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

Should the Remain Camp be able to destroy other people's independence? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If the UK were outside the EU it could obtain trade agreements etc. that would allow tariff free trade (like Canada, South Korea, Singapore etc.). This debate is not about trade, it is about sovereignty.

    This vote is about YOU denying independence to MY children and my children's children (given I have some).

    This is entirely different from a vote on, for instance, a tax rate or a political party.

    What is perfectly clear is that the EU will be a political union within 20 years. If the debate were about economics then the Remain camp should not be passionate about it - they can always press for Free Trade. The debate is about 37% of the UK population wanting to impose foreign government on the rest.

    Countries go to war about such things. Is your denial of independence to those of us who want to stay independent a just cause for war? Taking away sovereignty has always, historically led to war.

    It will be a political union:

    Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor said:

    "we need a political union first and foremost" (BBC News).

    Francois Hollande, the French president said:

    "Political union is the step that follows fiscal union, banking union, and social union. It will provide a democratic framework for successful integration." (Le Monde)

    President Sergio Mattarella of Italy's inaugural speech Feb 2015:

    "The EU is now once again a perspective of hope andtrue political union to be relaunched without delay."

    Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spanish prime minister:

    "We need to fix these objectives - fiscal union, banking union, political union...And we must set a time scale. We are giving a message that we really want greater European integration. We can't say something is this first, then something else, without saying where we're going," Rajoy said at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. (Reuters report).

    What the European Commission says:

    José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission said:

    "This is why the Economic and Monetary Union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it."...

    .."A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union, with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve." (State of the Union 2012 Address to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012).

    The EU's Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union (and political union) states that:

    "This Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU describes the necessary
    elements and the steps towards a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union."

    What the European Central Bank says:

    1999 paper by the European Central Bank: Europe: Common Money - Political Union? In this paper it says that:

    "The monetary order established by the Maastricht Treaty with the detailed statute of the European System of Central Banks by itself represents an important building block for the development of a European statehood."

    The importance of the connection between monetary union and the establishment of a single state was well understood at the new European Central Bank in 1999:

    "So what does the future hold? Anyone who believes in the role of a single currency as a pace-setter in achieving political unity (Europe will be created by means of a single currency or not at all (Jacques Rueff 1950)) will regard the decisive step as has having already been taken. This does not provide an answer as to how the "rest" of the journey should be approached. "
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    This vote is about YOU denying independence to MY children and my children's children (given I have some).
    Yep. And? We are able to model the state in the way we see fit. That is our right. The United Kingdom would not exist if our ancestors hadn't crafted it: I'm not sure why you think some sort of early 1970s status quo ante ought to have some sort of special status in our political discourse: it doesn't.

    What is perfectly clear is that the EU will be a political union within 20 years.
    The EU is already a political union, albeit a loose one. We are politically united by law in areas where the EU has competence.

    If the debate were about economics then the Remain camp should not be passionate about it - they can always press for Free Trade.
    Free trade is not the same as forming an economic union. Trade is always restricted by political boundaries, even if goods can pass through tariff free. This is about much more: free movement, harmonised regulation, reducing administrative burdens to work and do business in a wider geographical area.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yep. And? We are able to model the state in the way we see fit. That is our right. The United Kingdom would not exist if our ancestors hadn't crafted it: I'm not sure why you think some sort of early 1970s status quo ante ought to have some sort of special status in our political discourse: it doesn't.
    No, its not "WE", its YOU. I just want the UK to stay as an independent country, its you who are arrogantly pushing it into termination.

    The EU is already a political union, albeit a loose one. We are politically united by law in areas where the EU has competence.
    And will be submerged when the EU tackles "shared competence" after a "Remain" vote. Clearly Merkel etc. don't think we have got full political union yet, and nor do I.


    Free trade is not the same as forming an economic union. Trade is always restricted by political boundaries, even if goods can pass through tariff free. This is about much more: free movement, harmonised regulation, reducing administrative burdens to work and do business in a wider geographical area.
    If you look at the FTAs signed by South Korea, Singapore etc. they deal with many of these issues.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, its not "WE", its YOU. I just want the UK to stay as an independent country, its you who are arrogantly pushing it into termination.
    Well, as you might have noticed we're having a referendum where all of the British people get to decide on that. If we vote to leave, that is their right. If, however, we vote to remain in the EU that is equally our right and will be the decisive expressed will of both people and Parliament.

    And will be submerged when the EU tackles "shared competence" after a "Remain" vote. Clearly Merkel etc. don't think we have got full political union yet, and nor do I.
    I'm not really sure what a "full political union" is. The UK is a political union, and yet we have local government and devolved assemblies. The United States is a political union, yet has federal units. In each case, various levels of government handle different things. That is how the EU operates, and rightly so.

    If you look at the FTAs signed by South Korea, Singapore etc. they deal with many of these issues.
    Indeed, and even within very developed free trade agreement areas like NAFTA we see barriers to trade. Greater political and economic harmonisation breaks down these barriers. You seek less of it, I seek more.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If we democratically vote to stay, what's the problem?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    If we democratically vote to stay, what's the problem?
    A democracy is a political system used by a state, usually with the acquiescence of the people of the state. This referendum is clearly terminating the state and the vote to do so shows that those who vote "Leave" do not want to acquiesce in this. It is the sort of situation that typically leads to the partition of states.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, its not "WE", its YOU. I just want the UK to stay as an independent country, its you who are arrogantly pushing it into termination
    You're taking issue with democracy itself here, so I'm afraid all that can be said is 'tough'. The most you can do is try to persuade others to share your point of view on the EU.

    The real problem isn't the popular consensus, though. The problem is the extent to which the popular consensus (whatever it might be) has been ignored by the political class. It's also a problem that so many people know so little about the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    If the UK were outside the EU it could obtain trade agreements etc. that would allow tariff free trade (like Canada, South Korea, Singapore etc.). This debate is not about trade, it is about sovereignty.. "
    This doesn't follow. Because the question is also whether the UK alone would be able to get the SAME trade agreements as these companies.

    The EU economy is larger than the US as of June 2015: http://uk.businessinsider.com/charts...15-6?r=US&IR=T

    The UK is growing faster than the Eurozone, but it is still a fraction of the total EU size.

    So: can the UK broker the same deal with China, say,as the US or India or even the rest of EU after the UK has left? No, of course not. In economic negotiations, size is of prime importance.

    by contrast, the EU/South Korea Free Trade Agreement entered into force in July 2011. In the two years following that agreement British (not EU generally, just British) exports roughly DOUBLED, The idea that the UK alone could broker the same deal as the whole EU economy is simply fanciful.

    When i put this question to Anti-EU people they reply 'Don't yo have confidence in your country?' They don't have an answer you see, they just respond with a question. But my answer to that is 'Yes, I have confidence in the UK - but confidence is not enough, you need clout.' There is no possibility we could have the same arrangement with SK if we left the EU and British exports would be hit hard. Goodbye rapid growth.

    So, anti-EU campaigners are always tryng to tell you that the EU is holding Britain back - then they point out that the UK is growing faster compared to the EU. Spot the contradiction?

    I would have more respect for the Anti-EU argument if they had a single plan for what UK would do next. They have nothing but hope and guesswork. There are even TWO anti-EU campaign groups at each others throat battling for the same pot of government money.

    On this hope and guesswork they want to sacrifice the jobs and economy of he UK and the peace of Europe. The best thing to be said for the anti-EU campaign is that its rather romantic. That's not enough.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    You're taking issue with democracy itself here, so I'm afraid all that can be said is 'tough'. The most you can do is try to persuade others to share your point of view on the EU.

    The real problem isn't the popular consensus, though. The problem is the extent to which the popular consensus (whatever it might be) has been ignored by the political class. It's also a problem that so many people know so little about the EU.
    No, it is not democracy. Democracy happens within a state. A "Remain" vote will terminate the UK with those who did not want full political union being without their state and having another imposed on them. I am not convinced that those who vote against political union should consider themselves bound by this referendum.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    That's democracy, my friend :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stychomythia)
    This doesn't follow. Because the question is also whether the UK alone would be able to get the SAME trade agreements as these companies.
    It is not solely about trade. The point I made was that the "Remain" camp - those who want political union - can get most of their economic goodies without full union (like being in the EEC). What is happening now is that the "Remain" camp want to impose their idea of a pan-european government on those of us who want an independent UK, and on our children.

    The Remain camp think they have the "moral highground" when they are just proposing old fashioned imperialism - yes, the people of France, Britain, Germany, all supported their imperialist eras. All marching together sounds such fun.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    That's democracy, my friend :yep:
    No it isnt. It is an Establishment coup. Democracy happens within a state and requires the acquiescence of the people of that state. Here we have a referendum that will terminate the state, leaving those who wanted independence without the grounds, the common state, for accepting a democratic solution.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "What is happening now is that the "Remain" camp want to impose their idea of a pan-european government on those of us who want an independent UK, and on our children."

    That works the other way round new-P the leavers want to impose their independence on those who would like to be citizens of the EU: this argument is a zero-sum game.

    "The Remain camp think they have the "moral highground" when they are just proposing old fashioned imperialism"

    I don't pretend to moral high-ground. But the EU is certainly not imperialism. India couldn't vote to leave the British Empire, Algeria couldn't vote to leave the French Empire. We can, we have the free-will to leave; so - by the examples you cite - t's not an Empire.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No it isnt. It is an Establishment coup. Democracy happens within a state and requires the acquiescence of the people of that state. Here we have a referendum that will terminate the state, leaving those who wanted independence without the grounds, the common state, for accepting a democratic solution.
    What?

    It's as simple as some people want to stay, some people want to go. We vote to see which the majority wants. IT'S A FREE VOTE.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    What?

    It's as simple as some people want to stay, some people want to go. We vote to see which the majority wants. IT'S A FREE VOTE.
    No it isn't, you are going to deny all of our children the chance to live in this independent country. They don't get a vote and there will be no chance of a Remain vote being reversed. The corporates and Establishment will close the issue for ever.

    Think hard before you condemn us all and our children to rule by middle Europe.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No it isn't, you are going to deny all of our children the chance to live in this independent country. They don't get a vote and there will be no chance of a Remain vote being reversed. The corporates and Establishment will close the issue for ever.

    Think hard before you condemn us all and our children to rule by middle Europe.
    Oh I see, let's go with what the minority wants instead :yep:

    And that's a lie, there may very well be reason for another vote on this in a few years. Nothing's locking us into this decision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stychomythia)
    "The Remain camp think they have the "moral highground" when they are just proposing old fashioned imperialism"

    I don't pretend to moral high-ground. But the EU is certainly not imperialism. India couldn't vote to leave the British Empire, Algeria couldn't vote to leave the French Empire. We can, we have the free-will to leave; so - by the examples you cite - t's not an Empire.
    That's not the difference between a state and an empire: the United States fought a war to ensure its territorial integrity from the secessionist south. Every state has a right to do that.

    What distinguishes a normal political arrangement from an empire (other than simply the old distinction of having an emperor or an imperial monarchy) is bonds of common citizenship, equal inclusion of all in the state, not being governed externally (British India was not part of the UK, yet had many of its laws made by the UK Parliament) - in the modern world, this means everyone is part of a common democracy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Oh I see, let's go with what the minority wants instead :yep:

    And that's a lie, there may very well be reason for another vote on this in a few years. Nothing's locking us into this decision.
    No, I am not saying "lets go with the minority", I am saying that those who want an independent UK (the majority at the moment) currently have a fairly independent country and you want to abolish it, not just for them but for their children. A country is not some place at uni. It means a lot more to the people who live in it and I think it is stupendously arrogant to say that because the mobile middle classes have a couple of percent advantage in the polls they should be happy to abolish a country that other people care deeply about.

    I can tell from your tone in this debate that your country means little to you but it means a great deal to other people. What is it to you if we have a close free trade agreement or a political union? To people who must care for friends and family and who are committed to their locality it means a great deal to be governed by people who have at least some understanding of the problems and history of living on this Island.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35658731 - This. We already lost our culture to the immigrants, do you really want to lose our country to them as well?! Given that 60% of all british muslims want sharia law instated in the UK and that the immigrants are primarily muslims, don't you think it's time we clamped down on this?!

    http://debatewise.org/debates/784-th...uropean-union/ - The pros of leaving far outweigh the pros of staying.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...20Myth_web.pdf - No, overall jobs won't be lost.

    http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case...out-withdrawl/

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...Claude-Juncker - The EU is falling apart anyway

    And then this is how the public's opinion is: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...dum_Day2_W.pdf
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, I am not saying "lets go with the minority", I am saying that those who want an independent UK (the majority at the moment) currently have a fairly independent country and you want to abolish it, not just for them but for their children. A country is not some place at uni. It means a lot more to the people who live in it and I think it is stupendously arrogant to say that because the mobile middle classes have a couple of percent advantage in the polls they should be happy to abolish a country that other people care deeply about.

    I can tell from your tone in this debate that your country means little to you but it means a great deal to other people. What is it to you if we have a close free trade agreement or a political union? To people who must care for friends and family and who are committed to their locality it means a great deal to be governed by people who have at least some understanding of the problems and history of living on this Island.
    This debate is clearly important, so can we please uphold some standards. Firstly, accusing someone of not caring about the country they live in or being "stupendously arrogant" because they disagree with you is counter-productive. Make arguments against EU membership rather than against Alexion.

    Britain has an exception to the 'ever closer union' part of the EU, meaning that we do not have to give up our independence or abolish our country. If that ever were a proposal it would be pretty much guaranteed that we would get another referendum. Meanwhile, a lot of the work the EU does we could not do without it, such as protecting consumer rights and negotiating more advantageous FTAs.

    It should be noted that Norway, often touted as an arrangement we should go for, have to pay fees to the EU and follow a lot of laws and regulations without any say in the governance. An ideal FTA could be beneficial, but is at best uncertain, and probably unlikely. Personally I couldn't vote to leave without knowing what I was getting into - the EU is far from perfect but being in the EU certainly hasn't ruined our country. Jumping ship is a risk and I'd need to know what I was getting into.

    In the end, the reason we are having a referendum is that we need to decide as a country what we want from the EU and whether we want to be a part of it. You have your vote and I have mine. You're welcome to try and persuade people to agree with you, but let's avoid making accusations at people who disagree with us because everyone, especially those willing to discuss it, is doing their best to come to an educated opinion
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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

    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.