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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Look at how you have had to rearrange and embellish what you have written in order to clarify what you meant:



    There is no immediacy in:





    I accept that you meant something else, I do not accept that you wrote this. Therefore my point was a valid interpretation of what you wrote.
    I am afraid this is probably your problem in reading.

    ''The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.''

    is the same as

    ''The UK is free to join the EFTA, considering we meet the requirements there is immediate membership''.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Please go and take some Valium, I'm sure you will find it will help with your problem.
    This is the perfect example of your ability to debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I am afraid this is probably your problem in reading:
    What you left out is that you wrote this:

    (approval from parliament, submission of application, accepting EFTA terms)
    This knocks out your claim to immediacy.

    You are wrong on this, just have the grace to accept that (I understand that this may be the first time in your life that you have ever come across such an impudent statement).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    This is the perfect example of your ability to debate.
    Thank you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    What you left out is that you wrote this:



    This knocks out your claim to immediacy.

    You are wrong on this, just have the grace to accept that (I understand that this may be the first time in your life that you have ever come across such an impudent statement).
    I did say 'requirements'. To enter the EFTA, the parliament is required to approve this move, and also to meet conditions with the EFTA and submit our application. You and I know this very well. Instead of asking me to expand on the term you interpreted my statement in an incorrect way, when my sentence was correct in every way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I did say 'requirements'. To enter the EFTA, the parliament is required to approve this move, and also to meet conditions with the EFTA and submit our application. You and I know this very well. Instead of asking me to expand on the term you interpreted my statement in an incorrect way, when my sentence was correct in every way.
    There is no immediacy in what you wrote. There is a long and painful negotiation that may result in failure.

    I've offered you the opportunity to concede that point, you seem unwilling to take it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If you study my sentence, immediacy comes with the condition that 'we meet the requirements', hence the word 'considering' - meaning 'taking into consideration'.

    I will just quote my statement again for your reference, and hopefully anybody who sees this recognises this is such an easy-to-understand statement, interpreted wrongly by you in such an uneasy way:

    'The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.'


    Example:

    'Sam is free to join the Student Union, of which there is immediate membership considering he accepts the Union's terms and conditions.'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If you study my sentence, immediacy comes with the condition that 'we meet the requirements', hence the word 'considering' - meaning 'taking into consideration'.



    'Sam is free to join the Student Union, of which there is immediate membership considering he accepts the Union's terms and conditions.'
    Your problem is that your construction makes no sense. "Considering" in the British idiom means, in the sense you use it, "in light of" or "as has been established". Example:

    "I should win this race, considering I'm such a good runner!"

    Not:

    "I should win this race, considering that I might enter it, tie my laces up and drag myself over to the starting line."

    You didn't write:

    "The UK is free to join EFTA, of which there is immediate membership if the UK considers and accepts the membership criteria."

    You are just digging a bigger and deeper hole for yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Your problem is that your construction makes no sense. "Considering" in the British idiom means, in the sense you use it, "in light of" or "as has been established". Example:

    "I should win this race, considering I'm such a good runner!"

    Not:

    "I should win this race, considering that I might enter it, tie my laces up and drag myself over to the starting line."

    You didn't write:

    "The UK is free to join EFTA, of which there is immediate membership if the UK considers and accepts the membership criteria."

    You are just digging a bigger and deeper hole for yourself.
    'The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.'

    Considering = in consideration that

    'The UK is free to join the EFTA
    , of which there is immediate membership in consideration that we meet the requirements.'

    I really am surprised that you find this difficult to understand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I really am surprised that you find this difficult to understand.
    Yup, dat's wut I wos thunking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Yup, dat's wut I wos thunking.
    And you still have not quoted any evidence for your accusations.

    Are you withdrawing them or is 'Please go and take some Valium, I'm sure you will find it will help with your problem' your best response?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I am from Hong Kong. Leavers are idiots.
    There is quite good evidence that small western nations within a NATO umbrella do better than large nations.

    Thus, one could argue, that it would be best to split the UK up into small sub-states of about 5 to 10 million each and leave the EU (there is little or no real democracy in the EU - its either fascist super state or commi - no real say).

    Democracy works best when its quite likely that if you went into your local pub you might meet someone who is a government minister. For that to work you need very small nations (like Iceland) but 5 to 10 million is a good start...

    But ideally we should aim to go really small - eventually.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    There is quite good evidence that small western nations within a NATO umbrella do better than large nations.

    Thus, one could argue, that it would be best to split the UK up into small sub-states of about 5 to 10 million each and leave the EU (there is little or no real democracy in the EU - its either fascist super state or commi - no real say).

    Democracy works best when its quite likely that if you went into your local pub you might meet someone who is a government minister. For that to work you need very small nations (like Iceland) but 5 to 10 million is a good start...

    But ideally we should aim to go really small - eventually.
    We could get rid of all the self identified stupid people instead of splitting up the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    And you still have not quoted any evidence for your accusations.
    Sophistry: A+
    Comprehension: F
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    We could get rid of all the self identified stupid people instead of splitting up the UK.
    The problem with that is there would only be about 500 people left.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Thus, one could argue, that it would be best to split the UK up into small sub-states of about 5 to 10 million each and leave the EU (there is little or no real democracy in the EU - its either fascist super state or commi - no real say).
    It can't really be both, can it. There is quite good democracy within the EU, the only place someone in England can vote by proportional representation, for example. Better democracy has been curtailed by the Euro-sceptics.

    Democracy works best when its quite likely that if you went into your local pub you might meet someone who is a government minister. For that to work you need very small nations (like Iceland) but 5 to 10 million is a good start...

    But ideally we should aim to go really small - eventually.
    One thing the EU has tended to do is rid us of some nationalism, and bring to the fore regionalism. I think this works towards your aim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Sophistry: A+
    Comprehension: F
    So depressing insults and accusations are the best you can contribute to a debate, but this is fine. Considering it shows more about you than me, I forgive you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    It can't really be both, can it. There is quite good democracy within the EU, the only place someone in England can vote by proportional representation, for example. Better democracy has been curtailed by the Euro-sceptics.



    One thing the EU has tended to do is rid us of some nationalism, and bring to the fore regionalism. I think this works towards your aim.
    Not so , within the EU votes from TINY nations count miles and miles more than votes from large nations.


    people who live in the big nations UK, France, Germany and Italy, have no real democratic input into the EU.

    A citizen of IRELAND have MILES more say in the EU than an average Brit. MILES, its not even close.

    To vote for the EU is a vote for dictatorship
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Not so , within the EU votes from TINY nations count miles and miles more than votes from large nations.

    people who live in the big nations UK, France, Germany and Italy, have no real democratic input into the EU.

    A citizen of IRELAND have MILES more say in the EU than an average Brit. MILES, its not even close.

    To vote for the EU is a vote for dictatorship
    This is nonsense. Within the Council of Ministers the voting weight of each member state is exactly proportional to its population. In the European Parliament it is approximately proportional (I'm still trying to figure out how this is calculated - and if you know, please tell us all). The effect is that the largest nations get the largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament:

    Germany 99
    France 72
    Italy 72
    United Kingdom 72
    Poland 50
    Spain 50

    Ireland 11

    Cyprus 6
    Estonia 6
    Luxembourg 6
    Malta 5

    While it is true that the smallest countries are over-represented in the number of MEPs they have, the ten smallest still only have 87 MEPs in total. I don't know the exact reason for the over-representation, but one good reason I can think of is that it allows smaller states to still have a spread of views to represent its population - it would seem somewhat unfair for each of them to have perhaps one or two MEPs, which may not represent the pro- and anti-EU sentiments in the state.

    The EU is not a dictatorship. We get to vote for the MEPs, and the Council of Ministers is appointed by the national governments of each state (who are themselves democratically elected).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    …Germany 99
    France 72…
    Sorry, my previous post was wrong. I used the Nice formula for calculation and this has obviously been superseded by Lisbon.

    The maximum number of MEPs is 751. The maximum number any state can have is 96. The minimum any state can have is 6. Other than that the proportions of members is "degressively proportional" to the population of each state.

    I do not know the rationale for the maximum and minimum numbers, but I think what I have suggested above is a reasonable interpretation (there may be others).

    Here is the entire list of MEP allocation:

    Germany 96
    France 74
    UK 73
    Italy 73
    Spain 54
    Poland 51
    Romania 32
    Netherlands 26
    Belgium 21
    Czech Republic 21
    Greece 21
    Hungary 21
    Portugal 21
    Sweden 20
    Austria 18
    Bulgaria 17
    Finland 13
    Denmark 13
    Slovakia 13
    Croatia 11
    Ireland 11
    Lithuania 11
    Latvia 8
    Slovenia 8
    Cyprus 6
    Estonia 6
    Luxembourg 6
    Malta 6

    The majority in the European Parliament is 376, this can be established by the six biggest states represented (421 MEPs), the five biggest is only marginally short of half the votes (370). Although it is unlikely that, given the divergent interests of national MEPs, they would vote in national blocks anyway.

    To put is another way, the nine member states who formed the EEC when the UK joined in 1973 have 52% of the vote (393 MEPs) and the EU15 (prior to members joining from eastern Europe) have 72% of the vote (540 MEPs).

    The nine smallest countries combined have a vote equal to that of the UK (73 MEPs).

    So, while there is overrepresentation of the smallest states in the EU it is clear that overall control is with the largest states (in the European Parliament).

    As everyone should know, this is only part of the story of EU decision making, the other part is the Council of Ministers. As my post above, the vote weighting in the Council of Ministers is directly proportional to the population of the member state. The UK's weighting is just under 13%.

    Before anyone goes off on a tangent, the European Commission is not part of the decision making process in the EU, it is merely the civil service arm of the EU. It employs fewer people than the DVLA does in Swansea.
 
 
 
  • 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.