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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I've just amended my household's details on the electoral register to reflect the next 6 generations of my family, who have a clear right to have their views heard.
    Online

    19
    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.
    Democracy is rule by people. That's exactly what's happening in a referendum.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    newpersonage


    You made he distinction in an earlier thread between nations and state. At one point Wales and Scotland were independent states- now they have been subsumed into a greater state. Is this therefore illegitimate?


    I also have children and I resent the eurosceptics for attempting to break up my birthright
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    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.
    Have you been following the past 50 years of EU Treaties? They document a path to full union. All the main players want it. It is only in Britain that the fiction is maintained that the EU is not headed for full union. Did you read any of the detail above about "shared competences" and what has already been agreed for the future?

    How far do EU leaders support full 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. "

    How does the European Central Bank see the current Euro crisis evolving? Here is an extract from an ECB approved presentation on the subject, Short Term Crisis Management and Long Term Vision, describing the 4 steps to a solution:

    1. The first is a financial union, with a single framework for supervising and resolving banks and for insuring customer deposits. This would build on the single supervisory mechanism now under development and ideally lead to a European version of the FDIC, financed by contributions from the private sector.
    2. The second building block is a fiscal union, with powers at the euro area level to prevent unsustainable fiscal policies and to limit national debt issuance. With these powers in place, a path towards common debt issuance would also be possible, but only at the end of the process.
    3. The third building block is an economic union, which would help euro area members to remain fit and to adjust flexibly within monetary union. This could entail, for example, moving from soft coordination of structural reforms in Member States to an enforceable framework at the euro area level.
    4. And the fourth building block is a political union, which aims at strengthening democratic participation. This final building block is equally important, as the other measures cannot be effective unless they are legitimate. This requires innovative thinking as regards the involvement of the European Parliament and national parliaments in decision-making on euro area issues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You made he distinction in an earlier thread between nations and state. At one point Wales and Scotland were independent states- now they have been subsumed into a greater state. Is this therefore illegitimate?
    Many Scots would say it is not. The Irish always maintained that it was not and had a bloody transition to independence. Being gung ho about what some people consider to be an absolute right to independence is a dangerous thing. This referendum deserves respect and the desires of your fellow citizens deserve respect.

    If you vote "Remain" because you think it will be slightly easier to work in France or because you, mistakenly, think you will have a couple of quid extra a week in your pocket you are not showing your neighbours the respect they deserve.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Democracy is rule by people. That's exactly what's happening in a referendum.
    Which people? A referendum that imposes rule by 600 million people instead of 60 million is diluting each person's franchise. It is effectively disenfranchising those who want to Leave (ie: remain independent). Those who want to Remain obviously couldn't care less.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And the WTO is nothing like the EU.
    It is when talking about trade.

    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.
    You will be able to get work permits outside the EEA. If we joined the EEA you would not need a work permit. But you can work in the EU either way.

    *******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.
    This is absurd, the UK has been on the "winning" side on directives about olive growing! The EU procedure always tries to guarantee a consensus before votes are taken so everyone is on the "winning" side!

    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?
    Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. What I am saying is that a "Remain" vote will show no respect for your fellow citizens and I am not certain that I, or many in the "Leave" camp would feel that the referendum was binding. Just look at the Scots, many felt bad being denied independence and enfranchisement but we have had to suffer our independence being stolen by arrogant politicians. Now the politicians are saying that the half of the population who has no respect for their neighbours or country can have the opportunity to rubber stamp the theft.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Many Scots would say it is not. The Irish always maintained that it was not and had a bloody transition to independence. Being gung ho about what some people consider to be an absolute right to independence is a dangerous thing. This referendum deserves respect and the desires of your fellow citizens deserve respect.

    If you vote "Remain" because you think it will be slightly easier to work in France or because you, mistakenly, think you will have a couple of quid extra a week in your pocket you are not showing your neighbours the respect they deserve.
    A helluva lot of them would say yes. And if the Scots had not been subjected to an appallingly dishonest campaign of lies, misinformation and terrifying the old people on the doorstep Scotland WOULD be anticipating it's impending independence. It isn't by chance that BBC viewing figure, licence income and readership of the printed press has slumped in Scotland. They are despised though the BBC is doubly tainted because of it's collusion and cover ups of paedos in their midst. I had a chuckle to myself reading some of the comments on this thread about UK aka England aka south of the Watford line, objecting to losing their independence to Europe. Welcome to the Scottish experience.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    A helluva lot of them would say yes. And if the Scots had not been subjected to an appallingly dishonest campaign of lies, misinformation and terrifying the old people on the doorstep Scotland WOULD be anticipating it's impending independence. It isn't by chance that BBC viewing figure, licence income and readership of the printed press has slumped in Scotland. They are despised though the BBC is doubly tainted because of it's collusion and cover ups of paedos in their midst. I had a chuckle to myself reading some of the comments on this thread about UK aka England aka south of the Watford line, objecting to losing their independence to Europe. Welcome to the Scottish experience.
    I wanted independence for Scotland. What you say about Scotland is exactly what I fear about this referendum.

    Had the middle class, mobile Scots shown a little more respect for the deeply held beliefs and desires of their neighbours the Scots would have been independent. (This is not an invitation to the "Remain" camp to reopen the Scots independence debate and divert this thread!).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I wanted independence for Scotland. What you say about Scotland is exactly what I fear about this referendum.

    Had the middle class, mobile Scots shown a little more respect for the deeply held beliefs and desires of their neighbours the Scots would have been independent. (This is not an invitation to the "Remain" camp to reopen the Scots independence debate and divert this thread!).
    I voted Yes with pride and a strong belief and faith in my country's ability to prosper. I do not feel any need to justify that decision. On your point re hijacking the thread I agree however I just could not believe the similarities between the allegations against those supporting remaining in Europe and how the Scots experienced a WM driven referendum campaign.
    Personally I can't make up my mind about whether remaining in Europe is good or bad though I think I incline toward remaining, the neo-liberal, vicious policies spouted by WM frightens me. I see Europe, HR legislation etc as a bulwark against WM.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    I voted Yes with pride and a strong belief and faith in my country's ability to prosper. I do not feel any need to justify that decision. On your point re hijacking the thread I agree however I just could not believe the similarities between the allegations against those supporting remaining in Europe and how the Scots experienced a WM driven referendum campaign.
    Personally I can't make up my mind about whether remaining in Europe is good or bad though I think I incline toward remaining, the neo-liberal, vicious policies spouted by WM frightens me. I see Europe, HR legislation etc as a bulwark against WM.
    When Merkel opened Germany's borders to migrants the polls showed 60% of Germans in support, 3 months later the polls showed 60% against. The EU is capable of being highly labile and has extreme factions that make the SWP and BNP look like liberals. Don't bank on the EU avoiding a sudden swing to the Right in the next decade. Middle Europe could indeed go all the way to "cleansing" as a response to migration - it happened less than a generation ago...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Which people? A referendum that imposes rule by 600 million people instead of 60 million is diluting each person's franchise. It is effectively disenfranchising those who want to Leave (ie: remain independent). Those who want to Remain obviously couldn't care less.
    Please explain why that is any different to any system of government?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Please explain why that is any different to any system of government?
    I would have thought that being 1 in 600 million gives you, and your neighbours, less voice than being 1 in 600 million.

    It is absurd to say that, for instance, if Laos became in Union with a democratic China its voice over its own affairs would still be the same as when it was independent. Democracy is NOT a panacea. Democracy only works if the government is close to the people.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Which people? A referendum that imposes rule by 600 million people instead of 60 million is diluting each person's franchise. It is effectively disenfranchising those who want to Leave (ie: remain independent). Those who want to Remain obviously couldn't care less.
    What?

    Only Britain can vote in the referendum, so I don't get where the "600m" figure comes from.

    And if you mean the rules by EU, so what? You act as if the EU has not benefited the UK, which we both know is incorrect.

    And just as you have the right to vote to leave, others have the right to vote to stay. Who do you think you are to strip them of their rights because it doesn't suit your agenda? Leaving may affect them 10 times more than remaining would affect you. Don't feel entitled everything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    What?

    Only Britain can vote in the referendum, so I don't get where the "600m" figure comes from.

    And if you mean the rules by EU, so what? You act as if the EU has not benefited the UK, which we both know is incorrect.

    And just as you have the right to vote to leave, others have the right to vote to stay. Who do you think you are to strip them of their rights because it doesn't suit your agenda? Leaving may affect them 10 times more than remaining would affect you. Don't feel entitled everything.
    The 600 million figure comes from the consequence of a "Remain" vote. The EU is destined for political union, everyone except the British media extols this publicly. See the quotes above or read the EU press.

    You will be voting for full political union with the EU in 10 or 20 years. Denying me an independent country.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    It is when talking about trade.
    So bleeding what? That's as far as the similarity ends. My cat and I both have two ears each - does that mean my cat's a person?

    You will be able to get work permits outside the EEA. If we joined the EEA you would not need a work permit. But you can work in the EU either way.
    You ignored everything I said about losing out on influence and control over the decisions the EU makes.

    This is absurd, the UK has been on the "winning" side on directives about olive growing! The EU procedure always tries to guarantee a consensus before votes are taken so everyone is on the "winning" side!
    I don't see anything to comment on here.

    Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. What I am saying is that a "Remain" vote will show no respect for your fellow citizens and I am not certain that I, or many in the "Leave" camp would feel that the referendum was binding. Just look at the Scots, many felt bad being denied independence and enfranchisement but we have had to suffer our independence being stolen by arrogant politicians. Now the politicians are saying that the half of the population who has no respect for their neighbours or country can have the opportunity to rubber stamp the theft.
    And why should the other half have the right to force us to leave the EU? What makes you more deserving? Hypocrite.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I would have thought that being 1 in 600 million gives you, and your neighbours, less voice than being 1 in 600 million.

    It is absurd to say that, for instance, if Laos became in Union with a democratic China its voice over its own affairs would still be the same as when it was independent. Democracy is NOT a panacea. Democracy only works if the government is close to the people.
    This is a weird argument. If it's bad being part of a 600-million group, surely being part of a group of 60 is better than being in a group of 60-million?

    So will you advocate the break-up of the UK and the creation of micro-states? Or declare yourself an anarchist?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I would have thought that being 1 in 600 million gives you, and your neighbours, less voice than being 1 in 600 million.

    It is absurd to say that, for instance, if Laos became in Union with a democratic China its voice over its own affairs would still be the same as when it was independent. Democracy is NOT a panacea. Democracy only works if the government is close to the people.
    Why should we be part of the UK, our devolved governments are closer?
    Why should we be part of those nations, our district councils are closer?
    Why should we be part of those districts, our county councils are closer?
    Why should we be part of those counties, our town counties are closer?

    This argument is silly because people always apply a completely arbitrary limit to the 'sensible' separation from ones governors when in fact the ONLY sensible endpoint is that of the individual, of anarchy and of free-association.


    For the record: I am an anarchist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The 600 million figure comes from the consequence of a "Remain" vote. The EU is destined for political union, everyone except the British media extols this publicly. See the quotes above or read the EU press.

    You will be voting for full political union with the EU in 10 or 20 years. Denying me an independent country.
    The British media is probably the most vocally eurosceptic. The BBC is impartial for obvious reasons and has to present a degree of neutrality which is never good enough for any side- the amount of time Nigel Farage gets on QT for instance.

    As for your points on Scotland. I disagree, but at least you're not a hypocrite when so many of those who vote leave are (I'm thinking of you Dan Hannan)

    Two points though.

    Whilst abstract ideas such as a united Europe or a fully 'sovereign' England is all well and good- let's not be too harsh on those either side of the debate that worry about the security and economic impacts that leaving or staying would entail.

    Lastly, in your vision of fully autonomous nation states:

    1: what makes these states legitimate? If democracy, why should that be universal and not other forms of governorship.

    2: how can these smaller balkanised states avoid coercion by larger states to suit their interests- eg Russia. There were bloody wars for unification as well as for independence e.g Italy for just this purpose. City states such as Milan may have been freer in a sense, but they were ultimately at the mercy of often non benevolent powers such as France or Spain.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I would have thought that being 1 in 600 million gives you, and your neighbours, less voice than being 1 in 600 million.

    It is absurd to say that, for instance, if Laos became in Union with a democratic China its voice over its own affairs would still be the same as when it was independent. Democracy is NOT a panacea. Democracy only works if the government is close to the people.
    So what, in your opinion, is the 'correct' point for democratic rule? If a smaller polity is always preferable, the eventual implication would be independence for every individual person, by which point democracy would be redundant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.