• UK EU referendum: 'Yes' will mean stay in, 'No' will mean leave
    104 replies, posted
lol at the people who compare the UK maybe leaving the EU to the Scot's almost leaving the UK 1. a prosperous liberal financial hub wants to leave a statist business regulating consortium in order to keep loose pro business and trade laws and also to keep the weird foreigners and colored people out not 1. a people absorbed into a monarchy after bloody conquests and massacres tired of those posh city people who experimented with them in the eighties
[QUOTE=headshotter;47812037]It isn't working that great so far though. The EU has taken way too much power over the nations and their sovereignty. [B]Nowadays you're either against the UE or a federalist. There's not much room left in public debates for the middle grounds.[/B] Imo we should keep the EU and withdraw from Schengen and the €.[/QUOTE] Which makes the UK's position impossibly difficult - we will never be part of a completely integrated Europe, but it is absolutely clear that the long-term goal of the EU is to become a single state
[QUOTE=.Lain;47812020]source[/QUOTE] His ass.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47812199]You missed the point. Having a higher, centralised level of government isn't necessarily undemocratic.[/QUOTE] It is if you cant vote for them. I can vote for an EMP but how is the population involved when it comes to choosing the EU's internal leaders? Can democratic vote remove them? The EU is more akin to a technocracy than a democracy. What this comes down to is this: The UK joined in 1974 because the economy was on the ropes and the EU was more or less a free trade zone that would be the 'cure all' to the UKs economic woes. The organisation has changed quite significantly since then, it is only right it should be scrutinised to whether or not it in the national interest, though I don't think that's the debate anymore because we are having a referendum.
[QUOTE=chedobson;47814186]It is if you cant vote for them. I can vote for an EMP but how is the population involved when it comes to choosing the EU's internal leaders? [/QUOTE] The Commission is appointed by the Parliament. Unless you're going to argue that all executive powers should be directly elected by the people, how is this different from other European democracies? EDIT: not to mention the slew of NGOs and lobbying efforts you could join. Or the [url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/20150201PVL00037/Petitions]Petitioning[/url]. Democracy only works insofar you actually care. The tools are there. The EU is sliding towards a more democratic institution with every new Treaty. It's just that nobody cares enough to actually let their voice be heard, and they prefer complaining about Brussels instead of getting involved.
"Are you in or out?" Yes/No
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;47812272]Not taking a side on this issue but what human rights abuses? the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly stepped in while we tried to remove Abu-Qatada from the UK and back to Jordan. From what I recall we ignored it and did a treaty with Jordan to promise he wouldn't be subject to Torture and sent him on his way.[/QUOTE] It's not just Abu Qatada but a whole spectrum of issues. Prisoner voting rights, for one. What was an entirely sensible decision by Strasbourg devolved into such a public outrage that they changed their decision, and [i]the Tories still want out of its jurisdiction[/i]. Apparently the mere thought that British human rights protection isn't perfect is enough to upset your leadership. And I could use the troubles and the torture of Irishmen as another example, but those are from decades ago so I doubt it'd have much weight to it. The thing is, the UK occasionally does shitty things to people, and they're not alone in that. But the UK is the only country where the government throws a shitfit over judicial decisions they dislike and want to leave the jurisdiction of the court instead of, you know, discussing issues with them (like Dominic Grieve did). So what I meant to say was closer to "Piss off with your government's boner for scrapping human rights" because if you read what the Tories actually want to do, it's pretty clear they're only doing this in the interest of the state, regardless of what human rights groups and jurists say about the matter. And people are clapping and cheering at the thought of it.
I'm opposed to the EU for one very simple reason, the fact that "Ever closer union" is part of the EU's constitution. The desire for permanently closer integration between countries is explicitly the goal of the EU and therefore so is the undermining of national sovereignty and I'm fundamentally opposed to that. More-so virtually no-one here or throughout most of Europe ever voted for ever-closer union but it's forced on us by a clique of condescending Eurocrats who think they know what's best for everyone. I accept that further integration has to be agreed by all member states but the majority of those member states didn't ask their people whether they wanted treaties such as Maastrict or Amsterdam or Nice or Lisbon, they were just told to accept it. Even those countries which did have referendums were forced to rerun them if the EU didn't get the answer it wanted. I'm all in favour of a free market and a European trade bloc, I'm all in favour of the sort of standardisation across the Europe that the EU brings but what I am against is being treated by the EU as if my view and that views of millions of people who share my view are irrelevant and ignorant.
I have never heard a single argument against the EU that has swayed me in any way. What it has done for rights and peace in Europe is unrivalled.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;47815422]I have never heard a single argument against the EU that has swayed me in any way. What it has done for rights and peace in Europe is unrivalled.[/QUOTE] Do you really think that the EU is the only reason that there hasn't been a war in Europe since WW2? Do you also think that the ECHR has really done that much for rights, considering that the European court is only an advisory body and not legally binding?
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815448]Do you really think that the EU is the only reason that there hasn't been a war in Europe since WW2? Do you also think that the ECHR has really done that much for rights, considering that the European court is only an advisory body and not legally binding?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. I don't think its a coincidence that there is now cooperation and trade between countries that had been at each other's necks for centuries. And the ECHR provides a high court for those who feel wronged by their governments to go to. Go read some of the cases on their website, they're published and a good read a lot of the time.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815448]Do you really think that the EU is the only reason that there hasn't been a war in Europe since WW2? Do you also think that the ECHR has really done that much for rights, considering that the European court is only an advisory body and not legally binding?[/QUOTE] Yes. I had people from Poland for visit at a congress just a few weeks ago. we cooperate at a project now. University cooperation. Easy. No passports for visiting, no working permits for working in a different country necessary. So many success stories for everyone who works in education, the industry, everyone who has to deal with tasks bigger than day-to-day labour. Even the scaremongering "the easterners gunna take our jobs" scenarios fell flat on their faces.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;47815462]Absolutely. I don't think its a coincidence that there is now cooperation and trade between countries that had been at each other's necks for centuries. [/QUOTE] But I'd argue that this feeling of peace and cooperation created the EU, not the other way around. The aftermath of both the first and second world wars left Europe is such a desolate state that it left both France or Germany not desiring conflict anymore, they both needed each other to re-build as did every country on mainland Europe, this need to rebuild laid the foundations of the EU. Other things which fostered this peace and cooperation included the end of imperialism and the rise of the Soviet Union, both meant that France and Germany as well as other European powers didn't really have a reason to fight anymore. Infact arguably since the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, the EU has now done more to foster Franco-German rivalry than anything else. France has started becoming increasingly Eurosceptic since Germany was reunited because it meant that France was no-longer the leading power in the EU whilst Germany is increasingly fed up with France's economic problems.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815509]But I'd argue that this feeling of peace and cooperation created the EU, not the other way around. The aftermath of both the first and second world wars left Europe is such a desolate state that it left both France or Germany not desiring conflict anymore, they both needed each other to re-build as did every country on mainland Europe, this need to rebuild laid the foundations of the EU. Other things which fostered this peace and cooperation included the end of imperialism and the rise of the Soviet Union, both meant that France and Germany as well as other European powers didn't really have a reason to fight anymore. Infact arguably since the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, the EU has now done more to foster Franco-German rivalry than anything else. France has started becoming increasingly Eurosceptic since Germany was reunited because it meant that France was no-longer the leading power in the EU whilst Germany is increasingly fed up with France's economic problems.[/QUOTE] Do you mean that French people have become increasingly Eurosceptic because they were utterly blasted by the recession, and its extremely easy to blame the EU rather than mismanagement of your own country? If you believe that French and German people were buddies because they were both in the shit after WW2 you are naive as hell. I'm not saying the EU was the only factor, but I can't imagine the degree of cooperation we have now, after fighting the largest war mankind has ever seen, could have come about as a result of fear of the USSR. Also saying that France and Germany needed each other due to resources is admitting the victory of the EU. The whole point is to forge interdependence on cooperating economies. They both needed each other (or perceived that they did), so the ECSC was created to enable that. Europe has been united by trade, trade that has primarily been enabled by the EU.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815509]But I'd argue that this feeling of peace and cooperation created the EU, not the other way around. The aftermath of both the first and second world wars left Europe is such a desolate state that it left both France or Germany not desiring conflict anymore, they both needed each other to re-build as did every country on mainland Europe, this need to rebuild laid the foundations of the EU. Other things which fostered this peace and cooperation included the end of imperialism and the rise of the Soviet Union, both meant that France and Germany as well as other European powers didn't really have a reason to fight anymore. Infact arguably since the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, the EU has now done more to foster Franco-German rivalry than anything else. France has started becoming increasingly Eurosceptic since Germany was reunited because it meant that France was no-longer the leading power in the EU whilst Germany is increasingly fed up with France's economic problems.[/QUOTE] You say that the EU fosters Franco-German rivalry and yet in the next sentence you claim that the reason for that is is France no longer leading in terms of power. So that very reason is something that is not a result of the EU. You literally said the French people became eurosceptic because of an event that is not caused by being in the EU. The EU enables countries to share and cooperate and discuss issues like that instead of going into pointless conflicts.
[QUOTE=headshotter;47812282]Except aside from the European parliament, most of the meaningful decisions are taken by non-elected institutions. Which makes it kind of not democratic in my books.[/QUOTE] Unless you're living in a Direct Democracy, that's how it usually goes for your country as well: You vote for local representatives and general parties that then further decide the precise makeup of the rest of the government body. For example, US citizens never elect a president themselves, the United States Electoral College does that. In Germany you directly vote for who gets into the parliaments (that of Germany and those of its individual "states"), but those parliaments then vote for Germany's president, chancellor and Bundesrat. Similar in France where the Sénat's electors are local elected representatives. That's simply called a Representative Democracy. It's basically designed to be a mix between the people's opinion and the opinion of professionals (which the people have chosen).
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;47815537] Also saying that France and Germany needed each other due to resources is admitting the victory of the EU. The whole point is to forge interdependence on cooperating economies. They both needed each other (or perceived that they did), so the ECSC was created to enable that. Europe has been united by trade, trade that has primarily been enabled by the EU.[/QUOTE] Again, I'm not denying the economic benefits which the EU has brought, nor am I against interdependence or sharing of resources but what I am against is the EU simply doing more of these things without asking. I'm not going to say that the EU has been a bad thing for Europe because that wouldn't be true but there are elements of it which I am against, which it is incapable of changing.
The EU is an entity with a lot of influence and power. It will not got away. We will be bound by it's decisions if we are within or outside of it. The current government has done nothing except diminish our own influence in the EU by being part of a weak and small EU party, using strongarming and ultimatiums in order to set up all our negotiations to fail on purpose, just so all the backbenchers can say "Aha! Look! They hate us and we would be better off not bothering!". So now even if there is some fruition from the talks it won't matter, as any deal reached by this government will not negate all the years of poor ukip-pandering work they've built within the UK and the EU in the last 5 years. Same with the terrible hack-job they did of sorting out our press. Pro-EU are going to be eaten alive.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47812399]With federation smaller communities will be dominated and forced to follow policy they don't agree with. Thats quite undemocratic. Whether or not thats acceptable is up to the Europeans.[/QUOTE] Err, what? That's [i]completely[/i] democratic. That is literally the concept of democracy. No matter what you do [i]some[/i] small community in a democracy is going to be forced to go along with policy they don't agree with, because people aren't homogenous. Democracy is the rule of the majority. That would be like if I were to say that the US government is "undemocratic" because states with different cultures and goals are forced to cooperate with policy they don't agree with, and state governments are undemocratic because they force cities with different cultures and goals to cooperate with policy they don't agree with.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815573]Again, I'm not denying the economic benefits which the EU has brought, nor am I against interdependence or sharing of resources but what I am against is the EU simply doing more of these things without asking. I'm not going to say that the EU has been a bad thing for Europe because that wouldn't be true but there are elements of it which I am against, which it is incapable of changing.[/QUOTE] That is the nature of representative democracy I'm afraid. Things like the Maastricht Treaty were signed into power by the members of the EC. As with Amsterdam, as with Nice, and with Lisbon. 'The EU' didn't ask, because the EU is formed of countries which accepted these agreements. If you have disagreements with what the EU is doing, you should be taking it up with your country signing for it.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;47815610]That is the nature of representative democracy I'm afraid. Things like the Maastricht Treaty were signed into power by the members of the EC. As with Amsterdam, as with Nice, and with Lisbon.[/QUOTE] But here's the thing that I get hung up on. It's not representative democracy, as I said, virtually no-one asked or voted for any of those treaties. They were conceived by the EU and voted for by national governments, those governments weren't elected on a mandate of signing those treaties, and most of them didn't consult their electorate before signing them.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47815618]But here's the thing that I get hung up on. It's not representative democracy, as I said, virtually no-one asked or voted for any of those treaties. They were conceived by the EU and voted for by national governments, those governments weren't elected on a mandate of signing those treaties, and most of them didn't consult their electorate before signing them.[/QUOTE] Right, so what you're saying here is that you have a problem, because the representative that your country - via it's own electoral process, elected a representative government which didn't consult the people when signing a piece of EU legislation. So, who's at fault here, because it's sounds like it's your government for not consulting the people, and not the EU who has your government sign under the belief that it represents the views of the people. Your criticism of the EU is entirely defeated if a government which represents the views of its people, signs a piece of EU legislation. If you're saying that it's wrong, then you're saying that either representative democracy doesn't work, or that your representative doesn't represent your views. Either way, that's not a problem for the EU (specifically).
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47811998]I imagine the people who want to leave don't support the EU existing in the first place. Can't see why you would. The whole thing undermines national government and democracy itself.[/QUOTE] The whole thing is a representative democracy I suppose the UN is even worse if people see the EU as such [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;47815618]But here's the thing that I get hung up on. It's not representative democracy, as I said, virtually no-one asked or voted for any of those treaties. They were conceived by the EU and voted for by national governments, those governments weren't elected on a mandate of signing those treaties, and most of them didn't consult their electorate before signing them.[/QUOTE] Happens at the UN all the time though, the difference is only that the EU works faster
The weird thing about the EU is that if you have more democracy then it undermines national sovereignty, and if you protect national sovereignty it becomes less democratic, and people get angry about both. It's all a big balance between people who are elected and people who are appointed by the national governments, and that also gives it a pretty complicated structure which just makes it easier for people to shit on it because no one understands how it all works.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47815640]The whole thing is a representative democracy I suppose the UN is even worse if people see the EU as such[/QUOTE] People complain that the UN doesn't do anything, but then when they get a supranational entity that [B]does[/B], they complain that it's undemocratic and violates sovereignty. At the end of it, I just believe that some people dislike supranational entities, and that for some they'll never do anything right.
If we left would we henceforth need visas to travel? Fuck that
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;47815745]If we left would we henceforth need visas to travel? Fuck that[/QUOTE] I expect there would be some 'agreement' so there are no visas. I wouldn't count on it, though.
Would someone who is against the EU explain me why the logic of " we are not getting any benefits from it so we should leave the ship" logic wouldn't apply to nations itself, because the same problems happens to some communities inside every country. The "it's not democratic" doesn't apply. By the same logic we can say every country is not democratic.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;47815793]Would someone who is against the EU explain me why the logic of " we are not getting any benefits from it so we should leave the ship" logic wouldn't apply to nations itself, because the same problems happens to some communities inside every country. The "it's not democratic" doesn't apply. By the same logic we can say every country is not democratic.[/QUOTE] I don't recall anyone saying that there are absolutely no benefits to EU membership, most people seem to group together people who want treaty change with those who want to leave entirely, which is wrong. The reason most are fundamentally against the EU is because it was sold decades ago as being solely an economic union, whereas it has now grown towards being a political union and will continue to do so. People want the undisputed economic benefits but without the excessive cost, bureaucracy, 'red tape', etc. If you were to remove the free trade agreement from the equation then any support for the EU would likely soon evaporate. As for it not being democratic, there really isn't much comparison to a national parliament in that there is no formal opposition and the process for electing the European Parliament President greatly differs from electing a Prime Minister. Instead, the opposition typically comprises of a few small UKIPesque parties and the process for electing the President rests on the elected MEPs. This leaves many feeling that the European Parliament is distant and lacks transparency as they have no real view of who will become President. When Martin Schulz was campaigning to become the President, I was aware of who he and his predecessor were, but no one I spoke too had the faintest idea.
Surprised this video hasn't been posted yet [video=youtube;7NPC47qMJVg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg[/video] We can't stay divided into smaller nations competing against each other if we're going to progress and advance as a civilization. The EU shouldn't become one giant super-state but it currently does a very good job of unifying us.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.