Why we should leave the EU
Scroll to see replies
I'd really like to give more detailed answers here as this is interesting, but I don't have too much time
absolutely - it is an immoral institution (government) but does that necessarily mean that we ought not have it? if it means we might all die without it then obviously morality is secondary. but morality is still important. I think it was penn jillette who once asked a symbolic question that represents this really well: "is it possible that we could solve this problem (i.e. poverty in my example) with more liberty and not less?" - while I think it's pretty possible to at least mitigate poverty via charity, I don' think it's possible to, say, have national defence, an independent judiciary (etc) without a national government, because the sole strength of public institutions is that they are unified and can provide comprehensive answers to comprehensive issues (e.g. the direction of a national military). that would be diferent from, say, health policy, where each individual needs different things, and not some unified answer
One of the great liberal fears is the tyranny of the majority which is where pure democracy has a tendency to descend to oligarchy. This is where the concept of checks and balances comes in- eg a partly unelected second chamber and a constitutional monarch as well as an independent judiciary. And do the thinking goes that a system with checks and balances will cancel out the negative risks of democracy by diluting the absolute power of the state.
I also agree in this dimension (we weren't talking about this in particular previously so I never addressed it) - democracy is better than unaccountable rule (the point I made) long-term and holistically, but with regards to stabilising that system for the sake of fairness, certain rights are manatory, e.g. equal voting rights, freedom of expression (or else we can't have parties), freedom of association (or else we can't assemble to form these groups) etc - that's where aconstitution comes in. but a constitution is for the protection of a democracy, not the protection of a dictatorship (or some form of unaccountable leadership). something like, say, worker's rights, though, isn't about that stable democratic process - that's a political matter, not something for securitising democray itself
Well that's just rubbish. They have both.
For instance:
https://europeangreens.eu/content/egp-manifesto
firstly, that page itself doesn't seem to have the manifesto (maybe there's a link that I'm not seeing but ultimately I'm lacking on time for reading it either way) and secondly I am heavily presuming that this manifesto won't be so comprehensive and decisive butrather will, like I said, be vague and ambiguous, or at least too broad to scrutinise, e.g. "we will promote a better regulation of pollution and fracking" - that's not the same as saying "we will do this by legislating x policy" - there is too much variation and nuance to really know what they actually plan on voting for via their legislative power. for example, the tories and labour both want to cut crime, but saying "we will promote the cutting of crime" in a manifesto isn't meaningful as saying something like "we will do this via the increasing of criminal sentences, and CCTV" (etc).
also, the bigger point was that the greens (and all the other parties) had no real idea who would be the nominee for the EU commission president position, so voting for the greens (or, again, another party) is to the same as our own british process of voting for a local representative whom will then go on to vote for a certain person for prime minister. yes, it is the case that in our constitutional monarchy, the queen simply appoints the PM, but principally, they can only do that if they have a majority of support in the HOC, and that's how things happened even in 2010 - if gordon brown could have a coalition that was more stable that davi cameron, then the queen would hve had to appoint brown, and the brown appointment would have been dependent on how any MPs would have backed him. so voting for an MP is *far* more significant than voting for an MEP, almost infinitely so, based on how there is certainty on its implication for the executive branch
Again wrong, I suspect wilful ignorance. Juncker for instance was elected with a clear agenda of stabilising the euro via certain economic measures eg printing more currency. See above as well as here:
http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/eu-presidents/index_en.htm
no, I meant that the voters themselves (imaginably and without blame) would have had no idea about him until after the election. and either way, the EU parliament can't nominate its own candidate for commission president anyway, so their options are very much restricted, and rejecting a commission president won't, still, allow them to nominate a better individual. this is the same deal with regards to legislation, when they cannot propose or amend it independent from the supervision of the commission
(sorry, I didn't think I ha written as much as this - on't feel as if you have to write this much in return because that's not my intention)
Original post by Davij038
Indeed there are. But at the same time, there is always an implicit coercion on any government unless you want anarchy. Even if you want as small a state as possible (basically judiciary and army) why should I be forced to surrender my money on something which I think id be better left alone (i could recruit and equip my own private army at an extreme level, or simply I could survive in the wilderness with s crossbow)
absolutely - it is an immoral institution (government) but does that necessarily mean that we ought not have it? if it means we might all die without it then obviously morality is secondary. but morality is still important. I think it was penn jillette who once asked a symbolic question that represents this really well: "is it possible that we could solve this problem (i.e. poverty in my example) with more liberty and not less?" - while I think it's pretty possible to at least mitigate poverty via charity, I don' think it's possible to, say, have national defence, an independent judiciary (etc) without a national government, because the sole strength of public institutions is that they are unified and can provide comprehensive answers to comprehensive issues (e.g. the direction of a national military). that would be diferent from, say, health policy, where each individual needs different things, and not some unified answer
I also agree in this dimension (we weren't talking about this in particular previously so I never addressed it) - democracy is better than unaccountable rule (the point I made) long-term and holistically, but with regards to stabilising that system for the sake of fairness, certain rights are manatory, e.g. equal voting rights, freedom of expression (or else we can't have parties), freedom of association (or else we can't assemble to form these groups) etc - that's where aconstitution comes in. but a constitution is for the protection of a democracy, not the protection of a dictatorship (or some form of unaccountable leadership). something like, say, worker's rights, though, isn't about that stable democratic process - that's a political matter, not something for securitising democray itself
For instance:
https://europeangreens.eu/content/egp-manifesto
firstly, that page itself doesn't seem to have the manifesto (maybe there's a link that I'm not seeing but ultimately I'm lacking on time for reading it either way) and secondly I am heavily presuming that this manifesto won't be so comprehensive and decisive butrather will, like I said, be vague and ambiguous, or at least too broad to scrutinise, e.g. "we will promote a better regulation of pollution and fracking" - that's not the same as saying "we will do this by legislating x policy" - there is too much variation and nuance to really know what they actually plan on voting for via their legislative power. for example, the tories and labour both want to cut crime, but saying "we will promote the cutting of crime" in a manifesto isn't meaningful as saying something like "we will do this via the increasing of criminal sentences, and CCTV" (etc).
also, the bigger point was that the greens (and all the other parties) had no real idea who would be the nominee for the EU commission president position, so voting for the greens (or, again, another party) is to the same as our own british process of voting for a local representative whom will then go on to vote for a certain person for prime minister. yes, it is the case that in our constitutional monarchy, the queen simply appoints the PM, but principally, they can only do that if they have a majority of support in the HOC, and that's how things happened even in 2010 - if gordon brown could have a coalition that was more stable that davi cameron, then the queen would hve had to appoint brown, and the brown appointment would have been dependent on how any MPs would have backed him. so voting for an MP is *far* more significant than voting for an MEP, almost infinitely so, based on how there is certainty on its implication for the executive branch
http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/eu-presidents/index_en.htm
no, I meant that the voters themselves (imaginably and without blame) would have had no idea about him until after the election. and either way, the EU parliament can't nominate its own candidate for commission president anyway, so their options are very much restricted, and rejecting a commission president won't, still, allow them to nominate a better individual. this is the same deal with regards to legislation, when they cannot propose or amend it independent from the supervision of the commission
(sorry, I didn't think I ha written as much as this - on't feel as if you have to write this much in return because that's not my intention)
Original post by 雷尼克
Yes, I'd rather have some politicians in Brussels, who are devoid of a political agenda, making laws than David Cameron.
Would you rather have a good dictatorship or a bad parliament?
Original post by Tempest II
Would you rather have a good dictatorship or a bad parliament?
good dictatorship, our ability to 'vote out' the bad parliament is nullified by the ignorant people who vote tory because they don't want to empathise with people in different situations
Original post by 雷尼克
good dictatorship, our ability to 'vote out' the bad parliament is nullified by the ignorant people who vote tory because they don't want to empathise with people in different situations
So just because the British people vote differently to you makes you think you're superior? Who voted for the leader of the EU? British and other European voters certainly didn't..
Original post by Tempest II
So just because the British people vote differently to you makes you think you're superior? Who voted for the leader of the EU? British and other European voters certainly didn't..
I wouldn't say 'superior', I would probably say 'more informed', given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK.
And I don't care if no one 'votes for the EU leaders', they are more reliable because David Cameron and the tories, if in control of our laws fully, would use it to manipulate their public image, just as they are currently doing with the 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I would rather have some people who had no political agenda other than to do their job to do this, rather than a dodgy government.
Original post by 雷尼克
I wouldn't say 'superior', I would probably say 'more informed', given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK.
And I don't care if no one 'votes for the EU leaders', they are more reliable because David Cameron and the tories, if in control of our laws fully, would use it to manipulate their public image, just as they are currently doing with the 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I would rather have some people who had no political agenda other than to do their job to do this, rather than a dodgy government.
And I don't care if no one 'votes for the EU leaders', they are more reliable because David Cameron and the tories, if in control of our laws fully, would use it to manipulate their public image, just as they are currently doing with the 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I would rather have some people who had no political agenda other than to do their job to do this, rather than a dodgy government.
The EU very much has its own agenda - it wants to spread & gain more power. The fact that less well nations have been allowed into the EU shows this. Some people blame the Ukraine Crisis on the EU's expansion as it upset Russia (I don't particularly buy that argument but I understand their point).
Conservative voters tend to be the older generations; they've paid into the system for most of their lives & probably travel more than most as they usually have more disposable income. I'd love to see what proof you have saying that most Tory voters haven't been abroad.
Original post by BubbleBoobies
I'd really like to give more detailed answers here as this is interesting, but I don't have too much time
absolutely - it is an immoral institution (government)
absolutely - it is an immoral institution (government)
Why is it immoral?
but does that necessarily mean that we ought not have it? if it means we might all die without it then obviously morality is secondary. but morality is still important. I think it was penn jillette who once asked a symbolic question that represents this really well: "is it possible that we could solve this problem (i.e. poverty in my example) with more liberty and not less?"
It's hard to enjoy your freedom when you're starving in a gutter. Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows!
]
- while I think it's pretty possible to at least mitigate poverty via charity, I don' think it's possible to, say, have national defence, an independent judiciary (etc) without a national government, because the sole strength of public institutions is that they are unified and can provide comprehensive answers to comprehensive issues (e.g. the direction of a national military). that would be diferent from, say, health policy, where each individual needs different things, and not some unified answer
- while I think it's pretty possible to at least mitigate poverty via charity, I don' think it's possible to, say, have national defence, an independent judiciary (etc) without a national government, because the sole strength of public institutions is that they are unified and can provide comprehensive answers to comprehensive issues (e.g. the direction of a national military). that would be diferent from, say, health policy, where each individual needs different things, and not some unified answer
Uh, a unified health policy would be the promotion of health for everyone! I see. I difference between how you would tackle an invasion by a government army and how you could tackle poverty or obesity. A series of independent freedom fighters with no hierarchy could in theory fight off an invasion but we know a unified army would work better.
I also agree in this dimension (we weren't talking about this in particular previously so I never addressed it) - democracy is better than unaccountable rule (the point I made) long-term and holistically, but with regards to stabilising that system for the sake of fairness, certain rights are manatory, e.g. equal voting rights, freedom of expression (or else we can't have parties), freedom of association (or else we can't assemble to form these groups) etc - that's where aconstitution comes in. but a constitution is for the protection of a democracy, not the protection of a dictatorship (or some form of unaccountable leadership). something like, say, worker's rights, though, isn't about that stable democratic process - that's a political matter, not something for securitising democray itself
No they're one and the same (if I get your meaning right).
The EU system is accountable see:
http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/benns-five-questions/
The chief purpose of the EU is to prevent states from declaring war on each other and in this it has been massively successful in ensuring a peaceful and beneficial solution. Whilst of course there are some constraints on states ability to act purely for their own self interest, this is mediated by the effects of the single market which prevents States for damaging rivals as it would drag them down too. Pooling our sovereignty is worth this peace, not including the massive benefits being in the EU brings.
firstly, that page itself doesn't seem to have the manifesto (maybe there's a link that I'm not seeing but ultimately I'm lacking on time for reading it either way) and secondly I am heavily presuming that this manifesto won't be so comprehensive and decisive butrather will, like I said, be vague and ambiguous, or at least too broad to scrutinise, e.g. "we will promote a better regulation of pollution and fracking" - that's not the same as saying "we will do this by legislating x policy" - there is too much variation and nuance to really know what they actually plan on voting for via their legislative power. for example, the tories and labour both want to cut crime, but saying "we will promote the cutting of crime" in a manifesto isn't meaningful as saying something like "we will do this via the increasing of criminal sentences, and CCTV" (etc).
There's a opened manifesto that you can view at the bottom by clicking and dragging. They do offer concrete proposals eg give consumers greater protection by introducing a European bill of digital rights and protecting the environment by banning certain pesticides - these are all things that can be achieved at the European kevel.
also, the bigger point was that the greens (and all the other parties) had no real idea who would be the nominee for the EU commission president position, so voting for the greens (or, again, another party) is to the same as our own british process of voting for a local representative whom will then go on to vote for a certain person for prime minister. [
yes, it is the case that in our constitutional monarchy, the queen simply appoints the PM, but principally, they can only do that if they have a majority of support in the HOC, and that's how things happened even in 2010 - if gordon brown could have a coalition that was more stable that davi cameron, then the queen would hve had to appoint brown, and the brown appointment would have been dependent on how any MPs would have backed him. so voting for an MP is *far* more significant than voting for an MEP, almost infinitely so, based on how there is certainty on its implication for the executive branch
Uh, what? As you've said, it's the same in the UK?its even more democratic as the UK has a completely unelected head of state. So that completely doesn't follow- ie the president of the commission is made from I the largest EU party - the EPP.
no, I meant that the voters themselves (imaginably and without blame) would have had no idea about him until after the election. and either way, the EU parliament can't nominate its own candidate for commission president anyway, so their options are very much restricted, and rejecting a commission president won't, still, allow them to nominate a better individual. this is the same deal with regards to legislation, when they cannot propose or amend it independent from the supervision of the commission
(sorry, I didn't think I ha written as much as this - on't feel as if you have to write this much in return because that's not my intention)
But that's the way that sovereign member states have chosen it to be like ( preventing a directly elected president emerging ). This leaves the EU in a temporary catch 22 position in which it wants to democratise but can't because democratically elected governments are (understandably) hesitant about cedeing greater powers over. Thus the paradox of it not being a democracy because it's a democracy! But, it is next to inevitable that it will occur, and rightly so.
Original post by Tempest II
The EU very much has its own agenda - it wants to spread & gain more power. The fact that less well nations have been allowed into the EU shows this. Some people blame the Ukraine Crisis on the EU's expansion as it upset Russia (I don't particularly buy that argument but I understand their point).
Conservative voters tend to be the older generations; they've paid into the system for most of their lives & probably travel more than most as they usually have more disposable income. I'd love to see what proof you have saying that most Torry voters haven't been abroad.
Conservative voters tend to be the older generations; they've paid into the system for most of their lives & probably travel more than most as they usually have more disposable income. I'd love to see what proof you have saying that most Torry voters haven't been abroad.
Quit twisting my words
I quite clearly said "given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK."
And now you insult me with this pathetic attempt to twist my words "most Torry voters"
I'm done arguing with someone like you, you demand proof for something which was a reasonable assumption, given that I said 'some' and 'probably', but you insult me with the exact rhetoric you're attempting to criticise by telling me that the "EU only has one agenda, for more power"
Don't demand proof when you're making even more substantial claim without proof lmao, goodbye.
Original post by 雷尼克
I wouldn't say 'superior', I would probably say 'more informed', given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK.
And I don't care if no one 'votes for the EU leaders', they are more reliable because David Cameron and the tories, if in control of our laws fully, would use it to manipulate their public image, just as they are currently doing with the 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I would rather have some people who had no political agenda other than to do their job to do this, rather than a dodgy government.
And I don't care if no one 'votes for the EU leaders', they are more reliable because David Cameron and the tories, if in control of our laws fully, would use it to manipulate their public image, just as they are currently doing with the 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I would rather have some people who had no political agenda other than to do their job to do this, rather than a dodgy government.
Dude. You are literally the person whose views I can't help but state are a "pile of tosh". Get a reality check my friend.
You support unlected dictatorships over elected governments. Where is any logic in that? Power to the people? No power to the leader. Go to China, north korea or russia. I am sure you will enjoy your stay there!
#1 tory voters havent left the country. Point is so stupid and wrong i dont even need to explain why. Youd get maybe half marks if you said UKIP or BNP but haha no.
#2 the eu has no political agenda? Reality check m9. What about plans for a federal, united states of europe huh? So you trust people from another country to rule over people from your own country? Do you not have faith in britain? Do you not havr nationalistic tendancies at all?
#3 the conservatives may be dodgy. But hey m9 look at the proposed tax credits huh? Lords blocked it and they got scrapped. Look at votes on airstrikes on syria 2013/14. Parliament voted no! What about legalising gay marriage? It passed!
Public support is key for putting pressure on the government. And we havr the lords that are ridiculously independent its great.
Ok i know the current issue of junior doctors strikes being ignored by Hunt is a negativr sign, but public pressure is still with the doctorz. The government wi fold!
Look at corbyn too. Hes revived politics. Hes nailing cameron and his slimy tactics at PMQs weekly. People are noticing. AND because we are in a democracy in 2020 they can vote using the hindsight of this government! All the good and bad.
Good day to you sir. Stop spewing nonsense.
Original post by pereira325
Dude. You are literally the person whose views I can't help but state are a "pile of tosh". Get a reality check my friend.
You support unlected dictatorships over elected governments. Where is any logic in that? Power to the people? No power to the leader. Go to China, north korea or russia. I am sure you will enjoy your stay there!
#1 tory voters havent left the country. Point is so stupid and wrong i dont even need to explain why. Youd get maybe half marks if you said UKIP or BNP but haha no.
#2 the eu has no political agenda? Reality check m9. What about plans for a federal, united states of europe huh? So you trust people from another country to rule over people from your own country? Do you not have faith in britain? Do you not havr nationalistic tendancies at all?
#3 the conservatives may be dodgy. But hey m9 look at the proposed tax credits huh? Lords blocked it and they got scrapped. Look at votes on airstrikes on syria 2013/14. Parliament voted no! What about legalising gay marriage? It passed!
Public support is key for putting pressure on the government. And we havr the lords that are ridiculously independent its great.
Ok i know the current issue of junior doctors strikes being ignored by Hunt is a negativr sign, but public pressure is still with the doctorz. The government wi fold!
Look at corbyn too. Hes revived politics. Hes nailing cameron and his slimy tactics at PMQs weekly. People are noticing. AND because we are in a democracy in 2020 they can vote using the hindsight of this government! All the good and bad.
Good day to you sir. Stop spewing nonsense.
You support unlected dictatorships over elected governments. Where is any logic in that? Power to the people? No power to the leader. Go to China, north korea or russia. I am sure you will enjoy your stay there!
#1 tory voters havent left the country. Point is so stupid and wrong i dont even need to explain why. Youd get maybe half marks if you said UKIP or BNP but haha no.
#2 the eu has no political agenda? Reality check m9. What about plans for a federal, united states of europe huh? So you trust people from another country to rule over people from your own country? Do you not have faith in britain? Do you not havr nationalistic tendancies at all?
#3 the conservatives may be dodgy. But hey m9 look at the proposed tax credits huh? Lords blocked it and they got scrapped. Look at votes on airstrikes on syria 2013/14. Parliament voted no! What about legalising gay marriage? It passed!
Public support is key for putting pressure on the government. And we havr the lords that are ridiculously independent its great.
Ok i know the current issue of junior doctors strikes being ignored by Hunt is a negativr sign, but public pressure is still with the doctorz. The government wi fold!
Look at corbyn too. Hes revived politics. Hes nailing cameron and his slimy tactics at PMQs weekly. People are noticing. AND because we are in a democracy in 2020 they can vote using the hindsight of this government! All the good and bad.
Good day to you sir. Stop spewing nonsense.
If you think I honestly said that 'all tory voters haven't left the UK' then you clearly didn't read my post fully, I'm guessing you were skimreading looking for someone to pick a fight with and noticed something I said and jumped on your incorrect interpretation of it
and yes, I have more faith in people who's JOB it is to manage the EU and its countries laws, etc, than David Cameron and the Tories who's agenda is quite clearly something else, given the random Osbourne 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I sure as hell trust those people who have no political agenda than the tories who would no doubt add some stupid laws to appeal to the tory voters.
@pereira325
I disagree with both you and the guy with the (Chinese/ Japanese?) hieroglyphs, but on your point on patriotism and unelected rulers- Britain has a long tradition of being ruled (with popular support) by foreign monarchs from Belgium, Hannover etc.
Also you seem to be in favour of the (oft undemocratic) lords ability to be independent and prevent the Tories from achieving their democratic mandate. I agree, so doesn't there seem to be a good reason for having a purely democratic system as the checks and balances prevent a tyranny of the majority ?
I disagree with both you and the guy with the (Chinese/ Japanese?) hieroglyphs, but on your point on patriotism and unelected rulers- Britain has a long tradition of being ruled (with popular support) by foreign monarchs from Belgium, Hannover etc.
Also you seem to be in favour of the (oft undemocratic) lords ability to be independent and prevent the Tories from achieving their democratic mandate. I agree, so doesn't there seem to be a good reason for having a purely democratic system as the checks and balances prevent a tyranny of the majority ?
Original post by 雷尼克
Quit twisting my words
I quite clearly said "given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK."
And now you insult me with this pathetic attempt to twist my words "most Torry voters"
I'm done arguing with someone like you, you demand proof for something which was a reasonable assumption, given that I said 'some' and 'probably', but you insult me with the exact rhetoric you're attempting to criticise by telling me that the "EU only has one agenda, for more power"
Don't demand proof when you're making even more substantial claim without proof lmao, goodbye.
I quite clearly said "given that some tory voters probably haven't even left the UK."
And now you insult me with this pathetic attempt to twist my words "most Torry voters"
I'm done arguing with someone like you, you demand proof for something which was a reasonable assumption, given that I said 'some' and 'probably', but you insult me with the exact rhetoric you're attempting to criticise by telling me that the "EU only has one agenda, for more power"
Don't demand proof when you're making even more substantial claim without proof lmao, goodbye.
Original post by 雷尼克
If you think I honestly said that 'all tory voters haven't left the UK' then you clearly didn't read my post fully, I'm guessing you were skimreading looking for someone to pick a fight with and noticed something I said and jumped on your incorrect interpretation of it
and yes, I have more faith in people who's JOB it is to manage the EU and its countries laws, etc, than David Cameron and the Tories who's agenda is quite clearly something else, given the random Osbourne 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I sure as hell trust those people who have no political agenda than the tories who would no doubt add some stupid laws to appeal to the tory voters.
and yes, I have more faith in people who's JOB it is to manage the EU and its countries laws, etc, than David Cameron and the Tories who's agenda is quite clearly something else, given the random Osbourne 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I sure as hell trust those people who have no political agenda than the tories who would no doubt add some stupid laws to appeal to the tory voters.
I actually would prefer to have people who aren't career politicians & have experience in the real world rather than spending years running the EU (or the UK Parliament for that matter, that's one thing I do dislike about the Conservatives - most have spent a long time in politics after studying History & Politics at university).
I'm not a huge fan of the sugar tax but I can understand why it'll be brought it.
I'm curious if you think that more Labour voters have been abroad than Conservative voters.
I never actually said the EU only had one agenda. I'm sure it has several. Some of them I agree with (lower phone bills across Europe) but I cannot support the freedom of movement with the EU & it's desire to spread to nations which are very different to the UK.
Original post by 雷尼克
If you think I honestly said that 'all tory voters haven't left the UK' then you clearly didn't read my post fully, I'm guessing you were skimreading looking for someone to pick a fight with and noticed something I said and jumped on your incorrect interpretation of it
and yes, I have more faith in people who's JOB it is to manage the EU and its countries laws, etc, than David Cameron and the Tories who's agenda is quite clearly something else, given the random Osbourne 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I sure as hell trust those people who have no political agenda than the tories who would no doubt add some stupid laws to appeal to the tory voters.
and yes, I have more faith in people who's JOB it is to manage the EU and its countries laws, etc, than David Cameron and the Tories who's agenda is quite clearly something else, given the random Osbourne 'sugar tax' and the forced academisation. I sure as hell trust those people who have no political agenda than the tories who would no doubt add some stupid laws to appeal to the tory voters.
Well... you said British people voting differently to you makes you more informed.
No i interpreted it correctly. I have actually pretty much this whole thread since the EU referendum does interest me. Slightly hard as im mobile and people are writing massive chunks. I am challenging you not just for that statements, since pretty much all of your posts in this thread have been silly. Can provide evidence, but really is it necessary? A few people on this thread have disagreed with your views, so it is not just me who thinks youre a bit out of order.
Ok fair enough you trust eu beaurocrats more than the current government.
Assuming they are politically neutral, why do you trust them over say the UK lords? The latter arent neutral but are largely free of the governments shackles, e.g Lord Dubs ammendment for the child refugees from europe recently. Either way why would you trust someone outside the country making decisions for the country, when they arent even living in it? Lets be honest, the eu chooses a "one size fits all" policy, and the uk is only 1 out of like 27 countries. How much do they care about our country when making legislation anyway??
My interest is then, which political party do you trust? Dont really seem to be clicking with any tbh except some radical socialist one, but not labour.
Are you saying the sugar tax was not a good thing? It makes sense, and more taxes should be placed on high sugar goods. Even salt, fat etc. The nhs is sinking as it is.
by the way, my keyboard is broken so you might see some typos, but I can't be bothered to go through each and every one
because it's coercive - again, it's better (imo) to seek answers based on peace and less on violence
It's hard to enjoy your freedom when you're starving in a gutter. Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows!
yes but then when I talk about morality, that concerns the morality of personal responsibility. being attacked, robbed (etc) is different to not being able to get enough money to eat, because to have that kind of standard of rights requires more coercion and not less. having somebody stop me getting harmed by anther person isn't something I can mitigate against if we have a somalia-esque situation where warlords will come into existence and ultimately will be the rule of coercion, as opposed to a market situation of the provision of security - when you have an absence of hierarchical stability, markets can't exist in the first place, surely?
you've misunderstood me. a military cannot operate federally or regionally; there will be contradictions and failures of communication. or at least much more of it. with health care (which can be based on federal systems easily, or locally, for instance), the fact that I need, say, an operation in my area doesn't mean that I should force everybody in another area to get the insurance coverage to cover a similar operation - different people have different needs, whereas armies need a unified central command to be successful. again, if you have armies doing whatever they want to do (e.g. based on different clientel) then they will be very uncoordinated to deal with an enemy that could use this lack of co-ordination against them
No they're one and the same (if I get your meaning right).
The EU system is accountable see:
http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/benns-five-questions/
The chief purpose of the EU is to prevent states from declaring war on each other and in this it has been massively successful in ensuring a peaceful and beneficial solution. Whilst of course there are some constraints on states ability to act purely for their own self interest, this is mediated by the effects of the single market which prevents States for damaging rivals as it would drag them down too. Pooling our sovereignty is worth this peace, not including the massive benefits being in the EU brings.
I really don't see how political unification stops wars. what about the wars of former yugoslavia in the 90s? why didn't the unification of these different ethnies equate to peace? if anything it did the opposite, right? and if political unifications stopwars, why do we have civil wars?
There's a opened manifesto that you can view at the bottom by clicking and dragging. They do offer concrete proposals eg give consumers greater protection by introducing a European bill of digital rights and protecting the environment by banning certain pesticides - these are all things that can be achieved at the European kevel.
okay then, what about their non-environmental policies? and again, this seems very much as if they're *expecting* more EU policies being foisted upon us in the UK, as if the EU wasn't inteventionist enough
Uh, what? As you've said, it's the same in the UK?its even more democratic as the UK has a completely unelected head of state. So that completely doesn't follow- ie the president of the commission is made from I the largest EU party - the EPP.
I'm a republican
and yes but the UK might be wholly against this MEP bloc - how can we do anything to stop them democratically from voting in a president we oppose? even if we all 100% voted, say, UKIP, how is this going to mean anything in terms of democracy for the UK in the EU? and either way, how does this have anything to do with the candiate itself? the candidate doesn't actually come from the parliament, it comes from the commission. that's the issue - the MEPs have no idea who really to expect until later on when people have already voted for those MEPs - unlike the UK where the voting for MPs is the same as voting for the prime minister, efectively (in a parliamentary system) but the process of electing legislators and having those MEPs symbolically appointing a commission leader are completely segregated in their processes which is problematic in the senses that I've explained - the president of the commission has nothing to do with the parliament, essentially, so the voters have no connection to that president, only, vaguely , the MEPs, and not the ones from the UK whom aren't mainly connected to the EPP
But that's the way that sovereign member states have chosen it to be like ( preventing a directly elected president emerging ). This leaves the EU in a temporary catch 22 position in which it wants to democratise but can't because democratically elected governments are (understandably) hesitant about cedeing greater powers over. Thus the paradox of it not being a democracy because it's a democracy! But, it is next to inevitable that it will occur, and rightly so.
why do you figure that having an elected president means that the president will have more power? don't they have enough power already? I mean, surely the point is simply legitimation?
Original post by Davij038
Why is it immoral?
because it's coercive - again, it's better (imo) to seek answers based on peace and less on violence
yes but then when I talk about morality, that concerns the morality of personal responsibility. being attacked, robbed (etc) is different to not being able to get enough money to eat, because to have that kind of standard of rights requires more coercion and not less. having somebody stop me getting harmed by anther person isn't something I can mitigate against if we have a somalia-esque situation where warlords will come into existence and ultimately will be the rule of coercion, as opposed to a market situation of the provision of security - when you have an absence of hierarchical stability, markets can't exist in the first place, surely?
Uh, a unified health policy would be the promotion of health for everyone! I see. I difference between how you would tackle an invasion by a government army and how you could tackle poverty or obesity. A series of independent freedom fighters with no hierarchy could in theory fight off an invasion but we know a unified army would work better.
you've misunderstood me. a military cannot operate federally or regionally; there will be contradictions and failures of communication. or at least much more of it. with health care (which can be based on federal systems easily, or locally, for instance), the fact that I need, say, an operation in my area doesn't mean that I should force everybody in another area to get the insurance coverage to cover a similar operation - different people have different needs, whereas armies need a unified central command to be successful. again, if you have armies doing whatever they want to do (e.g. based on different clientel) then they will be very uncoordinated to deal with an enemy that could use this lack of co-ordination against them
The EU system is accountable see:
http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/benns-five-questions/
The chief purpose of the EU is to prevent states from declaring war on each other and in this it has been massively successful in ensuring a peaceful and beneficial solution. Whilst of course there are some constraints on states ability to act purely for their own self interest, this is mediated by the effects of the single market which prevents States for damaging rivals as it would drag them down too. Pooling our sovereignty is worth this peace, not including the massive benefits being in the EU brings.
I really don't see how political unification stops wars. what about the wars of former yugoslavia in the 90s? why didn't the unification of these different ethnies equate to peace? if anything it did the opposite, right? and if political unifications stopwars, why do we have civil wars?
okay then, what about their non-environmental policies? and again, this seems very much as if they're *expecting* more EU policies being foisted upon us in the UK, as if the EU wasn't inteventionist enough
I'm a republican
and yes but the UK might be wholly against this MEP bloc - how can we do anything to stop them democratically from voting in a president we oppose? even if we all 100% voted, say, UKIP, how is this going to mean anything in terms of democracy for the UK in the EU? and either way, how does this have anything to do with the candiate itself? the candidate doesn't actually come from the parliament, it comes from the commission. that's the issue - the MEPs have no idea who really to expect until later on when people have already voted for those MEPs - unlike the UK where the voting for MPs is the same as voting for the prime minister, efectively (in a parliamentary system) but the process of electing legislators and having those MEPs symbolically appointing a commission leader are completely segregated in their processes which is problematic in the senses that I've explained - the president of the commission has nothing to do with the parliament, essentially, so the voters have no connection to that president, only, vaguely , the MEPs, and not the ones from the UK whom aren't mainly connected to the EPP
why do you figure that having an elected president means that the president will have more power? don't they have enough power already? I mean, surely the point is simply legitimation?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Marrow
This is incorrect as we'd stay in the EEA.
Oh sure because that was the EU's idea and not the International Telephone Users Group (ITUG) in their 1999 report which investigated GSM roaming which forwarded the infrastructure to sort this roaming charge nonsense--which the EU then delayed for far too long.
But keep reading the Guardian like the daft sheep you are.
What does this mean? What is with the obsession of using buzzwords instead of giving anything substantial?
I don't get this argument.
Company A produces Product A and Product B. I don't like Product B, but because Product A doesn't taste very nice, I should like Product B and Product A instead of getting rid of both of them.
Oh sure because that was the EU's idea and not the International Telephone Users Group (ITUG) in their 1999 report which investigated GSM roaming which forwarded the infrastructure to sort this roaming charge nonsense--which the EU then delayed for far too long.
But keep reading the Guardian like the daft sheep you are.
What does this mean? What is with the obsession of using buzzwords instead of giving anything substantial?
I don't get this argument.
Company A produces Product A and Product B. I don't like Product B, but because Product A doesn't taste very nice, I should like Product B and Product A instead of getting rid of both of them.
They were simple examples, there's a lot more to the EU than those, but those are the most publicised. If you looked at countries like Greenland who left the EU when it was the EEC (or whatever it was) their GDP went down dramatically. Luckily, however, Greenland was only a small country and was able to revive themselves. The U.K., however, relies on trade with other countries much more than Greenland did many years previously. And I was merely stating how when people are so against having those in EU unelected, they seem to be forgetting we have it in our own democratic system that won't change.
And the phones, it's cheaper in European countries than it is in the UK (ie Cyprus on MTN a text is 2c, in the UK it's a lot more). The EU is able to enforce this, the U.K. On its own, is not. Comparatively to other countries, Britain pays a lot more for things like that.
It's difficult though, no one knows what will actually happen if we do leave; we could have a huge economics recession as countries stop trading with us, or reduce our trade. The worth of the pound could go down, with inflation going up, causing major issues if we want to go abroad, or buy from other than the UK. We may also prosper, but it seems unlikely; we rely on the EU, for a lot of different funding and rights, the transition would take years anyway.
But yes, if you want to leave the EU, vote to leave, it's entirely your choice.
Look at Corbyns voting record. He is completely against the EU.- in 1975 Corbyn voted 'No' to the European Community- in 1993 Corbyn voted against ratifying the Maastricht Treaty- in 2008 Corbyn voted against implementing the Lisbon Treaty- in 2011 Corbyn backed a proposal to hold an EU referendumVote Brexit, and Cameron may well be resigning soon after....
Why leaving the EU is the best choice for younger people.
The housing crisis was a credit crisis, which affected every country. One intentionally created by the elites. Central bankers. The People who own the fed, like the Rockefellers, and Rothschilds, and the people who have worked for them in the past, like Sir James Crosby, Head of HBOS, [who Brown knighted for services to banking. Utter Buffoon that he is]However now we have a situation where the 'land bankers' such as large housebuilders, and other corporations, are basically funding both Labour and the Tories. [They gave both parties millions of pounds]Andy Wightmans book, 'Who Owns Scotland and how they got it. The poor had no lawyers' and 'Who Owns Britain' by Kevin Cahill are both very illuminating reads, on the feudal dictatorship of land that the UK still is.And yet Labour, refuse to even discus the idea of a LVT Land value Tax, which would simply replace our existing council taxes and incomes taxes, but tax land which is sitting idle doing nothing. At the moment, that land is subsidised by grants from the EU, to the tune of billions per year, meaning the poorest taxpayers fund the richest landowners.Its very funny when Andy Wightman calls for a LVT, or even the Green party, who attempted to pass a bill once. [Well done to them] and certain Lords call it MUGABISM! When all that land was stolen, and organisations like the largest private landlord in the country, the National Trust, have a sordid history of murder, eviction and starvation[50 black acts were introduced, enabling landlords, who stole common land, post enclosures acts, to kill villagers who continued to try and make a living off it]These politicians and establishment figures, want us to remain in the EU for THEIR best interests, not ours. As it has always been. How can you believe anything they tell you?When its proven to be lie after lie after lie?So one of the main areas I want to see redressed is the billions given in EU grants to aristocrats, and large corporations, for 'land banking' in the form of farming grants. The land registry still does not know who owns up to 50% of the land in the UK. Land is untaxed. Land which does not pay its own way should be subject a LVT.The poorest taxpayers pay for the richest landowners, who are nothing short of benefit cheats. They drip feed parcels of urban land onto the urban housing market keeping land prices at sky high unaffordable levels.Im convinced that the MPC of the BOE will be forced to raise IR far sooner, if we brexit, than if we did not.My parents pensions have been eroded so badly, that unless this happens, I dont think they will make it.Interest Rates are at their lowest for three hundred years, I want them to go back up. That WILL create a fairer economy. The divide between the haves and have nots is at its greatest since dickensian times.Which would be bad for banks. BTL'ers. Land Banking, giant corporations.But good for savers, pensioners, priced out generations, and would bring some equality back to Britain.Whoever wins the referendum will lose in the public's eyes in the medium term. If Remain win, the EU will still implode, it might be the refugee crisis, the rise of the far right or terrorism, but it wont be as we know it in 5 to 10 years time. Then everyone will say we should have got out when we had the chance. If Leave wins, then there will be a downturn this year, the pound could be hit and interest rates may have to rise. But this will only be part of the process of getting back to a normal economy. We will be the single biggest new business prospect for every country around the world and being the 5th largest economy will be able to forge new or better business links. But the immediate pain will be akin to having a bad operation where the positive results are only felt several years in the future. Sadly politics has become more and more short term. Its perfectly acceptable to be totally for Europe, but Vehemently against the EU.
The housing crisis was a credit crisis, which affected every country. One intentionally created by the elites. Central bankers. The People who own the fed, like the Rockefellers, and Rothschilds, and the people who have worked for them in the past, like Sir James Crosby, Head of HBOS, [who Brown knighted for services to banking. Utter Buffoon that he is]However now we have a situation where the 'land bankers' such as large housebuilders, and other corporations, are basically funding both Labour and the Tories. [They gave both parties millions of pounds]Andy Wightmans book, 'Who Owns Scotland and how they got it. The poor had no lawyers' and 'Who Owns Britain' by Kevin Cahill are both very illuminating reads, on the feudal dictatorship of land that the UK still is.And yet Labour, refuse to even discus the idea of a LVT Land value Tax, which would simply replace our existing council taxes and incomes taxes, but tax land which is sitting idle doing nothing. At the moment, that land is subsidised by grants from the EU, to the tune of billions per year, meaning the poorest taxpayers fund the richest landowners.Its very funny when Andy Wightman calls for a LVT, or even the Green party, who attempted to pass a bill once. [Well done to them] and certain Lords call it MUGABISM! When all that land was stolen, and organisations like the largest private landlord in the country, the National Trust, have a sordid history of murder, eviction and starvation[50 black acts were introduced, enabling landlords, who stole common land, post enclosures acts, to kill villagers who continued to try and make a living off it]These politicians and establishment figures, want us to remain in the EU for THEIR best interests, not ours. As it has always been. How can you believe anything they tell you?When its proven to be lie after lie after lie?So one of the main areas I want to see redressed is the billions given in EU grants to aristocrats, and large corporations, for 'land banking' in the form of farming grants. The land registry still does not know who owns up to 50% of the land in the UK. Land is untaxed. Land which does not pay its own way should be subject a LVT.The poorest taxpayers pay for the richest landowners, who are nothing short of benefit cheats. They drip feed parcels of urban land onto the urban housing market keeping land prices at sky high unaffordable levels.Im convinced that the MPC of the BOE will be forced to raise IR far sooner, if we brexit, than if we did not.My parents pensions have been eroded so badly, that unless this happens, I dont think they will make it.Interest Rates are at their lowest for three hundred years, I want them to go back up. That WILL create a fairer economy. The divide between the haves and have nots is at its greatest since dickensian times.Which would be bad for banks. BTL'ers. Land Banking, giant corporations.But good for savers, pensioners, priced out generations, and would bring some equality back to Britain.Whoever wins the referendum will lose in the public's eyes in the medium term. If Remain win, the EU will still implode, it might be the refugee crisis, the rise of the far right or terrorism, but it wont be as we know it in 5 to 10 years time. Then everyone will say we should have got out when we had the chance. If Leave wins, then there will be a downturn this year, the pound could be hit and interest rates may have to rise. But this will only be part of the process of getting back to a normal economy. We will be the single biggest new business prospect for every country around the world and being the 5th largest economy will be able to forge new or better business links. But the immediate pain will be akin to having a bad operation where the positive results are only felt several years in the future. Sadly politics has become more and more short term. Its perfectly acceptable to be totally for Europe, but Vehemently against the EU.
Original post by Rover73
Look at Corbyns voting record. He is completely against the EU.- in 1975 Corbyn voted 'No' to the European Community- in 1993 Corbyn voted against ratifying the Maastricht Treaty- in 2008 Corbyn voted against implementing the Lisbon Treaty- in 2011 Corbyn backed a proposal to hold an EU referendumVote
Or the EU has changed and is now more palpable to left wingers. Margaret Thatcher spent the majority of time in government as an ardent europhike but gradually became more eurosceptic.
Brexit, and Cameron may well be resigning soon after....
Well Cameron's resigning anyway. Vote Brexit and get the idiot Boris Johnson as prime minister; short term economic self harm and mass deregulation ( erosion of workers rights, environmental protection etc) . Yay
Original post by JordanL_
They've been telling us what to do for the last 40 years, and they've represented my interests far better than any elected British government has in my life time.
I somehow doubt they do. Tell me, what are the interests of the Commission, one of the only political bodies in the world where the criteria to join seems to be failure in your own country.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 雷尼克
Yes, I'd rather have some politicians in Brussels, who are devoid of a political agenda, making laws than David Cameron.
You honestly believe there is no political agenda?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Help with living costs
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Eligibility for student finance if I was in the EU for a period of the last 3 years
- International fees Student Loan
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- universita cattolica del sacro cuore med entrance exam
- Eligibility for Student Finance
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- What is the biggest issue you want your chosen uni to stand up for?
- maintenance loan
- Is it worth getting a PGCE or do i just need QTS
- Is anyone applying to Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Rome) for medicine?
- Student loan issue
- Help with Dual Nationality and Residential Category in UCAS application!!!!!
- I had a student finance rejected.
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- What funding am I eligible for? Foundation course student
- Postgraduate Master's Loan
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
