Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    It is. I saw an opinion poll on the BBC (actually on Newsnight about the time of the French rejecting the constitution) that said that over 75% of the British people would be overjoyed or pleased/not really care if the EU collapsed tommorrow. That's the highest in Europe.
    Surely there is a difference between "wanting to withdraw from the EU" and being "overjoyed or pleased/not really (caring) if the EU collapsed tomorrow"? The former would mean the UK specifically not being a part of a large union (hence certain isolation etc) whereas the latter would mean that the UK would be in the same boat as every other current member state, as after all there wouldn't be an EU to be isolated from.

    I think this difference is confirmed by the fact that even if "over 75% of the British people would be overjoyed or pleased/not really care if the EU collapsed tommorrow" (a link would be nice ), 75% of the British people didn't vote for UKIP, a true way of measuring whether the withdrawl from the EU is a genuinely "popular" idea or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Surely there is a difference between "wanting to withdraw from the EU" and being "overjoyed or pleased/not really (caring) if the EU collapsed tomorrow"? The former would mean the UK specifically not being a part of a large union (hence certain isolation etc) whereas the latter would mean that the UK would be in the same boat as every other current member state, as after all there wouldn't be an EU to be isolated from.

    I think this difference is confirmed by the fact that even if "over 75% of the British people would be overjoyed or pleased/not really care if the EU collapsed tommorrow" (a link would be nice ), 75% of the British people didn't vote for UKIP, a true way of measuring whether the withdrawl from the EU is a genuinely "popular" idea or not.
    I'll see if I can find a link, but it was a few months ago and on TV. And the turn out at European elections is absymal. If you are talking about General Elections, people mostly vote on whether they percieve themselves as being safe on the streets, whether the businesses in the street are closing and whether they feel that taxes are fair enough. They tend not to vote on Europe. And I fail to see why we would be isolated if we broke with the EU. There are plenty of other countries outside of it, and not being in the EU doesn't mean that we can't have free trade within Europe. Money talks louder than politics. And if 75% people would be pleased to see the EU gone, surely that means that in a referendum on Europe they would vote not to be part of the EU?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You're right that the turn out to the European elections was abysmal, so surely if withdrawl from (note: 'withdrawl from', not 'discontent for') the EU was such a popular notion in the UK, people would have bothered to turn out, and would have voted much more resoundingly for UKIP. I believe that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if an electorate was so against membership of the EU, they would have taken the opportunity to express these sentiments.

    Moving on to your question "if 75% people would be pleased to see the EU gone, surely that means that in a referendum on Europe they would vote not to be part of the EU?", well, I don't necessarily think so - it's a case of two different questions due to the fact that the EU not existing whatsoever, and the EU existing but the UK not being part of it, are two different scenarios.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would say the liberal democratic model is a long way from a democratic ideal. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst of all systems except all the others we've tried before. The problem is with the poor excuses for actual democratic systems that are currently maintaining, as you correctly asserted, oligarchies, in the world's most powerful countries.

    In my personal opinion, democracy should be a question not of who rules but of what is done - it should be a process of constant participation and what should be elected are ideas and policies, not people. Democracy should not be the legitimisation of absolute power, nor should it involve the consolidation of all decisions into a single non-decision. Everyone over the age of sixteen should be able to vote and withdraw or change their vote at any time, on a variety of issues. Democracy should transcend national borders, meaning some decisions being taken globally, in line with subsidiarity, with regard to things like multi-national corporations, air traffic and climate change. To be able to vote on certain issues should require a degree of knowledge of the issue - children should be educated in policy decisions and the facts affecting them from the age of 11 to 16, something far more important than, for example, Pythagoras' theorem, the poetry of Carol Ann Duffy or the history of rock and roll. For democracy to work, apathy must be almost entirely eradicated - a goal that can only be achieved by increasing the meaningfulness of participation - the current oligarchs have no right to complain about political apathy, for it is they who maintain the status quo in which participation is meaningless. Democracy is an ideal that is unobservable, as far as I am aware, in the world today - but that does not mean it is simply an oligarchy, it remains the rule of the people - it is just unachieved.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.