Turn on thread page Beta

EU referendum/Brexit 2016 watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the UK leave or remain in the EU
    In
    50.13%
    Wait and see what is negotiated
    5.26%
    Out
    44.61%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    As I'm sure we will be swamped by regular EU Referendum Polls and debates on the referendum I though (And Reluire kindly agreed) that they should be contained in a single thread. Taa Daa!

    The Question options explained:

    In: Remain a part of the EU regardless of what is negotiated.

    Wait and See: You have yet to make up your mind: Maybe you want to see what is (If anything) is negotiated, you're simply not quite sure or you want to see what happens in the following months.

    Out: Out of the EU regardless of what is negotiated.



    What is David Cameron Aiming for?

    In broad brush strokes he wants:
    1. 1: An opt-out on the core EU aim of "ever closer union" including boosting the sovereignty and powers of national parliaments, so groups of them can block proposed EU legislation
    2. 2: To safeguard the interests of the UK as a country and specifically of the City of London and other financial centres outside the eurozone
    3. 3: To curb internal EU immigration by cutting benefits
    4. 4: To make the EU more streamlined and competitive
    .

    Here is the BBC's analysis of the Arguments for and against leaving:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    > I am heavily against FTT (Financial Transactions Tax) and if it is to go ahead on an EU-wide scale I would vote out. It is hurtful to the UK economy as our financial sector is strategic.

    > I am heavily against new EU members from the East. It was a bad decision in the first place to extend in the early 2000s to countries considerably poorer. Although these countries are now almost similar, we shouldn't bend over backwards to give them benefit, there is no benefit to us therefore there shouldn't be a benefit for them. Entry requirements should be tweaked to roughly 75% of EU GDP per capita to even be considered. (Limit EU entry to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland for the next 20 years)

    > EU should be refocused onto the Economy and not Legislation. All these regulations standardisation is fine. It's beautiful. But the EU is now beginning to infringe onto business rights. EU has become a raging liberal.

    > EU should not be supreme. There should be penalties and incentives to join EU legislation, but by no means should it be enforced through "EU courts"

    > EU should decentralise even further - almost all EU agencies are in the Benelux area. Currently, only the Border agency (Frontex) is in Poland, Internal Market (Regulation liberalisation) Agency is in Spain and Banking & Police Colleges are in the UK. These are all pretty irrelevant, and should be more spread out. The EU Commission, being the heart of the EU, should be in the heart of Europe. The Parliament and Council should be relocated. To Rome and Warsaw, perhaps.

    > TTIP must go ahead. If it doesn't I'm not even interested in staying. All those Southern European and Eastern European countries which want to veto it should be kicked out immediately. I would then vote out and prefer the UK to make an independent free trade agreement with the US & Canada.

    > No migrant relocation. I'm just not interested. The UK is the most densely populated major economy in the EU, and we should not be receiving anyone. The burden should be on Sweden, Germany and France who are pressuring us to take in people we should not be taking in.

    > "Speeds" of Europe must be sorted out. This concept of the "two-speed" Europe where Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries head different ways should be standardised and made into appropriate legislation which does not hurt either side. It's unsustainable to have two widely different growth rates.

    > MEPs need a reform. The concept that an area of 90 000 Germans in Belgium has the same amount of MEPs as 1 000 000 people in London is frivolous, to say the least.

    > Sovereign states should have the right to decide on welfare regulation for foreigners. No one should be able to move to another country purely for the welfare, and no one who comes from a different country should be able to receive welfare if averaged over their time in the UK their earnings were below that of a neutral taxpayer (revenue from them equaled expenditure on them) which is about 25 500. Anyone below that shouldn't get unemployment benefits if they get unemployed etc.

    > The host country should not pay for foreigners who need welfare - the native country should do that. When a Pole gets unemployed in the UK, it should be Poland that pays the expense.

    > Free Movement of People should be about free visas, not literal free movement. Numbers should be controlled and people who commit crime should be deported. (I will also go against the general consensus here and say that current numbers are fine. (100k a year on average. most of immigration is from non-EU, take this into consideration: if we outlawed non-eu immigration, we would have negative migration)

    > CAP (Agriculture buffer stocks) should be abolished. They are infringing on free trade and drive up food costs. The 18th century rural Frenchmen should just accept that their trade is long irrelevant. The EU budget should be only used to run EU agencies and for policing (border) operations such as Italy now. It should also be used as a SWO and be there for a 'rainy day'. Regional Development funding should not be priority, it is not our responsibility to make sure rural Romania develops.

    Europe should be about a single market, free trade, regulation liberalisation/standardisation and solidarity. Not about supreme rule and irrelevant legislation.

    I will however go against the general anti-EU consensus that it should disband, or that free movement should be abolished or that students should pay foreign fees. I would call myself a "soft Eurosceptic", but not against the general idea of EU.

    TL;DR I am open to change, but in the current form I would vote out. (unless TTIP passes anyway then I may be more swayed towards in, despite the problems.)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm undecided presently, but feel Cameron is wasting huge amounts of time and money trying to 'renegotiate' what cannot and won't be changed. Getting all EU members to agree on giving the UK special privileges is not only practically impossible, but frankly unfair. It's not fair for us to take what we want from the EU and reject the rest while every other member of the EU is expected to play by the rules.

    It's simple as far as I'm concerned - we're either in or we're out. Negotiations are simply a waste of time and money.

    I do worry that the issue of EU membership is far too complex an issue for the general public as there's so much to consider and understand, but I guess naivety could be perceived as an advantage to both sides of the debate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    I'm undecided presently, but feel Cameron is wasting huge amounts of time and money trying to 'renegotiate' what cannot and won't be changed. Getting all EU members to agree on giving the UK special privileges is not only practically impossible, but frankly unfair. It's not fair for us to take what we want from the EU and reject the rest while every other member of the EU is expected to play by the rules.

    It's simple as far as I'm concerned - we're either in or we're out. Negotiations are simply a waste of time and money.

    I do worry that the issue of EU membership is far too complex an issue for the general public as there's so much to consider and understand, but I guess naivety could be perceived as an advantage to both sides of the debate.
    TBF to Cameron; and I'm often not-his reforms are moderate and achievable. The only detriment is time to implement which is inevitable in any democratic system.

    The referendum issue should(at least in theory) legitimisie the EU to the UK who have been frankly messed about on the issue (By Eurosceptic myths and by political cowardice (Blair said he would have a referendum and didnt, numerous politicians scared of the europhobic element of the media- IE the Express coming out and saying that the EU is banning Yoghurt or some such nonsense: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    > No migrant relocation. I'm just not interested. The UK is the most densely populated major economy in the EU, and we should not be receiving anyone. The burden should be on Sweden, Germany and France who are pressuring us to take in people we should not be taking in.
    That matter at least is settled, Cameron has Opted out of taking any and Germany has taken in 40000.

    I agree with most of your proposals.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    It's not fair for us to take what we want from the EU and reject the rest while every other member of the EU is expected to play by the rules.
    So we're at the mercy of the Germans?

    And why is Germany the only country to deport EU nationals who are unemployed for more than 6 months? Surely that's against EU rules? (it is)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Undecided however renegotiation's are unlikely to address any of my issues.

    I support a European federation.. but probably not with Britain in it. The problem i have is that Farage is both wrong and right.. he's wrong that we should rush out now.. but he's right that in hindsight if this were 1973 i would not have voted to join. Not only did we give up our brethren in the Anglosphere (hell, at one point Brits and Australians were joint citizens) but we will never be part of a European Federation. They are too unwilling on global affairs, too left leaning economically and move at a snails pace. The structure is a half measure entirely due to the vested interests of its architects. Germany wants more power but none of the cost and France craps itself at the thought of a European parliament under effective German control. Despite this though, the governments want ever closer integration but without what is necessary for it to function optimum. The democratic issues are due to the half measures, really you need the parliament to be sovereign and command the commission and council. Right now it's upside down.

    There are plenty of good and bad points to EU membership. I've copied my post from another thread..

    What i will say is that i'm undecided with a default of 'In' and that there are credible advantages and disadvantages to me..

    Advantages..

    More power when we speak as one in the world (granted getting 29 members to agree is difficult).
    Jobs and investment from global business wanting a European base - London regarded as the Financial capital of Europe
    Free movement of labour (at least 300 million of which is from rich countries that we should want it with, some question of whether it's a good idea with eastern Europe)
    ~15% of MEP's give us a relatively large say, if the Tories choose to leave the governing EPP that's their fault
    Carrot of EU membership has given countries an incentive to adopt western values and open market economies
    Prevents Russian expansion (Crimea and a small eastern region may go to Russia but the west has won the bulk of Ukraine)
    Protects workers rights (even i as a Tory don't entirely trust some of the talk about abolition of regulation, some of it screams of business over employee)

    Disadvantages..

    Common agricultural policy - The EU is a subsidy junky
    Net contribution
    Common Fisheries Policy - Our fish stocks in recent decades have been decimated and some countries don't even have coasts
    EU is beaurocratic and slow full of vested interests
    The EU has expanded into poor countries too quickly (granted it's hard to prevent Russian influence expanding if you don't).
    The EU is broadly too pacifist
    The EU becoming ever more federal will likely force us to eventually go all in or all out.

    Effects of coming out..

    Probable fiscal benefits due to abolition of subsidies and part of our contribution back
    Probably able to go out and get trade treaties quicker
    Potential for good regulation to be abolished by domestic governments
    Potential for immigration to be aggressively reduced (bad if you ask me)
    Lower jobs and investment as regulation diverges from business wanting a European base (more a case of lost future investment than business fleeing but potentially more freedom for British business wanting to export globally)
    Potential for closer relationships with our brethren in the Anglosphere

    ..

    I certainly think the EU should exist regardless of whether we are part of it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    QFA
    > I am heavily against FTT (Financial Transactions Tax) and if it is to go ahead on an EU-wide scale I would vote out. It is hurtful to the UK economy as our financial sector is strategic.

    Agreed. I'm against all EU taxation that has been proposed and would even like to abolish VAT.

    > I am heavily against new EU members from the East. It was a bad decision in the first place to extend in the early 2000s to countries considerably poorer. Although these countries are now almost similar, we shouldn't bend over backwards to give them benefit, there is no benefit to us therefore there shouldn't be a benefit for them. Entry requirements should be tweaked to roughly 75% of EU GDP per capita to even be considered. (Limit EU entry to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland for the next 20 years)

    Ideally i do think we should limit entry until these states are richer however geopolitical interests with Russia are also at play. I think we should allow them to join but keep immigration restrictions until they reach an appropriate GDP per capita threshold (i'd say $30k).

    > EU should be refocused onto the Economy and not Legislation. All these regulations standardisation is fine. It's beautiful. But the EU is now beginning to infringe onto business rights. EU has become a raging liberal.

    > EU should not be supreme. There should be penalties and incentives to join EU legislation, but by no means should it be enforced through "EU courts"

    Disagree.

    I think that there are good and bad areas to legislate on (the European Arrest Warrant should be default rather than opt in for example) and i think these rules should be enforced (what's the point in having a single market if not) however i do agree with your probable wider point that it also puts out a load of crap.


    > EU should decentralise even further - almost all EU agencies are in the Benelux area. Currently, only the Border agency (Frontex) is in Poland, Internal Market (Regulation liberalisation) Agency is in Spain and Banking & Police Colleges are in the UK. These are all pretty irrelevant, and should be more spread out. The EU Commission, being the heart of the EU, should be in the heart of Europe. The Parliament and Council should be relocated. To Rome and Warsaw, perhaps.

    Meh.

    > TTIP must go ahead. If it doesn't I'm not even interested in staying. All those Southern European and Eastern European countries which want to veto it should be kicked out immediately. I would then vote out and prefer the UK to make an independent free trade agreement with the US & Canada.

    Agreed. It's actually France that's a big opponent though. The EU is i believe negotiating a separate deal with Canada.

    > No migrant relocation. I'm just not interested. The UK is the most densely populated major economy in the EU, and we should not be receiving anyone. The burden should be on Sweden, Germany and France who are pressuring us to take in people we should not be taking in.

    Agreed. I'm not so bothered about population density (the UK is hardly brimming outside a few cities) however i see nothing for us to be gained in taking in the third world.

    > "Speeds" of Europe must be sorted out. This concept of the "two-speed" Europe where Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries head different ways should be standardised and made into appropriate legislation which does not hurt either side. It's unsustainable to have two widely different growth rates.

    Not a chance. All new EU members are obligated to join the Euro. The growth rates actually vary significantly within EU and Euro-zone member groups.

    > MEPs need a reform. The concept that an area of 90 000 Germans in Belgium has the same amount of MEPs as 1 000 000 people in London is frivolous, to say the least.

    I think it's supposed to average out by country by population. By 2030, the UK will have the most MEP's.

    > Sovereign states should have the right to decide on welfare regulation for foreigners. No one should be able to move to another country purely for the welfare, and no one who comes from a different country should be able to receive welfare if averaged over their time in the UK their earnings were below that of a neutral taxpayer (revenue from them equaled expenditure on them) which is about 25 500. Anyone below that shouldn't get unemployment benefits if they get unemployed etc.

    > The host country should not pay for foreigners who need welfare - the native country should do that. When a Pole gets unemployed in the UK, it should be Poland that pays the expense.

    Reasonable.

    > Free Movement of People should be about free visas, not literal free movement. Numbers should be controlled and people who commit crime should be deported. (I will also go against the general consensus here and say that current numbers are fine. (100k a year on average. most of immigration is from non-EU, take this into consideration: if we outlawed non-eu immigration, we would have negative migration)

    Not a chance and to be honest i'm a bit of a libertarian when it comes to most EU immigration. Remember that 300 million of the people with free movement rights are from very developed nations anyway. The other 100 million or so is something that's not ideal but the Polish getting a job don't bother me much to be honest.

    Preaching to the converted. I'm all for a larger population myself.


    > CAP (Agriculture buffer stocks) should be abolished. They are infringing on free trade and drive up food costs. The 18th century rural Frenchmen should just accept that their trade is long irrelevant. The EU budget should be only used to run EU agencies and for policing (border) operations such as Italy now. It should also be used as a SWO and be there for a 'rainy day'. Regional Development funding should not be priority, it is not our responsibility to make sure rural Romania develops.

    Agreed.

    Europe should be about a single market, free trade, regulation liberalisation/standardisation and solidarity. Not about supreme rule and irrelevant legislation.

    I will however go against the general anti-EU consensus that it should disband, or that free movement should be abolished or that students should pay foreign fees. I would call myself a "soft Eurosceptic", but not against the general idea of EU.


    Agreed.

    TL;DR I am open to change, but in the current form I would vote out. (unless TTIP passes anyway then I may be more swayed towards in, despite the problems.)

    Not sure what will decide it for me in the end.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to wait and see what is negotiated.

    CAP - that should be changed to stop foreign landowners who pay no tax in Britain from being paid large amounts of money simply for owning land, which I understand happens at the moment (correct me if I'm wrong). I also think more of it (both proportion and amount) should go to the environmental side, and CAP should be reduced overall.

    I oppose TTIP because I see it as a corporate power grab by corporate interests who already have far too much influence on politics and governments as it is, and they certainly don't need more.

    In general I just don't like the idea of a foreign body having such influence over our laws, or the "ever closer union" thing. I don't want any further integration with the EU, but further integration is likely because it's basically a central aim of the EU.

    However, the EU does have some beneficial (if not perfect) things like their environmental laws and climate change targets, which could be at risk of we were to leave or renegotiate in those areas too. I do not trust the Conservatives with the environment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    CAP - that should be changed to stop foreign landowners who pay no tax in Britain from being paid large amounts of money simply for owning land, which I understand happens at the moment (correct me if I'm wrong).
    That happens?

    I would of thought CAP subsidies are given on the basis of your output rather than your land size, and whatever is not bought from your output is subsidised by the EU to increase your income.

    Though I am by no means sure, I would have thought that's what happens as that is the usual meaning of subsidy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Ideally i do think we should limit entry until these states are richer however geopolitical interests with Russia are also at play.


    Do you think that we should sacrifice purely to limit Russia's (potential) power, though? After taking in the 2004 batch, there's hardly any land Russia could take / have an influence on that is itself influential, what isn't part of the EU is already Russian or sparsely populated and poor in natural resources. Georgia has half the population of Moscow after all. I could see your point with Western Ukraine however.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I think we should allow them to join but keep immigration restrictions until they reach an appropriate GDP per capita threshold (i'd say $30k).


    Didn't think of that, fairly reasonable.

    Though similar happened with Romania/Bulgaria, they joined in 2007 and had a 7.5-year development limit (no wealth quota), yet their economy hasn't exactly improved in the slightest. Which does raise the question whether free movement actually benefits the emigrant nations economically.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    > "Speeds" of Europe must be sorted out. This concept of the "two-speed" Europe where Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries head different ways should be standardised and made into appropriate legislation which does not hurt either side. It's unsustainable to have two widely different growth rates.

    Not a chance. All new EU members are obligated to join the Euro. The growth rates actually vary significantly within EU and Euro-zone member groups.


    That's the problem though. At this point in time it is pretty undeniable that joining a monetary(/currency) union with significantly larger economies that have different institutional and strategic structures is a bad idea. Now that Greece has happened (or is happening) not many countries will join it voluntarily.

    At the end of the day, the "obligation" to join the Euro isn't really what the word implies, as you can be in the ERM II forever (Sweden) and not join or be Poland and simply say "no, Euro is too unstable to even bother"

    On the line of currencies, I would be more sympathetic if countries were joined around either institutional (framework) structures, the structure of the economy (tourism nations, manufacturing nations, service nations) or the cultural/political similarities. I definitely do not think that merging Germany and Portugal into one currency union is remotely a good idea.

    On the two-speed Europe point, it is not really good for both solidarity and development/prosperity to have two sides of Europe growing at two unhealthy speeds.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    > Free Movement of People should be about free visas, not literal free movement. Numbers should be controlled and people who commit crime should be deported. (I will also go against the general consensus here and say that current numbers are fine. (100k a year on average. most of immigration is from non-EU, take this into consideration: if we outlawed non-eu immigration, we would have negative migration)

    Not a chance and to be honest i'm a bit of a libertarian when it comes to most EU immigration. Remember that 300 million of the people with free movement rights are from very developed nations anyway. The other 100 million or so is something that's not ideal but the Polish getting a job don't bother me much to be honest.

    Preaching to the converted. I'm all for a larger population myself.


    I do not disagree - but there is a gigantic infrastructure problem, as well as a funding problem. I do not think many European immigrants pay for themselves, which is why higher taxes would be required to subsidise them, something I'm against.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not sure what will decide it for me in the end.
    Looking at your previous post, it looks like you are seeking more of a clearer/definitive plan for the future of the EU and it's structure rather than current affairs.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    That happens?

    I would of thought CAP subsidies are given on the basis of your output rather than your land size, and whatever is not bought from your output is subsidised by the EU to increase your income.

    Though I am by no means sure, I would have thought that's what happens as that is the usual meaning of subsidy.
    I remember reading something about it a while ago, and it said it was basically a payment simply for owning land.

    I can't quite remember the details though and I can't find the article right now, so don't quote me on that. I might try to find it later.

    Either way, CAP in its current form is wasteful and changes should be made.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The point of the European Union was to subvert war (a completely unfounded claim. If you pointed to the existence of the EU and said "this is why we don't have war", everybody would laugh at you) and to remove wealth from the powerful nations and redistribute that to the weaker economies to create a balance. Neither of these goals seem righteous and indeed reek of socialism- a system of government which is profoundly unbritish and anti-freedom.

    Not only are there economic restrictions to all European nations, but cultures are being damned left and right too. The EU is trying to force all countries, including the "less developed" ones, to become as efficient as Germany. Some cultures, like the Mediterranean ones, are just more relaxed about finance. The EU needs to stop telling the continent and all its inhabitants how to live through every aspect of their lives. Oddly enough, the British act differently to Italians, the Germans have little in common with the Portuguese, but we have to fly the unified banner of European? Well why stop there? Let's get every country in Africa to join our little club too- it's the next logical step after all the Middle Eastern and former Communist countries.

    I'm voting Out on strict principle of sovereignty and freedom. I'd like more people to back their votes with principles and less with fear of the outcome.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Would you vote to be independent of the union or would you vote to remain part of the eu and why? I know this wont be representative as obviously this is only a poll of students not including our elders who may have perhaps lived in a time before and after entering the eu. But nevertheless interested in result.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    i'd vote to stay because we've got a pretty sweet gig going on here. i'm not saying it wouldn't be sweeter if we left, but i am saying that it would probably be a bit less sweet at first because of all the initial economic shocks and repercussions before possibly becoming sweeter later on. i just can't be bothered to go through that whole economic roller-coaster, so i'd rather just stay put, if that makes sense :3
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gax)
    i'd vote to stay because we've got a pretty sweet gig going on here. i'm not saying it wouldn't be sweeter if we left, but i am saying that it would probably be a bit less sweet at first because of all the initial economic shocks and repercussions before possibly becoming sweeter later on. i just can't be bothered to go through that whole economic roller-coaster, so i'd rather just stay put, if that makes sense :3
    Yh i understand completely, my question to you is, in your eyes how bad would things have to get for you to want to leave? What would be the trigger?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    3-1
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    EU should decentralise even further - almost all EU agencies are in the Benelux area. Currently, only the Border agency (Frontex) is in Poland, Internal Market (Regulation liberalisation) Agency is in Spain and Banking & Police Colleges are in the UK. These are all pretty irrelevant, and should be more spread out. The EU Commission, being the heart of the EU, should be in the heart of Europe. The Parliament and Council should be relocated. To Rome and Warsaw, perhaps.
    I disagree. Keeping all of the institutions in the same location is cheaper, easier and gets things done more efficiently. It'll prevent the hassle of civil servants having to move back and forth between countries just to visit different buildings. And yes, I do think that the Parliament should have a fixed location in Brussels.

    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    MEPs need a reform. The concept that an area of 90 000 Germans in Belgium has the same amount of MEPs as 1 000 000 people in London is frivolous, to say the least.
    I'm unsure what you mean. Seats in the European Parliament are roughly distributed in accordance to the percentages each country's population makes up of the total population. Belgium does have slightly more influence than what is due, but only of around 0.5%.

    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    So we're at the mercy of the Germans?And why is Germany the only country to deport EU nationals who are unemployed for more than 6 months? Surely that's against EU rules? (it is)
    Do they do that? Also in what treaty does it forbid the deportation of unemployed EU nationals?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Leave, the Eu should not decide this countries policies, we should trade, but parliament is soverign and shouldn't be overriden by foreign know it all bureaucrats who don't live here
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Stay.

    I think we could survive outside the EU quite reasonably* (To be devils advocate, i think that Sctland could survive outside the union too!) - the main reasons for doing so I believe (other than admittedly sentimental reasons- I feel as European as I am British) is because it is Britain's Geo-political interest to remain an influencing force in what is the central power in the region- which like it or not- is here to stay. People rightly cite that this can also be said of Nato which is true- Though A: the majority of Nato Countries are EU ones and B Nato has stated that working with the EU has strengthened Nato's mutilateral capabilities (IE Economic sanctions) considerably.

    Additionally, whilst there are of course reasonable and intellectual arguments for leaving the EU: as made for instance by Dan Hanaan- the bulk of the arguments are made by people whose views are entirely opposed to modern british society such as Peter Hitchens and TSR's very own Higher Minion! Whilst there is much wrong with modern British society, there is much good also and it is for these these reasons I will be voting Yes.


    *Although even most eurosceptics thinhg we'll take a hit- see: Damian Green MP (A pro eu conservative) arguing the economic case here: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...-eu-heres-why/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the EU to me is a political sewer - everything that comes from it is the worst that a society can offer; its institutions are largely unelected or illegitimate, and its law are either overly complex or idiotic/unnecessary
 
 
 

2,271

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.