'

    The average Remain supporter has self contradictory arguments
    Correct

    Are they hoping to catch people out and make them vote for the EU when they do not really want to? How creepy
    Yup, through a combination of #ProjectFear and #StatusQuo apathy/myopia. They're absolute scoundrels/muppets (delete as appropriate)

    For the other (cogent, referenced) side of the debate, see this thread
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Can you show us where this aim is laid-out, in EU legislation?
    I couldn't give you the specific article, but it's certainly in the spirit of the Maastricht treaty. It has also been widely heralded amongst other leaders of EU countries, notably Angela Merkel, who said:

    “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy..... And we need most of all a political union – that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control,"

    Further, the fact that we've been granted an opt-out to 'ever closer union' makes pretty obvious that ever closer union is on the agenda for the rest of the EU.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    It is mostly the same people. The reason they aren't out there shouting about it is that there would be a huge outcry. You can see Farage playing the game on this issue, telling the "Commonwealth" immigrants that the EU is unfair on them and their families because they find it hard to get visas, while EU citizens just come here as they like.

    I've seen "Commonwealth" immigrants on the TV complaining about EU immigrants. When the host says, "but surely they are in the same position as you and your family?" the former says "No, we came here to work!".

    What do the EU immigrants supposedly coming here stealing our jobs come here to do!? They can't be not working and stealing our jobs can they?
    But I think you're conflating two different issues. By and large, I don't think people have a problem with EU migrants coming to Britain, getting jobs and working. I could be wrong, but it's not something I've come across. The issue people raise is that because these people are from countries where pay is so much lower, they are willing to work for lower wages when they come to Britain - very often illegally low wages. This puts downwards pressure on the wages paid for low-skilled work.

    But this isn't even the main issue people have with the EU, I don't think. I can certainly say that my desire to leave has nothing to do with some Polish immigrants working in a factory. My desire to leave is based on two factors:

    1) It has been made fairly clear that further EU integration is on the agenda. Britain's opt-out means that we will be on the periphery of this integration, and so there will come a point where we have an EU-bloc formed from the continental countries, and Britain. Britain will then be politically dominated by this bloc, which will inevitably be to our detriment. You could make the argument that Britain would be better off inside an EU-bloc than independant (I personally disagree, but I can understand why someone would support such an arrangement), but there is no way that a Britain on the outskirts of such a bloc will be a success. We'll still be held accountable to all the EU legislation, but have almost no power to influence it. The opt-out of further union is pretty much the worst of both worlds.

    2) There are a whole host of disasters sweeping the EU, which will hit home in the next decade or so, which currently have no solution in the offing. The migrant crisis is going to cause chaos, a rising tide of left and right wing populists are sweeping Europe, the Greece problem is being swept under the rug without any attempt to solve it and the Mediterranean and French economies are teetering. Add to this an EU political class which is completely out of touch with the sentiment on the ground, and I don't think it's pessimistic to say that the EU will be rocked by more disasters over the coming decade or two. So I think we should leave now, whilst we can avoid the worst of it. We're one of two properly functioning economies in the EU, and I don't want to be dragged into the muck with those countries who don't function so effectively .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    My point is not that the claims of EU supporters are honest or in accordance with reality; quite the contrary.
    Then please show some references that show that we were all lied to about the flag. That was your point, right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You are not debating anything with me to be very honest…
    I believe that your original point was that people can make rational decisions, and that those decisions can be made on limited data points. My point is that, in those cases, those probably are not rational decisions, they are guesses.

    This is what we are debating. If you don't understand that point, then please say so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yes and this also applies the other way - substitution of UK exports to the EU by internal consumption and exports to non-EU states will also reduce the tariffs paid to the EU.
    Exports elsewhere are just tariffs paid elsewhere.

    I am not arguing that trade wars are good. I am saying that tariffs paid to the UK exchequer counterbalance the costs you identified, costs it seems you were planning to double count. Increasing the funding of the UK government does benefit people within the UK; not necessarily the same people, but that is beside the point.
    I'm not double counting, I am indicating that a lot of costs start accruing - something that you don't seem to be disputing.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I can't even be arsed to prod at your straw man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I can't even be arsed to prod at your straw man.
    Please don't be "arsed"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The German occupation of N.France, Netherlands and Belgium meant that the coal and steel industry was integrated into the German Steel Konzern…
    This is not a cooperative effort by independent states to work together to build security for their industries, this is Germany invading those countries and organising those industries to serve its war efforts.

    I'm not really sure how you can conflate the ECSC with Germany's invasion of its neighbours and the confiscation of their industrial assets.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    National Socialism had spread across Europe and the world, the Germans, Italians, Japanese, Spanish, Yugoslavs (at first), Vichy French, Bulgarians, Austrians, Argentines were all National Socialists by choice. Hitler greatly admires Mussolini in "Mein Kampf" for having founded the idea.
    You are not indicating "National Socialism", you are indicating fascism. There is no linking organisation between these states, they just shared an ideology. I'm not sure Japan even shared that, they just wanted an empire, and had been engaged in disputes with China and Russia for an extended period.

    The focus in the Cold War on WWII being solely a German problem was because Germany was the pre-eminent military power in the Axis and because the Allies were petrified that the other ex-Axis States would become communist so invented the myth that they had not been the enemy.
    I don't think anyone was particularly concerned with attributing blame after the Second World War - the focus was on securing peace. Look at the clear difference between what happened at Versailles and the development aid that went into Germany post 1945.

    BTW, Britain declared war on 3rd Sept 1939 and the German invasion in the West of Europe did not happen until 10th May 1940.
    Um, Czechoslovakia was invaded by Germany in March 1939, with annexation of the Sudetenland the previous year, Poland was invaded 1 September 1939. The latter act led directly to the UK declaring war on Germany.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I couldn't give you the specific article, but it's certainly in the spirit of the Maastricht treaty.
    Right, so you cannot provide any references for your assertion.

    It has also been widely heralded amongst other leaders of EU countries, notably Angela Merkel, who said:

    “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy..... And we need most of all a political union – that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control,"
    I think it is obvious that there needs to be tighter cooperation between states that are using the same currency. This is something all of those states have agreed to. However, Angela Merkel (in an unreferenced, partial quote) does not speak for the entire EU.

    Further, the fact that we've been granted an opt-out to 'ever closer union' makes pretty obvious that ever closer union is on the agenda for the rest of the EU.
    The bit of text you are searching for is this:

    the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen
    I'm sure it can be read in different ways, but it certainly doesn't say "Ever closer union between the governments of Europe" or "Elimination of the nation states of Europe".

    You can read some information about this statement here:

    https://fullfact.org/europe/explaini...-closer-union/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    But I think you're conflating two different issues. By and large, I don't think people have a problem with EU migrants coming to Britain, getting jobs and working. I could be wrong, but it's not something I've come across. The issue people raise is that because these people are from countries where pay is so much lower, they are willing to work for lower wages when they come to Britain - very often illegally low wages. This puts downwards pressure on the wages paid for low-skilled work.
    Illegally low wages are illegal. That is not really an argument about immigration, it is an argument about UK enforcement of labour laws. And, I think you are wrong about people's focus on this issue. Look at the poll information on this page:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...oll-referendum

    Something like 55% of people are saying the immigration is one of the most important issues affecting the UK (and it is the top ranking issue). IPSOS MORI says that the issue is not so important, but still 27% say this is the issue that will sway them (I think this is "single" issue):

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...eferendum.aspx

    But this isn't even the main issue people have with the EU, I don't think. I can certainly say that my desire to leave has nothing to do with some Polish immigrants working in a factory.
    I think you may be the exception, all I seem to see on the news is people going on about immigration all the time.

    My desire to leave is based on two factors:

    1) It has been made fairly clear that further EU integration is on the agenda. Britain's opt-out means that we will be on the periphery of this integration, and so there will come a point where we have an EU-bloc formed from the continental countries, and Britain. Britain will then be politically dominated by this bloc, which will inevitably be to our detriment. You could make the argument that Britain would be better off inside an EU-bloc than independant (I personally disagree, but I can understand why someone would support such an arrangement), but there is no way that a Britain on the outskirts of such a bloc will be a success. We'll still be held accountable to all the EU legislation, but have almost no power to influence it. The opt-out of further union is pretty much the worst of both worlds.
    I don't really know what you mean by "integration" - what you might mean will be interpreted as different things by different people. However, I think the problem with this argument is that you are focusing on things in the future which may or may not happen, and which also may trigger another referendum. While I think it is reasonable to think about such things, I do believe that there is too much focus on such issues.

    What the referendum is about is deciding whether the UK wants to be a member of the EU today, knowing what we know of it and how definite treaty obligations in place will change it. ie we know that most member states are committed to joining the eurozone at some point. What we don't know is if they will ever meet the criteria, or in fact whether future treaty changes will remove that obligation.

    Let's say they all do meet the criteria - it might take 20 or 30 years to get to that stage.

    2) There are a whole host of disasters sweeping the EU, which will hit home in the next decade or so, which currently have no solution in the offing. The migrant crisis is going to cause chaos, a rising tide of left and right wing populists are sweeping Europe, the Greece problem is being swept under the rug without any attempt to solve it and the Mediterranean and French economies are teetering. Add to this an EU political class which is completely out of touch with the sentiment on the ground, and I don't think it's pessimistic to say that the EU will be rocked by more disasters over the coming decade or two. So I think we should leave now, whilst we can avoid the worst of it. We're one of two properly functioning economies in the EU, and I don't want to be dragged into the muck with those countries who don't function so effectively .
    I think this is somewhat short-sighted in many ways. The most obvious of these is that even if the UK were not a member of the EU we can't actually detach ourselves from Europe and sail off into the North Atlantic. Members or not, if there are external migrant issues in Europe then these probably have to be solved on a Europe-wide scale. We can see this now, with people managing to get across the channel from mainland Europe even though we supposedly have border controls. Trying to avoid these issues just makes them worse - a concerted European effort is required, not a piecemeal, state-by-state approach.

    There are always political movements - the idea is to try to take their power away with national government policy. That's effectively why we are having a referendum - the Conservative party is trying to de-claw UKIP.

    I disagree that the problem of Greece is being swept under the carpet. The bigger issue that you are missing is that Greece is in debt because Greece spent a lot of money it did not have. If Greece were not in the eurozone, and the Greek people have voted on this issue, its economy would be unstable for years, probably decades. They would have extremely high inflation and a constantly devaluing currency, and the Greek people know what that is like because they have suffered it in the past.

    The position of Greece in the eurozone is not ideal, but it is far from the worst outcome.

    The same is more or less true for Italy, Spain and Portugal - these economies would be very unstable without the benefit of the euro. You might want to wish that on those states, but I'm pretty sure that sentiment is not shared In Rome, Madrid or Lisbon.

    As previously, we cannot fully decouple from these issues, I'm not sure we can even partially decouple.

    Personally I believe that the time effort and money the UK puts into the EU is well worth the price if it establishes economic stability across the member states - and that is what it appears to be doing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Then please show some references that show that we were all lied to about the flag. That was your point, right?
    My reference is my recollection of the debate. Finding archived news articles is difficult and time consuming, and this is not an academic discussion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Exports elsewhere are just tariffs paid elsewhere.



    I'm not double counting, I am indicating that a lot of costs start accruing - something that you don't seem to be disputing.
    You said that the costs were at least equal to the tariffs levied on British goods exported to the EU; this is false, they are at most equal to the tariffs levied on British goods exported to the EU. At least, in your own logical framework.



    Actually you are more wrong than that because tariffs are not taxes levied on exporters, they are sales taxes levied by a country on its own citizens. Tariffs on British goods will be paid by EU consumers, not British companies (although the converse is also true - tariffs on EU goods will be paid by British consumers, not EU companies).

    The real cost of leaving the EU to British companies is the lost business due to their goods being made artificially more expensive in the EU minus the profits on the next-best alternative business they can do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    My reference is my recollection of the debate. Finding archived news articles is difficult and time consuming, and this is not an academic discussion.
    No, it is a discussion about facts, and you aren't presenting any. Your claim was that the flag was to be adopted as part of the 2004 Constitution, and that in the face of opposition we were told that the flag wouldn't be adopted - but that was a lie and it still was.

    I have shown that your recollection has little merit, because the 12 stars are on euro coinage and banknotes, which date from, at the latest, 2002 - the banknotes also have the flag. I also gave you a reference that the flag was adopted, by a motion from the European Parliament, in 1985. Which, again, brings into doubt your recollection, or what you were paying attention to.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.