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

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We''re a democracy and a majority decides. Suck it up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whether you vote in or out is largely irrelevant, the next economic down cycle will crush all Western economies.

    The EU will become more authoritarian, the UK government outside may also, but it would also have the option of rebooting the economy which imo would be easier.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CuriosityKTMC)
    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.
    My argument was against the arrogance of voting for the removal of someone's country.

    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.
    Have you been following the debate at all? The parts of the Treaties that mention "ever closer union" are in the wrapper, the intentions of the Treaties. The Treaties implement this union. In particular the "Shared Competences" give the EU carte blanche to extend its dominion over large areas of government.

    On your point about being unable to "do without" EU input on consumer protection, you do know that the EU produces "Directives" so the UK Parliament still has to go through the motions of law making. Furthermore, every independent country in the world has consumer legislation, are you really saying that we are too moronic in the UK to do it?

    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.
    Norway is a member of the EEA, the European Economic Area, and has (stupidly) volunteered to pay fees. Other members of EFTA are not EEA members and dont pay these fees. Furthermore, South Korea, Canada, Singapore etc. have advanced Free Trade Agreements that cover most of what an expensive EEA membership brings.

    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
    Perhaps we are starting from an altogether different point. You seem to be happy to discard a millennium of independence for the false promise of wealth as a result of EU membership. I look at poorer British families and wonder who is going to be on their side.

    The EU Treaties have had almost no effect on the UK economy so far:


    Compare this pattern of GDP growth with non-EU:


    They all got rich over the same period too. Do you know why? The maximum amount that modern WTO tariffs would cost the UK if it had no agreements with any countries (Just MFN) is about £10bn in almost £400bn of exports. The tariff arguments are trivial and of no consequence. The total cost of tariffs over all trade is less than EU membership. It would be different if the UK were a major food exporter but we are not.

    This debate is about sovereignty. It is whether you care about your fellow citizens in this country. Your emollient tone suggests that you have not yet realised that you might be selling your neighbours down the river for an entirely imaginary 40 pieces of silver. This is serious, you might kid yourself that there might be another referendum but I would bet you any amount of money that this is a single chance at independence, never to be repeated. It was only by a fluke that this referendum happened - Cameron thought he had lost the 2015 election and it was a sop to his anti-EU faction.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    We''re a democracy and a majority decides. Suck it up.
    A referendum on political union with another power is outside normal democratic procedures. It will be seen by those who do not want political union as disenfranchisement. Quite rightly, because it is disenfranchisement - you desire to remove their state and replace it with another, foreign power.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    1) By your logic, the UK territory would be subsumed under some kind of United States of Europe, which would still be a state and so a vessel for democratic process.

    2) We're part of the EU now and remain a state, so where this idea of dissolution of the UK is coming from I don't know.

    3) You can't opt out of stuff just because you want to. The agreements are made at state level - your options once they are passed are (a) accept it, (b) leave, (c) start a (very likely unsuccessful) campaign for the UK to leave again or (d) found a new government and try to gain independence for a portion of the British territory.

    If you want to make it harder for us to integrate fully with Europe, your best bet is to campaign for a codified British constitution and require a special process for it to be amended.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    A referendum on political union with another power is outside normal democratic procedures.
    I think you're quite alone on this. Eurosceptics of all sides have demanded a referendum on this issue. You can't have a referendum with only one choice on the paper, can you sunshine?

    It will be seen by those who do not want political union as disenfranchisement. Quite rightly, because it is disenfranchisement - you desire to remove their state and replace it with another, foreign power.
    Oh, give over. We'll have the status quo, whatever your ramblings.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    1) By your logic, the UK territory would be subsumed under some kind of United States of Europe, which would still be a state and so a vessel for democratic process.
    But a different vessel - this argument is absurd because it justifies the immediate merger of any two countries that have a semblance of democracy.

    2) We're part of the EU now and remain a state, so where this idea of dissolution of the UK is coming from I don't know.
    Lisbon had two nasty barbs, the first was a five year transitional period so that only after 2014 do we start to experience the full weight of EU common foreign and security policy and border controls etc. The second was the shared competences which specify the areas that the EU can exercise control over when it sees fit.

    3) You can't opt out of stuff just because you want to. The agreements are made at state level - your options once they are passed are (a) accept it, (b) leave, (c) start a (very likely unsuccessful) campaign for the UK to leave again or (d) found a new government and try to gain independence for a portion of the British territory.

    If you want to make it harder for us to integrate fully with Europe, your best bet is to campaign for a codified British constitution and require a special process for it to be amended.
    All parties talked about holding a referendum to ratify Lisbon but none did so. What has happened is of the nature of an Establishment Coup in which the electorate was lulled to sleep with reassurances.

    If you do not think that the EU is headed for full political union you have not been following EU politics:

    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. "

    If Remain win the UK will be terminated as an independent country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I think you're quite alone on this. Eurosceptics of all sides have demanded a referendum on this issue. You can't have a referendum with only one choice on the paper, can you sunshine?

    Oh, give over. We'll have the status quo, whatever your ramblings.
    I am pointing out that this referendum is not about trade - the full WTO tariff is less than the EU membership fee, it is not about free movement - you will still be able to tour Europe and get a work permit. It is about being governed by institutions in which over 90% of those taking the decisions know little or nothing about the UK. The referendum is about sovereignty, who governs us.

    If Remain wins and the immobile, poorer part of the UK population are disenfranchised you will not be bothered, you will be dreaming of moving to Paris or somewhere. But that is really sad. So little sympathy for your neighbours.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Out people knows they will lose so they don't want democracy. Ironic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Out people knows they will lose so they don't want democracy. Ironic.
    I want democracy. But I don't want you to throw away my country where we have democracy and swap it for distant government run by middle Europe. They are never going to understand Croydon or Carlisle at all. It is hard enough for British politicians to do so.

    Do you really have the right to remove the birthright of your children and my children to an independent Britain?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    In the modern world, this means everyone is part of a common democracy.
    Democracy is not a panacea. If we were "democratically" governed from Beijing and the government only produced laws that suited India and China we would be faced with rebellion or ruin because the combined Indian/Chinese majority could hold power forever. Democracy only works if it is close to the people.

    The ideal is (preferrably democratically governed) states where the government is close to the people that respect an international law that governs their external relations.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I am pointing out that this referendum is not about trade - the full WTO tariff is less than the EU membership fee,
    And the WTO is nothing like the EU.

    it is not about free movement - you will still be able to tour Europe and get a work permit.
    If we join the EEA, which means surrendering sovereignty. If we vote to leave the EU on grounds of sovereignty, it's a massive about-face to consider it acceptable to surrender it again in the EEA.

    It is about being governed by institutions in which over 90% of those taking the decisions know little or nothing about the UK. The referendum is about sovereignty, who governs us.
    *******s. The UK tends to be on the winning side a lot of the time, and is quite adept at forging alliances in the Council. Most EU decisions leave implementation to Member States, and the Council bends over backwards to achieve consensus.

    If Remain wins and the immobile, poorer part of the UK population are disenfranchised you will not be bothered, you will be dreaming of moving to Paris or somewhere. But that is really sad. So little sympathy for your neighbours.
    Not really. I want to live here, and I'm proud to be British. What exactly, are you calling for? That we should NOT have this referendum? Or that, if the referendum decision is to Stay, that decision be immediately annulled and we leave anyway?

    How in any way are you not being a hypocrite here?
    Offline

    17
    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.
    WE ARE NOT VOTING TO BECOME PART OF THE EU

    We are voting to stay. i.e. WE ARE ALREADY AN EU STATE. Very little will change in regard to who tells us what to do. You make it seem like we're sacrificing the UK to just become a part of the great United States of Europe. That is not the case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This vote is about YOU denying European unity to MY children and my children's children (given I have some).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    A referendum on political union with another power is outside normal democratic procedures. It will be seen by those who do not want political union as disenfranchisement. Quite rightly, because it is disenfranchisement - you desire to remove their state and replace it with another, foreign power.
    They would be no more "disenfranchised" than supporters of Scottish/Welsh independence or Irish unification currently are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    My argument was against the arrogance of voting for the removal of someone's country.
    Its a vote on whether to remain part of the eu, not on becoming part of a USE.

    Have you been following the debate at all?
    Yes, i have, i just have a different opinion. Cut the personal jabs, please.

    The parts of the Treaties that mention "ever closer union" are in the wrapper, the intentions of the Treaties. The Treaties implement this union. In particular the "Shared Competences" give the EU carte blanche to extend its dominion over large areas of government.
    David Camerons negotiations secured us an exception to this.

    On your point about being unable to "do without" EU input on consumer protection, you do know that the EU produces "Directives" so the UK Parliament still has to go through the motions of law making. Furthermore, every independent country in the world has consumer legislation, are you really saying that we are too moronic in the UK to do it?
    No, just that the eu has a lot more economic clout when it comes to breaking up monopolies, anti competitive behaviour and defending consumer rights because it represents a far larger market.

    Norway is a member of the EEA, the European Economic Area, and has (stupidly) volunteered to pay fees.
    I highly doubt they are paying voluntarily.

    Other members of EFTA are not EEA members and dont pay these fees. Furthermore, South Korea, Canada, Singapore etc. have advanced Free Trade Agreements that cover most of what an expensive EEA membership brings.
    Yes, but thats still less than we have right now.

    Perhaps we are starting from an altogether different point. You seem to be happy to discard a millennium of independence for the false promise of wealth as a result of EU membership. I look at poorer British families and wonder who is going to be on their side.
    I am not discarding independence as this is a vote on the EU not a USE. Again with the personal attacks. Target my argument, not me, please.

    The EU Treaties have had almost no effect on the UK economy so far:


    Compare this pattern of GDP growth with non-EU:


    They all got rich over the same period too. Do you know why? The maximum amount that modern WTO tariffs would cost the UK if it had no agreements with any countries (Just MFN) is about £10bn in almost £400bn of exports. The tariff arguments are trivial and of no consequence. The total cost of tariffs over all trade is less than EU membership. It would be different if the UK were a major food exporter but we are not.
    Except a lot of manufacturing jobs and exporting industries are close enough to being unprofitable that those costs would be enough to send them elsewhere.

    This debate is about sovereignty. It is whether you care about your fellow citizens in this country. Your emollient tone suggests that you have not yet realised that you might be selling your neighbours down the river for an entirely imaginary 40 pieces of silver. This is serious, you might kid yourself that there might be another referendum but I would bet you any amount of money that this is a single chance at independence, never to be repeated. It was only by a fluke that this referendum happened - Cameron thought he had lost the 2015 election and it was a sop to his anti-EU faction.
    The way you vote doesnt indicate how much you care about your fellow citizens, what matters is how much effort you put into informing your decision. Again, appealing to emotion and personal attacks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    We live in a democracy.

    I don't believe that the uneducated masses should be able to make a decision with such vast and severe implications that most people simply can't understand (and before someone shouts hypocrisy, I don't think I should get a say in this decision either). But that's the system we live in, where some raving nationalist loonies can call a referendum willy-nilly every time they throw the toys out of the pram, and the people who disagree with said loonies get just as much say in the resulting decision.

    If we want to be part of a political union, we will be part of a political union. I really don't understand why you think you have the right to drag us 40 years into the past but we don't have the right to oppose you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Democracy is not a panacea. If we were "democratically" governed from Beijing and the government only produced laws that suited India and China we would be faced with rebellion or ruin because the combined Indian/Chinese majority could hold power forever. Democracy only works if it is close to the people.
    Nope, if we were in a political union with other countries then their governments would be bound to consider issues that impacted us as a sub-unit. Which is in fact a bit of a red herring anyway: in general, governments are aiming for the same things: economic growth, improved public services, lower spending.

    You might as well argue that Shetland does not benefit because its government is not "close to the people" (it's three times as far from Lerwick to London than it is from London to Brussels) - but in reality, it's one part of the UK that benefits equally and everyone has an interest in its success.

    If you really think power cannot be exercised distant from "the people" how far can you be from your capital? 100 miles? 200? 500? 1000?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    A referendum on political union with another power is outside normal democratic procedures. It will be seen by those who do not want political union as disenfranchisement. Quite rightly, because it is disenfranchisement - you desire to remove their state and replace it with another, foreign power.
    What would you suggest. You would also be potentially denying the desire for some to have their state join into a greater one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The quotes in the OP reminds me why I love the EU so much :love:
    Europe should be politically united:manutd:
 
 
 
  • 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
    Is cheesecake a cake?
    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.