• UK EU referendum: 'Yes' will mean stay in, 'No' will mean leave
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Vasili;47811753]The EU will try to scare the UK like the UK did to Scotland.[/QUOTE] I wish it would be the other way around. For all it's benefits the EU can be some real bullshit sometimes.
Fuck federal Europe, let's just go back to a feudal Europe.
[QUOTE=Rents;47816061]Fuck federal Europe, let's just go back to a feudal Europe.[/QUOTE] Much rather have Bubonic than Brussels, amirite?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47816089]Much rather have Bubonic than Brussels, amirite?[/QUOTE] Indentured servitude over Strasbourg
I think people expecting to be able to resign all of the economic treaties and so on or join the EEC or whatever underestimate how petty countries can be. If we left the EU there is almost no chance of any renegotiations.
The EU has been doing very good over the past few years and it's growing bigger and more cohesive. Sure, lately movements for leaving the EU have come up, but that is because it's picking up speed. Honestly i don't agree with the UK or any of the people that want to leave but if they vote for it so be it.
[QUOTE=Rents;47816061]Fuck federal Europe, let's just go back to a feudal Europe.[/QUOTE] Ironically in many ways, the European Union right now resembles the Holy Roman Empire (probably the only other thing I can think of similar to it). Of course, the EU is a much more modern version that takes into account all of the new developments of the past 200 years.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;47815587]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] Let's say 75% of country A is in favour of a law and 75% of the equal size country B is against it. If you let each country decide on a national level then 75% of citizens are happy. If you pass (or reject) the law on a supranational level only 50% of citizens are happy. Now obviously the EU needs to enforce some supranational regulations, otherwise it would be completely useless. But voting on EU level will always leave more people dissatisfied than voting national level, which one could argue is less democratic (I wouldn't say undemocratic though). (The same applies when voting on federal level vs state level, etc.)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;47823496]Ironically in many ways, the European Union right now resembles the Holy Roman Empire (probably the only other thing I can think of similar to it). Of course, the EU is a much more modern version that takes into account all of the new developments of the past 200 years.[/QUOTE] I'd say it more-closely represents 18th-early 19th century US but I don't know too much about the history of the Holy Roman Empire.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;47815745]If we left would we henceforth need visas to travel? Fuck that[/QUOTE] I guess this may be grounds for leverage for EU. "You leave EU? We will all impose visa area on you".
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47823515]I'd say it more-closely represents 18th-early 19th century US but I don't know too much about the history of the Holy Roman Empire.[/QUOTE] The Holy Roman Empire was more or less a supranational political union of central Europe. It was originally a proper empire, but became incredibly decentralized and rulers had various overlapping powers and jurisdictions. The Emperor was usually elected by the states within the Empire, and many of the issues that were worked upon (especially after the 30 years war) often concerned empire-wide economic issues (such as stabilizing the property market, regulating exchange rates, debt restructuring, bailouts, member states resolving disputes in court, etc.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47823506]Let's say 75% of country A is in favour of a law and 75% of the equal size country B is against it. If you let each country decide on a national level then 75% of citizens are happy. If you pass (or reject) the law on a supranational level only 50% of citizens are happy. Now obviously the EU needs to enforce some supranational regulations, otherwise it would be completely useless. But voting on EU level will always leave more people dissatisfied than voting national level, which one could argue is less democratic (I wouldn't say undemocratic though). (The same applies when voting on federal level vs state level, etc.)[/QUOTE] Let's say 75% of city A is in favour of a law and 75% of the equal size city B is against it. If you let each city decide on a municipal level then 75% of citizens are happy. If you pass (or reject) the law on a national level only 50% of citizens are happy. That's just how democracy works. You can get 100% of people happy by reducing decision making to an individual level. But then the whole thing turns into a chaos. That's why subsidiarity is such an important concept in EU law. Of course this upsets some people because subsidiarity implies giving more power to Scotland/Britanny/Catalonia, so a lot of politicians on a national level would prefer not to talk too much about subsidiarity and instead just go on and on about sovereignty forever (as if national sovereignty were inherently better than, say, supranational or local/popular sovereignty.)
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47811958]They shouldn't leave. It would set a precedent for other wavering EU members, and the reason the EU works is because it's everyone working together. No point in having an EU if say it is eventually reduced down to like just France and Germany.[/QUOTE] Isn't that the point though? The EU is great in principal, but it's also in denial that it's not still very wasteful and overly bureaucratic. Hell, the implementation of the Euro and they way that currency operates is still proof of this. I want to say something else as well. Sir Ian McKellen was on a BBC show the other evening and said that we should stay in because the ECHR has done so well for equality. The EU and that Court are completely separate and a lot of people seem unaware of this.
[QUOTE=Memobot;47823841] I want to say something else as well. Sir Ian McKellen was on a BBC show the other evening and said that we should stay in because the ECHR has done so well for equality. The EU and that Court are completely separate and a lot of people seem unaware of this.[/QUOTE] This is my biggest problem with a referendum, there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there I don't think most people would be able to make an informed decision. Hopefully between now and when it eventually happens there will be campaigns (from both sides of the argument) to raise the general understanding of the EU and what they are voting upon. I fear it might end up like the AV referendum, with people not understanding what they are voting on.
[QUOTE=Killuah;47812256]what? where does it drag everyone down? it made trading easier, I can take my MSc and easily apply for a Doctors degree in so many countries with nothing but my identity, it buffered the whole EU from the stupid financial crap the US caused in 08, this especially benefited the UK as one of the biggest financial service centres by the way, it caused us to discuss immigrants as a problem of Europe, not just Italy, Greece and Malta , the list goes on and on and on...[/QUOTE] I don't think you can really take the immigration issue as an example of good european solidarity. It took the EU two years, the dismantling of a 20.000.000€/month operation to save the asylum seekers, two of the greatest naval tragedies ever to happen in the Med Sea, Italy asking for help for one and a half years, Greece for six months, the UN, the NATO, the Pope (!) and Obama asking the EU to step in to defuse the situation for the institutions to just [I]consider[/I] talking about a european-wide solution. Basically, thousands of people died, and the pleas and warnings pleas of two member states, one of which is a founder and the third net contributor to the EU budget, went unheard for the better part of two years before Europe started talking about a possible solution. If that doesn't show that the current state of the Union is totally disfunctional to say the least, I don't know what it does.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.