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

Can you try and convince me what I should vote for in EU referendum? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I want to stay in for emotional reasons, with all the scaremongering of ISIS I feel a united EU would be beneficial, but being a young person in the UK and where this decision will affect my future rather than just the short term benefit of a united front - I would like to be convinced of what to vote for, through being more logical in my choice. Facts and analysis would be more convincing than a quantitative opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    how would a unitied europe (politically) do anything against ISIS? how did that stop the belgian attacks? how did it stop the paris attacks? how did it stop the charlie hebdo attacks? how did it stop 7/7? how did it stop the madrid bombings? if we leave the EU, at least we'll stop random (islamic, or at least people from the middle east) people with EU passports (forged or not) from entering the country and potentially bombing us from within like the paris attacks. you might say "well europole is necessary for catching criminals and terrorists all over the continent" - why couldn't the states simply have treaties that regulate their continental approach to crime? why do we have to accept all the bull**** that comes along with the EU just for that? and by the way, don't label your will to defend the UK from ISIS (and hence your desire to remain in the EU) "emotional" because that's not emotional because there is a rationale behind that - the problem though is that the rationale is wrong - to step closer and closer to the politicisation of the EU simply for this is incredibly disproportionate - you want, say, an EU army? you want the EU to be the permanent member of the UN security council and not france and the UK (like it has replaced every european state in the world trade organisation)? is that really something that will substantively prevent terrorists from killing us? I doubt it. if we want to go to war with a nation (e.g. if it's fostering or financing terrorists) then we should agree to that democratically via our own democratic national procedures - we shouldn't have it dictated to us by all the other nations of the EU whom will inevitably be exploiting the fact that we're one of the strongest nations in the EU who will be fighting their battles for them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm neutral towards the EU but I think China, India, South American blocs, African blocs, Asian blocs will eventually make the UK irrelevant. I mean, the Asians are now the ones dominating economically and educationally. Who files the most PhD's in America? I can bet you without even looking it up it's probably Chinese, Japanese or Indian students, professors etc. What's going to stop that trend?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    how would a unitied europe (politically) do anything against ISIS? how did that stop the belgian attacks? how did it stop the paris attacks? how did it stop the charlie hebdo attacks? how did it stop 7/7? how did it stop the madrid bombings? if we leave the EU, at least we'll stop random (islamic, or at least people from the middle east) people with EU passports (forged or not) from entering the country and potentially bombing us from within like the paris attacks. you might say "well europole is necessary for catching criminals and terrorists all over the continent" - why couldn't the states simply have treaties that regulate their continental approach to crime? why do we have to accept all the bull**** that comes along with the EU just for that? and by the way, don't label your will to defend the UK from ISIS (and hence your desire to remain in the EU) "emotional" because that's not emotional because there is a rationale behind that - the problem though is that the rationale is wrong - to step closer and closer to the politicisation of the EU simply for this is incredibly disproportionate - you want, say, an EU army? you want the EU to be the permanent member of the UN security council and not france and the UK (like it has replaced every european state in the world trade organisation)? is that really something that will substantively prevent terrorists from killing us? I doubt it. if we want to go to war with a nation (e.g. if it's fostering or financing terrorists) then we should agree to that democratically via our own democratic national procedures - we shouldn't have it dictated to us by all the other nations of the EU whom will inevitably be exploiting the fact that we're one of the strongest nations in the EU who will be fighting their battles for them
    We aren't part of the Schengen area so we get to check passports. Also, you are aware the Belgian attacks occurred before any passports or airport security had been applied?

    The EU doesn't really increase or decrease our risk from terrorist attacks. We're an island which helps an awful lot but being in the EU is essentially going to have no detrimental impact on terrorism.

    You do mention things about forming new treaties but why bother? We have a good set of deals in an organised structure. Why leave and reorganise very similar deals? We'd have to accept caveats no matter what the likes of Farage claim and they'd probably be worse as the EU nations would be seriously annoyed if we decided to leave right in the middle of an enormous migrant crisis.

    You'll also be aware that the EU has no control over warfare. It's NATO which pulls us into a war. So we actually don't have any sovereignty in that respect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NatalieEXE)
    I want to stay in for emotional reasons, with all the scaremongering of ISIS I feel a united EU would be beneficial, but being a young person in the UK and where this decision will affect my future rather than just the short term benefit of a united front - I would like to be convinced of what to vote for, through being more logical in my choice. Facts and analysis would be more convincing than a quantitative opinion.
    The thing is I could throw millions of statistics at you but so could the Brexit side. There doesn't seem to be any clear cut and partial statistics out there.

    My reasons for staying in come in two parts. Firstly, I believe if we leave we will have to accept all the current problems in the EU like free movement etc. to be able to access the full free market. Being in the EU gives us influence and keep opt outs. For example, we no longer are roped into ever closer union, we're not part of the Eurozone and not part of the Schengen area. So we're already in a pretty good position.

    Secondly, I believe the EU is one of the few blocs capable of dealing with today's global problems. Surely 20+ countries are better working together to solve problems like climate change, terrorism and migration crises rather than 20+ individual nations each with their own strategies. Further, being in the EU provides us with lots of investment into science etc. which can help in tackling climate change etc.

    Basically, I think it's better to work collectively to deal with problems then work in isolation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JimJam456)
    We aren't part of the Schengen area so we get to check passports. Also, you are aware the Belgian attacks occurred before any passports or airport security had been applied?
    1) belgium is in schengan, of course they didn't - it's a good thing we're not in schengan, of course...
    2) what do you mean? you're saying that belgium had *no* airport security?

    The EU doesn't really increase or decrease our risk from terrorist attacks. We're an island which helps an awful lot but being in the EU is essentially going to have no detrimental impact on terrorism.
    too right

    You do mention things about forming new treaties but why bother? We have a good set of deals in an organised structure. Why leave and reorganise very similar deals? We'd have to accept caveats no matter what the likes of Farage claim and they'd probably be worse as the EU nations would be seriously annoyed if we decided to leave right in the middle of an enormous migrant crisis.
    regarding treaties, I was trying to suggest an example of how arrangements between states can be made without political unionisation. and because the EU is not worth the costs that it bears on our nation, perhaps (regarding "why reorganise?")? and what caveats are you referring to?

    You'll also be aware that the EU has no control over warfare. It's NATO which pulls us into a war. So we actually don't have any sovereignty in that respect.
    the EU's inner officials have, recently, quite regularly, been throwing around the idea of an EU army. we already have an EU foreign secretary and even that is a stretch of the consensus of what the EU ought to be doing administrationally to the UK's interest - why does the EU need a foreign minister when it isn't and shouldn't be interested in foreign policy? it is surely an economic union, or so we're told? NATO and the UNSC can handle military matters, the EU can pipe down via its lack of appropriateness.

    sorry for the long response
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    1) belgium is in schengan, of course they didn't - it's a good thing we're not in schengan, of course...
    2) what do you mean? you're saying that belgium had *no* airport security?



    too right



    regarding treaties, I was trying to suggest an example of how arrangements between states can be made without political unionisation. and because the EU is not worth the costs that it bears on our nation, perhaps (regarding "why reorganise?"? and what caveats are you referring to?



    the EU's inner officials have, recently, quite regularly, been throwing around the idea of an EU army. we already have an EU foreign secretary and even that is a stretch of the consensus of what the EU ought to be doing administrationally to the UK's interest - why does the EU need a foreign minister when it isn't and shouldn't be interested in foreign policy? it is surely an economic union, or so we're told? NATO and the UNSC can handle military matters, the EU can pipe down via its lack of appropriateness.

    sorry for the long response
    The bombers walked into the airport and blew themselves up. Theres a bit in an aorport where u can walk in and there's no no security. You get that in all airports.

    We'd have to accept caveats with any new deal this would likely be free movement of people.why reorganise new treaties and risk this?

    The EU was specifically set up have a consensus on foreign policy. It was originally designed to be a bloc against the Americans.

    Why should NATO control our foreign policy but the EU not?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JimJam456)
    The bombers walked into the airport and blew themselves up. Theres a bit in an aorport where u can walk in and there's no no security. You get that in all airports.

    We'd have to accept caveats with any new deal this would likely be free movement of people.why reorganise new treaties and risk this?
    I don't think the UK would allow for free movement of people - I think that's kind of a massive reason people want the UK to leave the EU and it would be crazy to not recognise that fact. you might say "well that's what the UK government will accept" but I don't desire that they make treaties that involve european-wide free movement - I only suggest that it would be a bad idea, and undemocratic. it would make leaving the EU in one quite large respect meaningless.

    The EU was specifically set up have a consensus on foreign policy. It was originally designed to be a bloc against the Americans.
    I doubt it, unless you can give me some evidence for that (especially the assumption that it wasn't merely a common market at first)

    Why should NATO control our foreign policy but the EU not?
    because the EU should cover an economic dimension, not a military one. are you agreeing with me, then, that the EU has turned into a federal political union since the EEC?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    I don't think the UK would allow for free movement of people - I think that's kind of a massive reason people want the UK to leave the EU and it would be crazy to not recognise that fact. you might say "well that's what the UK government will accept" but I don't desire that they make treaties that involve european-wide free movement - I only suggest that it would be a bad idea, and undemocratic. it would make leaving the EU in one quite large respect meaningless.
    How is it undemocratic, if Parliament ratifies it? How is it different than when Parliament passes any other Act?

    Frankly, this whole sorry affair is affirming my already jaundiced attitude to referendums as being a thoroughly idiotic means of forming policy.

    I doubt it, unless you can give me some evidence for that (especially the assumption that it wasn't merely a common market at first)
    There had been at least a decade of formal and informal co-operation among EEC states on things like foreign policy and a single currency before the UK joined the EC. Snake-in-the-tunnel, TREVI co-operation, and the Western European Union, for example. These things were hardly a secret or remote in the 1970s.

    because the EU should cover an economic dimension, not a military one. are you agreeing with me, then, that the EU has turned into a federal political union since the EEC?
    So your objection is not, then, that the UK should not be 'surrendering' its sovereignty to a 'foreign' organisation - you merely think we've done it to the wrong organisation? Do I understand you correctly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To think the EU in any way could help against ISIS is not grounded on what we have seen so far from this organization. The reality is that Schengen and the EU's weak policy on illegal immigration have permitted thousands of migrants to move to Europe, and once in Europe, it has given them free movement to commit terror.
    The EU has facilitated terrorism of the sort we saw in Brussels and Paris. At least one of the terrorists was a "refugee" that came recently and took advantage of open borders.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-policy.html

    The weak immigration stance of the EU is likely to compromise even more countries/areas.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-bombed.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ysts-fear.html

    The EU is also weak when representing its constituents in the face of foreign countries, as manifested by their total failure to secure a good deal when dealing with the African continent and with Turkey.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...m-seekers.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzBXNDNBtQ
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NatalieEXE)
    I want to stay in for emotional reasons, with all the scaremongering of ISIS I feel a united EU would be beneficial, but being a young person in the UK and where this decision will affect my future rather than just the short term benefit of a united front - I would like to be convinced of what to vote for, through being more logical in my choice. Facts and analysis would be more convincing than a quantitative opinion.
    You can read this post for a lot of facts and statistics about the EU.

    (Original post by plstudent)
    The EU is saying that there will either be multiculturalism (meaning native Europeans will eventually be a minority) or war.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q94syUDDhxAI think that is an incredibly poor choice to offer.To think the EU in any way could help against ISIS is not grounded on what we have seen so far from this organization. The reality is that Schengen and the EU's weak policy on illegal immigration has permitted thousands of migrants to move to Europe, and once in Europe, it has given them free movement to commit terror.The EU has facilitated terrorism of the sort we saw in Brussels and Paris. Several of the terrorists were recent "refugees".http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-policy.htmlThe weak immigration stance of the EU is likely to compromise even more countries/areas.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-bombed.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ysts-fear.htmlThe EU is very weak when dealing with foreign countries, as manifested by their total failure to secure a good deal for Europe when dealing with the African continent.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...m-seekers.html
    The Daily Mail isn't a credible source for anything ever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The Daily Mail isn't a credible source for anything ever.
    Is that supposed to be a serious argument? Look at the facts in the articles and compare to other outlets. I could care less about what you think of the Daily Mail.

    Just as an example, here are four other outlets that ratify the information in the first link:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/15/eu...cks-passports/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...omb-scene.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34896521

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-st...ece-1447698583

    You will have to look up other sources if you want to check the rest of the links, but it is information that is out there and available to anyone to verify.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I used to be opposed to Britain's membership of the EU, but since I started my Politics course last September I've changed my mind. My main concern is that the only codified protection of our civil liberties is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights 1975 into British law. Without the EU and the Human Rights Act, you would have no right to a fair trial, no right to free speech, no right of assembly, etc, because there simply is no 'British Bill of Rights'.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I used to be opposed to Britain's membership of the EU, but since I started my Politics course last September I've changed my mind. My main concern is that the only codified protection of our civil liberties is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights 1975 into British law. Without the EU and the Human Rights Act, you would have no right to a fair trial, no right to free speech, no right of assembly, etc, because there simply is no 'British Bill of Rights'.
    we got on perfectly fine before 1988 ! our legal system is the envy of the world & we managed with the vague but magnificent protections of Magna Carta. that is because English Chaps are decent and civilised.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I used to be opposed to Britain's membership of the EU, but since I started my Politics course last September I've changed my mind. My main concern is that the only codified protection of our civil liberties is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights 1975 into British law. Without the EU and the Human Rights Act, you would have no right to a fair trial, no right to free speech, no right of assembly, etc, because there simply is no 'British Bill of Rights'.
    The European Convention of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, my friend.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...n_Human_Rights

    Russia, for example, is signatory, and it has nothing to do with the EU.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    The Council of Europe (CoE; French: Conseil de l'Europe), founded in 1949, is a regional intergovernmental organisation whose stated goal is to promote human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in its 47 member states, covering 820 million citizens. The organisation is separate from the 28-nation European Union, though sometimes confused with it, in part because they share the European flag. Unlike the European Union, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws.The best known body of the Council of Europe is the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The Council of Europe's work has resulted in standards, charters and conventions to facilitate cooperation between European countries as an advisory body.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

    Voting leave would not mean the UK exits the ECHR. It would mean the people want to exit the EU, which is a different organization. The UK will remain signatory to the ECHR regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm still undecided and unless a side grabs my attention, I wont be voting.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    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.