- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- General Discussion
- →
- Should the UK leave or stay in the EU?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Should the UK leave or stay in the EU? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2016, 03:05 AM (1,705 Views) | |
| + Sandy Shore | Mar 3 2016, 03:05 AM Post #1 |
|
Since Pelador's previous thread that touched on this, I've been curious as to the opinions of everyone else here that is from the UK, and since Byn started one political poll, I don't see the harm in having another. Of course, the views of people from elsewhere are also welcome, and I've added some options for you; though, do please elaborate on your choice. Edited by Sandy Shore, Mar 3 2016, 03:08 AM.
|
 |
 
|
|
|
Mar 3 2016, 03:16 AM Post #2 |
 
|
I don't know I just feel that UK is better off leaving the EU referendum. I am not from UK but it just feels that UK leaving the EU will give UK the chance to create it's own Identity and become Independent. It might be tough at the start for the UK but if they can pull through it they can make their own Legacy. I want UK to make their own Legacy and Identity in the World. |
| |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 3 2016, 03:31 AM Post #3 |
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
We do have our own identity and we are independent. I'm voting to stay in because of reasons that apply mostly to myself. First of all importing goods from the mainland is cheaper than it would be if we left the E.U. Sometimes I import from France or Germany and I don't fancy paying the extra import fees. Secondly I plan to travel around Europe one day and I like the idea of cheaper and easier travel. Thirdly I plan to start my own business within the next couple of years and I believe that trading within the E.U will be much easier if we are within it. Lastly it's probable that Prime Minister David Cameron will be forced out of office if he fails to keep the UK within the E.U. This means that Boris Johnson or George Osborne will replace him without needing a public vote on the matter. Although one of them will likely replace him before the next general election anyway, I'd rather they did it closer to the election so that they have less time to ruin the country even further. Those are my personal reasons for wanting to stay in. |
 http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Mar 3 2016, 12:26 PM Post #4 |
Novacane for the pain
|
Interesting that, so far, the people that have voted to leave have all been from outside the UK, while those from the UK have voted to stay. Tiny sample size of course but I'd have expected the reverse more tbh. I'd prefer if the UK stayed. Ease of travel through the EU, the issue of trade within the EU if Britain were to leave, the security issue and intelligence sharing and the like, an exit might push Scotland towards secession again etc. The EU generally has a lot more sway as a whole on the international stage too than a single country, especially important as the UK's influence continues to slip. I think the biggest arguments to stay are ones that I don't really care for or value as much. Migration is an issue but it's one a lot of countries are dealing with, especially in the last couple of years. Never been particularly patriotic or care much for sovereignty (think the Parliament has too much power as it is anyway) so I'm not really fussed about the EU parliaments directives. Also worried about what this would mean for the UK staying in the Council of Europe. There's lots of talk about repealing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the Convention, which would be terrible. If we decided to leave the EU, it could give that particular movement more impetus. |
 We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Mar 3 2016, 02:10 PM Post #5 |
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
I wonder how many people that aren't from the UK that voted to leave are from the U.S. If you're from the EU and not from the UK it would be idiotic to want the UK to leave. It's not going to help the UK either, it's just going to damage the nation. Oh, and there's the problem of Scotland seceding from the UK. |
      Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 3 2016, 02:22 PM Post #6 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
No it's not going to help. It's like cutting off our nose to spite our face. We'd need years of legislative reforms to cover the things we'd lose. Trade agreements would need to renegotiated, new agriculture rules, a new British Bill of rights would need to be drafted as the European one would no longer be applicable. So much work and I don't think the end result pays. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Mar 3 2016, 04:26 PM Post #7 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
This one isn't actually true, which is why I said I would fear it could happen but leaving the EU wouldn't do this. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, it's a completely seperate organisation. The Convention was enacted under the Council of Europe, which is also seperate from the EU. To withdraw from the European Court, you would have to withdraw from the Convention separately and maybe the Council of Europe too but I'm not sure on that one. Though, like I said in my post, leaving the EU could give more of a reason for them to do this. |
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Mar 3 2016, 04:40 PM Post #8 |
|
It's not about sovereignty for the sake of pride or patriotism; it's for the sake of democracy, and having people in charge that you actually voted for. Why do you think Parliament has too much power, but you don't think the same of the un-elected law-breakers in Brussels, who have almost-complete power unopposed? According to article 125 in the Lisbon Treaty, it states that: And yet everyone bailed out Greece and Ireland, to keep the Euro going—keeping them currently much poorer than they would be if they let their economy crash and restart—because it was in the interest of the EU to keep them in the Euro. It was illegal, but they don't care - they do whatever suits them. When the Irish had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, it was rejected by 53%. What did the EU do a year later? They had another referendum, got the results they wanted, and then left it as is. The reason we should want sovereignty is genuinely not for the sake of national pride, but for the sake of democracy. Let those that the people actually voted to run the country, run the country. If we don't like them? Vote them out. You can't do this with the European Commission. Why would this affect our membership in the Council of Europe? It precedes the EU by eight-years, and our inclusion in to the EU by twenty-four. They're completely independent of one another. How can you be so sure? If the UK votes to stay, then we're shackled to the EU forevermore. We'll be shackled to a weakening economy, and the only continent that isn't on the rise as far as GDP goes. We'll be pressured in to taking the Euro eventually, and we've seen what that's done to Ireland, and Greece, and what it's currently doing for Spain, and Italy. The worst thing people can suggest is the EU is going to spite the UK, and prevent them trading with them, but they'll only be cutting their own noses if they do so. The UK imports far more than it exports to the rest of Europe, so they'll damaging their own, already weakening economies. It's possible, but genuinely unlikely. Turkey and Iceland aren't members of the EU, and they have the benefits of free-trade, like essentially all of Europe - members or not. Why on Earth would the UK be any different if it were to leave the EU? This also gives us the chance to set up trade deals with India, China, America, and the rest of the Commonwealth - in addition to Europe. Scotland wanted to secede when they thought they had struck rich with oil, and wanted it all to themselves. Still, they voted to stay when leaving presented them the opportunity to fund themselves going-it alone. It's not a guarantee they're going to suddenly feel brave if leaving England meant they wouldn't be in the EU, either. The possibility for Scotland having another referendum is already there, and leaving the technocrats in Brussels isn't going to be the nail in the coffin, though it might tempt them, sure. It sounds like scare-mongering, really; same as the point about leaving damaging the nation. None of which means we won't function in the mean-time, or benefit in the long-run. I don't believe anyone from the EU has suggested we will be charged more to import. Can you provide something that says they will? Otherwise, it's just scare-mongering; especially when all of the other nations within the European continent—EU members or not—enjoy this benefit—Turkey isn't even in Europe and it has this benefit—and it will cost them even more than it would cost us if they were to be petty and spiteful. It actually presents us the opportunity to get cheaper imports from elsewhere in the world, and not just Europe. Oh, and with a cheaper membership-fee for the tax-payers, like Sweden and Norway. Fair enough. See all that I've said above on how trading will really, very likely stay the same, and would also present you the possibility of trading with the rest of the world, too. We've been looking to trade with China, but Brussels prevents us from signing trade deals, and it looks to be costing us far more than is necessary. Can you back this up? That it's probable, that is. I provided you last time where Cameron himself begs to differ. He wants to stay in the EU, but there is no suggestion from anyone other than Nadine Dorries that he'll lose his position if he loses the referendum. In-fact, she doesn't say he'll lose his position, she says:
He's holding a referendum because there was a demand for it. He's giving the people what they said they wanted, and win or lose he'll still be the prime minister. |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Mar 3 2016, 05:49 PM Post #9 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
There is a contingent that are all about "taking back the UK" or whatever, I know that's not your argument but I just addressed that in general with a throwaway line, probably should have put that in a seperate sentence to clarify It's true that the European Commission are not elected through popular vote. However, they are: - appointed by governments of member states, who are elected - Subject to confirmation by the European parliament, who are also democratically elected - Do not make final decisions on either EU law or policy, that has to go through the EU Parliament and/or the Council of Ministers, who are also ministers of elected governments Should there be a change in the system? Yeah, the Commission should probably be made up of elected EU Parliament officials but I don't agree that they are unopposed. They are beholden to the ECJ, the EU Parliament, EU treaties, the Council of Ministers. They don't just create legislation and it then automatically becomes law, it still has to go through other democratic bodies.
I mean, enacting legislation or taking actions that isn't legal isn't unique to the EU either is it? For example, lets take the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. There was a provision in there that allowed the home secretary to indefinitely hold any non-citizen indefinitely pending deportation, even if deportation would be prohibited itself. This was incompatible with the Convention because it's an obvious human rights violation. There's been over 20 of these cases since 2000 and the only reason it is so low is because of parliamentary sovereignty and the legislature has unlimited power to make laws. In countries that have codified constitutions limiting legislative power, laws are made that are struck down all the time because they are illegal. What's more, in the case of the bailout, if any State took that to the European Court of Justice it could have been struck down because there is a mechanism to do that. The UK does not have an equivalent to this because the UK's Parliament has unlimited authority outside of the ECHR and the EU.
It's shady but it's not undemocratic. Like you said, it still had to pass a referendum before it was approved. I do not see it as less democratic than whipping votes in Parliament or constantly re-introducing bills until they pass. It's still influencing a vote to go the way you want rather than letting it play out.
My other post in this thread answers this, there's a significant push to leave the European Court of Human Rights, which is really all I care about the Council of Europe for anyway. By backing leaving the EU, it gives more legitimacy to the argument of leaving that as well as it touches on many of the same values and that is something I would be massively opposed to. A minor point but a concern all the same.
No you can't vote out the European Commission but the Commission doesn't have absolute power either, laws they propose still require approval from either the EU Parliament or Council of Ministers. Even if they did, it's hyperbolic to liken it to them running the country. EU laws make up about 7% of laws in the UK, t's hardly like they're overtaking the UK government. |
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2016, 06:06 PM Post #10 |
What will you do when you get old?
|
I'm pretty sure the E.U was also responsible for the oppressive gun control over there too. |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 3 2016, 06:32 PM Post #11 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#European_Union These laws don't seem that oppressive to me at all. I mean you can carry fire arms across most E.U borders providing you have legit paper work. And as it says, the UK and Poland already had tougher laws than what the E.U enforces. So you are wrong. The E.U had nothing to do with our gun laws. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Mar 3 2016, 06:45 PM Post #12 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
1. They're not oppressive. 2. Most countries had gun control before the EU. 3. Apparently they work, because we ask ourselves every year if there is going to be a school shooting. In America the question is not if, but how many. Our gun laws work, nobody is victimized by them. |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2016, 06:57 PM Post #13 |
|
What will you do when you get old?
|
School shootings happen very rarely here in America. Gang related shootings happen in schools, though. The intent isn't to kill everyone in spite, the intent is to kill rival gang members. The last real school shooting was Sandy Hook here. It also doesn't escalate to 130 people killed and 398 injured due to lack of an armed response, either. The closest thing we had to the Paris attacks in over a decade were the San Bernardino attack where 14 people died and 24 injured, where the attackers were stopped before they could cause any more damage. Countries may have had gun control before, but it only tightened under the E.Us iron grip. |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 3 2016, 06:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
Now whilst I do agree with the E.U's surprisingly liberal fire arms guidelines, I don't agree with their rules on martial weapons. Swords, axes, shurikens ect. The guidelines for these are pointless in my opinion since if you wanted to stab or slice someone then you could do it with a simple kitchen knife. People who collect medieval weapons and such don't generally use them for violence. Yet just because a few nut jobs have on occasion gone wild with what are deemed "exotic weapons", the true enthusiasts find it very difficult to legally get hold of them. Of course all of that is neither here nor there since my country which this thread is all about wouldn't allow such things regardless of the E.U's rules. The E.U provided a general framework for gun legislation. Those with very relaxed laws had to be a bit stricter but most countries within the E.U were already very strict about it anyway and so nothing much changed. It's important to understand that we never had such a gun culture as the USA so it's not an issue of any real importance. Besides like I've already said, it's also irrelevant to this discussion as this is about the UK. Edited by Pelador, Mar 3 2016, 07:03 PM.
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2016, 06:59 PM Post #15 |
|
What will you do when you get old?
|
I find it funny that you think that way yet support gun control. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 5:05 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy