Submit your EU reform plans here :

Watch
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Give us 128 seats in the Eu parliament instead of 73, giving us the most voting power.

Allow us to control immigration to who we want.

Allow us to deport unemployed migrants and those on benefits.

Cap EU contributions to 250 million a year from Britain.

Lower tax and vat on our exports.

Exempt us from EU Green energy laws.

Exempt us from Eu fishing and agriculture laws.

Allow Britain to trade with who we want exempt of EU laws and taxes

Leave the EU court of human rights.


or we leave
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by democracyforum)
Give us 128 seats in the Eu parliament instead of 73, giving us the most voting power.
Why? Our population doesn't warrant such an increase.

Allow us to control immigration to who we want.
I'd rather have freedom of movement within the EU than by into the waves of immigrants myths.

Allow us to deport unemployed migrants and those on benefits.
If I remember correctly, there is a time-limit in which they have to, but I can't remember the details.

Cap EU contributions to 250 million a year from Britain.
That is unacceptably low, and is not justifiable. As one of the largest economies, we have to pay our share. Where did you pluck this figure from?

Lower tax and vat on our exports.
Might actually be a reasonable idea.

Exempt us from EU Green energy laws.
I'd rather not. The EU's record on handling climate change is pretty good, and as it's an issue that transcends national borders, it's far more effective to do it through the EU.

Exempt us from Eu fishing and agriculture laws.
I'm in favour of seeking individual opt-outs to objectionable items, but withdrawing from the whole thing is just daft.

Allow Britain to trade with who we want exempt of EU laws and taxes
No, because that undermines one of the fundamental parts of the EU. If that's what we truly want to do, then we should leave. It's an unreasonable demand to expect the EU to accept such a thing.

Leave the EU court of human rights.
That's not part of the EU. and no, I support the ECHR.

or we leave
I'd probably vote to stay given how many of your demands are unreasonable.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
What you are asking for here is to leave. A reformation would affect every nation in the EU. Such as no EU parliament, only a trade summit to discuss cross-border trade deals and peace treaties. The body would not require elected representatives, the prime ministers will attend, and no laws will be set to remove state sovereignty.

That's better. No more bureaucracy.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
I think this pretty much sums up the rationale of those who want to leave...

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by HigherMinion)
What you are asking for here is to leave. A reformation would affect every nation in the EU. Such as no EU parliament, only a trade summit to discuss cross-border trade deals and peace treaties. The body would not require elected representatives, the prime ministers will attend, and no laws will be set to remove state sovereignty.

That's better. No more bureaucracy.
But it has to be recognised it wouldn't be doing the same stuff as the EU currently does, and arguably would be a lousier deal. One of the reasons why the EU has the powers it has is to produce something far more than a simple trading bloc; it's seeking a level trading playing field, so that a competitive London company will not find itself blocked by, say, Italian laws, seeking to protect their own inefficient, uncompetitive industries.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by gladders)
But it has to be recognised it wouldn't be doing the same stuff as the EU currently does, and arguably would be a lousier deal. One of the reasons why the EU has the powers it has is to produce something far more than a simple trading bloc; it's seeking a level trading playing field, so that a competitive London company will not find itself blocked by, say, Italian laws, seeking to protect their own inefficient, uncompetitive industries.
And if an Italian company wishes not to trade with us for national interest that is absolutely fine. Why do you condone the removal of a people's right of association?

A simple trading bloc is all we need between nations with an opt in for private businesses.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by HigherMinion)
And if an Italian company wishes not to trade with us for national interest that is absolutely fine. Why do you condone the removal of a people's right of association?
Well, this is the thing, why should inefficient industries be permitted to linger, as it could be at the cost of the customers in Italy? Most capitalists argue that competition breeds improvement, after all.

A simple trading bloc is all we need between nations with an opt in for private businesses.
I'd dispute that, myself, but there you go.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by gladders)
Well, this is the thing, why should inefficient industries be permitted to linger, as it could be at the cost of the customers in Italy? Most capitalists argue that competition breeds improvement, after all.



I'd dispute that, myself, but there you go.
A good capitalist and libertarian would understand that you cannot force anyone to cooperate when they choose not to. This is the crux of the problem with the EU and I'm afraid if those traditional chaps in Italy don't see the benefits of trading with other countries, they will likely collapse anyway: their products will be overpriced and their reach will be limited. Do you see?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by HigherMinion)
A good capitalist and libertarian would understand that you cannot force anyone to cooperate when they choose not to. This is the crux of the problem with the EU and I'm afraid if those traditional chaps in Italy don't see the benefits of trading with other countries,
Of course you can force someone if they choose not to; what's what laws and regulations are all about. And even a night-watchman libertarian accepts the need for regulations to level the playing field and ensure competition is as genuine as possible. I can acknowlede a claim that perhaps the EU regulates too much over too broad an area, but I find the objection to its principle baffling.

they will likely collapse anyway: their products will be overpriced and their reach will be limited. Do you see?
No, as they are protected, insulated from competition by local laws.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Reduce the size of the EU parliament.
Require the Commission to be made up of elected MEP's.
Elect the president of the Commission or Parliament via a public vote.
Stop expansion into poor or Muslim countries beyond free trade conditional on not joining the Russian customs union.
Abolish the Common Agricultural Policy in terms of subsidies.
Abolish the Common Fisheries Policy.
Reduce the net contribution for richer states.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
Reduce the size of the EU parliament.
Require the Commission to be made up of elected MEP's.
Elect the president of the Commission or Parliament via a public vote.
Again, these are ideas I find objectionable for the opposite reason: the latter two in particular would arguably enhance the EU into more of a federal state. It would confer greater legitimacy upon them and have them insist more on being involved. It would cease to be an intergovernmental organisation and become something else.

That's entirely fine if a federal Europe is your desire, but as many eurosceptics are hostile to a federal Europe, I find proposals such as these to be own goals.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by gladders)
Again, these are ideas I find objectionable for the opposite reason: the latter two in particular would arguably enhance the EU into more of a federal state. It would confer greater legitimacy upon them and have them insist more on being involved. It would cease to be an intergovernmental organisation and become something else.

That's entirely fine if a federal Europe is your desire, but as many eurosceptics are hostile to a federal Europe, I find proposals such as these to be own goals.
Yes, exactly. While i'm not entirely certain the UK should remain in the EU, i fully support a federal Europe (for a number of reasons but the most relevant one today is that it solidifies Europe against Russia which may not be a military threat but it is attempting expansion).

One of the things they complain about is the democratic deficit, i don't think the public would take badly to such proposals.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
I can respect consistency
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
Require the Commission to be made up of elected MEP's.
Elect the president of the Commission or Parliament via a public vote.
Stop expansion into poor or Muslim countries beyond free trade conditional on not joining the Russian customs union.
Abolish the Common Agricultural Policy in terms of subsidies.
Abolish the Common Fisheries Policy.
.
I agree we with these but think that there should be improved proposals for CAP and CFP.

Stop the silly commuting fr Brussels to Luxembourg

Audit parties accounts and make it illegal for parties to receive support from countries hostile to the EU such as Russia which many of the euro sceptic parties do.

Common defence and foreign policy.

Closer fiscal integration

An EU constitution guaranteeing Roosevelt's four freedoms.
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#15
a few more reforms :


Have the EU Parliament based in London (or change it every year to a new country)

give seats based on contributions, not net population (so we get the most)

scrap the EU national anthem
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Reduce the size of the EU parliament.
Require the Commission to be made up of elected MEP's.
So we get rid of MEPs in the Parliament... only to then have new ones in what is effectively the EU's civil service?
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
  • Get rid of the CAP.
  • Get rid of the common fisheries policy..
  • Get rid of the EU trade tariffs.
  • Force it to apply financial standards to itself, so it can actually get its accounts signed off by the auditors for once.
  • Why do we give it so much money anyway? It just squanders huge amounts.
  • Get rid of a high percentage of EU bureaucrats. .
  • Just stop having so many silly, petty regulations. Especially those which have nothing to do with free trade. There are many businesses which would happily leave the EU just to avoid the red tape. For example, I'm not saying health and safety aren't important, but why the **** is it anything to do with the EU? Ditto energy, and so on.
  • Stop it meddling in the home affairs of member states in general.
  • Stop having common foreign and security policies.
  • Basically put an end to its political pretensions.

If the EU were genuinely just a free trade organisation, few would have a problem with it.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Davij038)
I agree we with these but think that there should be improved proposals for CAP and CFP.

Stop the silly commuting fr Brussels to Luxembourg

Audit parties accounts and make it illegal for parties to receive support from countries hostile to the EU such as Russia which many of the euro sceptic parties do.

Common defence and foreign policy.

Closer fiscal integration

An EU constitution guaranteeing Roosevelt's four freedoms.
The audit is a good idea.

All for a common armed forces but the UK must not be part of it.

(Original post by democracyforum)
a few more reforms :

Have the EU Parliament based in London (or change it every year to a new country)

give seats based on contributions, not net population (so we get the most)

scrap the EU national anthem
Changing it is a poor idea although you could argue for London.

Contributions could change significantly, if we keep it by population then we will be first in decades to come.

(Original post by InnerTemple)
So we get rid of MEPs in the Parliament... only to then have new ones in what is effectively the EU's civil service?
Each country appoints people to the commission in certain areas, there's no reason these can't be elected MEP's.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
no more free movement of people - or at least, there should be maximum numbers per year, and without benefits for the first 4~ years etc
like the other person said, the commission's president ought to be elected via a direct vote, and the commissioners themselves REALLY ought to be elected somehow too.
the EU parliament should have the power to propose and amend legislation, and to propose individuals to office if they're not directly elected
the extent of legislation towards us from the EU ought to be absolutely minimised - no more social laws.
0
reply
JohnPaul_
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
To say the EU is reformable is like saying super-volcano explosions can be tranquil.

The EU isn't reformable but it is collapsible, and it will collapse just like the Soviet Union did in 1991.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (104)
27.44%
England (128)
33.77%
Belgium (30)
7.92%
Germany (40)
10.55%
Spain (8)
2.11%
Italy (33)
8.71%
Netherlands (13)
3.43%
Other (Tell us who) (23)
6.07%

Watched Threads

View All