Should the UK leave or stay in the EU?

Rotation Advertisements

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 (1,709 Views)
Mihawk	Mar 3 2016, 07:02 PM Post #16
Posts: 4,804 Group: Prodigy Member #4,783 Joined: March 2, 2010 Gender Not Specified	Richard Kuklinski Mar 3 2016, 06:57 PM 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. This will probably help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States



+ Pelador	Mar 3 2016, 07:05 PM Post #17
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	One person can kill hundreds with an automatic weapon and not even need any training for how to use it. Try achieving the same result with a shuriken or a medieval flail. That's the difference.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


*Copy_Ninja*	Mar 3 2016, 07:08 PM Post #18
*Novacane for the pain* Posts: 8,033 Group: Guardian Member #6,499 Joined: July 18, 2011 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Hunter x Hunter (2011) What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga Monster, One Piece, Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist, Hunter X Hunter, Death Note, SnK	No more discussion of gun control in here, it's off topic.
	We'll never be those kids again


+ Sandy Shore	Mar 3 2016, 07:30 PM Post #19
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	Copy_Ninja Mar 3 2016, 05:49 PM 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. This is why I say "almost-complete power unopposed". Yes, they have to go through a system, but it is the heads of the commission that propose legislation that they seek to impose on everyone else, and everything after that is really just a matter of stalling. The UK is stalling the Euro, though they've every intention of weaseling us in to it. It really is one of the worst things that would happen to this country, and I think getting away from that, and their "ever closer" motto, is almost reason enough to leave. All countries within the EU still have their own national interests because—counter to what the EU seems to believe—we're all independent, very different nations, that have essentially been jammed together. So this means that we're voting all the best people as leaders in to our own governments, where they're more-or-less powerless against the overarching EU, and someone else is sent to represent us there. People you barely notice exist are your EU representatives. There has been a desire for a change in the system for a long time now, but there's no sight of it. Please don't vote to stay in expecting a change, because once we're in, what reason do they have to honour any kind of improvements to the system? They have a history of having only their own interests in mind, and fobbing off everyone else. When the European Constitution was proposed, many countries didn't get a referendum on it. Of those that did, France and the Netherlands voted against it. What did they do? They concocted the Lisbon Treaty instead. When the Irish voted against that, they held another referendum one year later. They have an agenda, and they're constantly pushing for it, sneaking it in any way they can. And even when it suits them, they're demonstrably willing to break laws. If this were a truly democratic system, we could just vote these people out, directly. Is the system going to change? It's essentially a certainty that it won't, and voting to keep us in is only going to keep them moving ahead as they already are. The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it. — Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007 Quote: 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. No, the EU isn't the only governing body that does illegal things in its own interest, but the difference is that we can directly vote to keep who we want in charge of the UK, or who we want to replace them with. I would much rather get rid of someone who broke the law come the next election, than go through a court case against their action—which would undoubtedly amount to nothing if only a country or two were to do so—where they still remain in power when all is said and done. Marching onwards to the ever closer ideal. Quote: 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. Yes, these people who don't really represent us—even if from our own country—can vote on laws, but, not only will we inevitably get laws that are better suited to other countries, but I believe the EU Parliament can not vote on one-third of the laws proposed. That's quite a sizeable chunk going unopposed. As for the 7%: this suggests it could be upwards of 70%, though is at the very least 14%. The House of Commons supposedly estimates about 53% of all regulations come from Brussels. The Telegraph supposes about two-thirds. "About 50%" is the figure I've most often heard, but we can't be sure. It's not desirable either way, though. Quote: 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. I don't think it's a serious concern, and is genuinely the first I've heard about this. Of course, I agree with you that it's an disagreeable outcome, but I don't think it's at all likely, unless you could point me to something that expresses how large the desire is?



*Copy_Ninja*	Mar 3 2016, 09:05 PM Post #20
*Novacane for the pain* Posts: 8,033 Group: Guardian Member #6,499 Joined: July 18, 2011 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Hunter x Hunter (2011) What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga Monster, One Piece, Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist, Hunter X Hunter, Death Note, SnK	Lazuli Mar 3 2016, 07:30 PM This is why I say "almost-complete power unopposed". Yes, they have to go through a system, but it is the heads of the commission that propose legislation that they seek to impose on everyone else, and everything after that is really just a matter of stalling. The UK is stalling the Euro, though they've every intention of weaseling us in to it. It really is one of the worst things that would happen to this country, and I think getting away from that, and their "ever closer" motto, is almost reason enough to leave. Hey I'm not in favour of adopting the Euro either, but it's not something the EU is capable of forcing on a member State. They might try to assert more influence to do so down the road granted, but that's not out of the ordinary for any kind of international politics anyway. Quote: There has been a desire for a change in the system for a long time now, but there's no sight of it. Please don't vote to stay in expecting a change, because once we're in, what reason do they have to honour any kind of improvements to the system? They have a history of having only their own interests in mind, and fobbing off everyone else. While I would prefer it to change, I don't have any real expectation that it will and don't want to stay in based off the notion of some future EU changes. Quote: All countries within the EU still have their own national interests because—counter to what the EU seems to believe—we're all independent, very different nations, that have essentially been jammed together. So this means that we're voting all the best people as leaders in to our own governments, where they're more-or-less powerless against the overarching EU, and someone else is sent to represent us there. People you barely notice exist are your EU representatives. Like you said, we're represented in two ways. Through our own governments, and their policy with the EU is something that should be accounted for in your vote just like any other policy is, and through MEP. Governments aren't powerless anymore than say your single MP that you send to a Parliament is powerless against the entirety. It's part of the deal with any kind of system you're going to have when you're relying on representatives, they're going to be up against a large group and you're left to trust they make themselves heard. Ideal? Not entirely but you can make the same argument for any representative democracy too. I know you'll have an issue with being able to vote out governments on a domestic level as the difference, I talk about that more below. There is a problem of lack of engagement with the European Parliament I agree, which is how you end up with stuff like UKIP members sitting in it. That's more of an implementation and education problem rather than just the system itself. Elections should be made a bigger deal of and people should be more aware of what they are. If the UK is still in the EU after this is done, maybe that can change. So to save me quoting the entire piece, I think it's fair to say the main crux of the next part of the argument is that we have a more direct manner of dealing with representatives not doing what we want through elections and we can't replace the Commission. This is true, however my contention on it is this: any parliamentary system or any functioning government is not truly democratic. Practically you have to, the only truly democratic way to run things is for everyone to have a vote on every issue, which is impossible so you sacrifice some of that to obtain the benefit of practicality. The EU requires that your vote is diluted in terms of influence, in order to obtain the benefits of being in the EU. It comes down to a balancing act of what you're happy to give up. The EU only has the power to make laws with respect to areas that have been referred to it. With the powers the EU has now and the benefits to trade, travel, the influence of the EU, security and intelligence sharing etc, I'm okay with my say on those particular issues being worth less. If the EU had powers over more fundamental rights, I wouldn't agree but they don't. If you don't like that, it's fine but I'm happy with he trade off. Quote: I would much rather get rid of someone who broke the law come the next election, than go through a court case against their action—which would undoubtedly amount to nothing if only a country or two were to do so—where they still remain in power when all is said and done. Marching onwards to the ever closer ideal. This gets a bit more in to a different topic of UK's weak separation of powers which I don't like. Basically there should always be an independent body that can act as a check on a government. If you don't have that, then you're relying on there being enough political will to change something that's wrong like that. A court gives access to individuals to protect themselves and direct access to the legal system. That was my general point in regards to the court stuff. Quote: Yes, these people who don't really represent us—even if from our own country—can vote on laws, but, not only will we inevitably get laws that are better suited to other countries, but I believe the EU Parliament can not vote on one-third of the laws proposed. That's quite a sizeable chunk going unopposed. What the EU Parliament can't vote on has to go through the Council of Ministers, which is made up of elected government officials. Quote: As for the 7%: this suggests it could be upwards of 70%, though is at the very least 14%. The House of Commons supposedly estimates about 53% of all regulations come from Brussels. The Telegraph supposes about two-thirds. "About 50%" is the figure I've most often heard, but we can't be sure. It's not desirable either way, though. I got this one wrong, didn't double check the source. A lot of those regulations account for fairly minor administrative things too which inflates the numbers. A massive number of UK laws are made through regulations that don't go through the democratic process too, with something as big as the EU you're going to have a lot of admin stuff to go through. Again, this comes down to part of the bargaining part from above. If they were deciding everything I'd be in the same boat, with the level of influence they have I'm fine with it. Quote: I don't think it's a serious concern, and is genuinely the first I've heard about this. Of course, I agree with you that it's an disagreeable outcome, but I don't think it's at all likely, unless you could point me to something that expresses how large the desire is? The Conservative party had repealing the HRA as part of their platform going in to the last election, not sure how far they've gotten with that. I suppose the HRA is such a big thing for me and my general distrust of the government kind of inflated it, it's not really a good argument I'll admit.
	We'll never be those kids again


+ Sandy Shore	Mar 3 2016, 11:13 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	Copy_Ninja Hey I'm not in favour of adopting the Euro either, but it's not something the EU is capable of forcing on a member State. They might try to assert more influence to do so down the road granted, but that's not out of the ordinary for any kind of international politics anyway. I find the possibility to be a very compelling point to distance ourselves, though. If we vote to stay in then we very genuinely could be shackling ourselves to a sinking ship. Don't forget that Europe is a shrinking economy, with the worst GDP per continent, and the EU prevents us from making other deals. We need Brussels to make deals for us, and they have no intention of doing so. Quote: While I would prefer it to change, I don't have any real expectation that it will and don't want to stay in based off the notion of some future EU changes. Quite. I think it's important that people note that a vote to stay is a vote for the status quo. Clearly a position I disagree with, but it's far more acceptable than people thinking better days in the EU are ahead for us. Quote: Like you said, we're represented in two ways. Through our own governments, and their policy with the EU is something that should be accounted for in your vote just like any other policy is, and through MEP. [...] So to save me quoting the entire piece, I think it's fair to say the main crux of the next part of the argument is that we have a more direct manner of dealing with representatives not doing what we want through elections and we can't replace the Commission. This is true, however my contention on it is this: any parliamentary system or any functioning government is not truly democratic. Sure, I'm not arguing that our system is perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more democratic than the EU, and, what's more, people understand it perfectly fine. The process of being represented and getting your position across to the EU is far, far more arduous and unlikely. The further away you get from the people the further away you get from democracy. That's a truth worth noting. It's all intentionally obscured, too. We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back. - Genuine quote by Jean-Claud Juncker By distancing themselves from the people (demos) they're holding much more of the power (kratia). They're not accountable in the same way that our own local governments are; they're set up as an elite group. Another thing you must note is how the UK became involved in the first place. 1975 there was a referendum to join a common market; this is what everyone in the UK believed they were signing up for - not to be part of a European Union. Why, then, such little faith in our own government? Was this country not doing perfectly fine before ever joining the EU? Yes, it's still doing fine now, but the people signed themselves up under deceit; have had to pay extortionate amounts to bail-out others the EU and its euro have devastated; pay ridiculous membership-fees for less democracy and a trade agreement we could evidently have without being members. Surely our own government can and has been more reliable than Brussels' elites? Quote: The EU only has the power to make laws with respect to areas that have been referred to it. With the powers the EU has now and the benefits to trade, travel, the influence of the EU, security and intelligence sharing etc, I'm okay with my say on those particular issues being worth less. If the EU had powers over more fundamental rights, I wouldn't agree but they don't. If you don't like that, it's fine but I'm happy with he trade off. We could be getting the same trade, and much more from others if we left. Granted, travel will be less simple than it is currently, but no more difficult than it is going to a non-European country. I think it's a very minor benefit, that isn't worth shouting about. We share intelligence with other countries, why would we cease sharing intelligence with Europe? This is a very odd thing people claim, I think. We've been a part of Interpol since 1928. As for security, well, the EU allows people to travel from one end of the continent to the other unchecked; it insists on letting everyone in to the continent when we could be aiding them in countries closer to their own, which opens up the potential for terrorist attacks. It has a shocking fascination for multiculturalism, which is the reason for things like the Charlie Hebdo incident, and the reason such an attack can take place. Seemingly more-and-more often. It's really anti-security, if anything. Quote: This gets a bit more in to a different topic of UK's weak separation of powers which I don't like. Basically there should always be an independent body that can act as a check on a government. If you don't have that, then you're relying on there being enough political will to change something that's wrong like that. A court gives access to individuals to protect themselves and direct access to the legal system. That was my general point in regards to the court stuff. This is the best reason I find to stay, yes, but I think better democracy is a fine trade-off, coupled with the other benefits of leaving the undeniably corrupt EU. That's not to say the EU is evil; it clearly has human-rights in mind, but it does so at the expense of democracy, and therefore the people. A system of directly voting people in or out was fine before we were conned in to the EU, and I see no reason why it won't be fine after. Quote: What the EU Parliament can't vote on has to go through the Council of Ministers, which is made up of elected government officials. And people still have no idea as to who or what is representing them. Quote: I got this one wrong, didn't double check the source. A lot of those regulations account for fairly minor administrative things too which inflates the numbers. A massive number of UK laws are made through regulations that don't go through the democratic process too, with something as big as the EU you're going to have a lot of admin stuff to go through. Again, this comes down to part of the bargaining part from above. If they were deciding everything I'd be in the same boat, with the level of influence they have I'm fine with it. Of course, I can't tell you that you shouldn't be fine with the trade-off, and I'm not going to. That's fair enough. Quote: The Conservative party had repealing the HRA as part of their platform going in to the last election, not sure how far they've gotten with that. I suppose the HRA is such a big thing for me and my general distrust of the government kind of inflated it, it's not really a good argument I'll admit. I see, I wasn't aware. It is good that you have such an interest in this particular issue, but it does sound to be quite minor, and even if it rears its head upon leaving the EU, I'm sure it will be a separate debate with a separate vote. If there's something you and I can definitely agree on, it's this: if we end up staying in the EU, it is imperative that we have a shift towards our attitudes of the EU process, where people take just as much notice and interest in it as their local elections. I doubt it will help the issue much, but it's better than nothing. Even other countries, that weren't conned in to joining, have a lack of understanding and participation - much to the delight of the Commission. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, though.



~~Helvius Pertinax Augustus~~	Mar 4 2016, 03:22 AM Post #22
What will you do when you get old? Posts: 1,096 Group: Suspended Member #12,915 Joined: February 8, 2016 Gender Not Specified Country United States Favourite Anime Don't actually watch anime What Browser do you use? Internet Explorer Favourite Manga Don't read manga	Edgar Allan Bro Mar 3 2016, 07:02 PM Richard Kuklinski Mar 3 2016, 06:57 PM 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. This will probably help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States Further proves my point, the large majority of those after 2010 are not to cause carnage and panic, they were related to gangs or altercations between people, not with the intent to just shoot the place up. I didn't say anything about altercations though, I'll give you that. I also forgot about the Umpqua shooting. Quote: One person can kill hundreds with an automatic weapon and not even need any training for how to use it. Try achieving the same result with a shuriken or a medieval flail. That's the difference. I'm just going to assume you've never fired a gun before nor even been within 500ft of one. If you had, you'd realize it's simply not true. You'd need training to go on a mass killing spree. What do you think the Terrorists in the Paris attacks did? Anders Breivik didn't even use an automatic firearm and he still killed 60 people. If you train with the intent to kill, using just about anything you can wreck havoc. Video games and television aren't representative of real life, especially when it comes to firearms. Quote: No more discussion of gun control in here, it's off topic. Done.



+ Ginyu	Mar 4 2016, 06:31 AM Post #23
Leve Feyenoord 1! Posts: 4,490 Group: Elite Member Member #9,685 Joined: June 30, 2013 Gender Female Country Netherlands Favourite Anime NJPW What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Reading is for nerds, yo!	I'm seriously starting to wonder how so many people outside of the UK are voting for leaving... I can only assume the majority of those voters are not from the EU and don't have any knowledge on how important the EU is to a member state.
	Ask GinyuTokusentai


Ding	Mar 4 2016, 08:13 AM Post #24
Posts: 671 Group: Duplicate Member #12,579 Joined: August 25, 2015 Gender Male Country Australia Favourite Anime DDZ obviously What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Dragonball I suppose. Don't really read mango	A) Border control back in your hands The flip side of the freedom of work and travel for UK citizens is that people from other EU countries are free to travel to and live in Britain. Has its downsides B) We could make a large membership fee saving Like most clubs, the EU charges a membership fee. Analysis by Full Fact estimates the figure is around £24m per day when rebates and other receipts are taken into account. C) EU lacking democracy The powerful commission which proposes legislation is not elected. They end up passing laws with supersede individual states' parliaments which is undemocratic. D)Many countries do great alone. Look to rich Norway as a country which trades with the EU without being in it. It also controls its own agriculture and keeps its fish, rather than being bound by EU quotas. Leave pls Edited by Ding, Mar 4 2016, 08:13 AM.
	Dingo Dingo


+ Pelador	Mar 4 2016, 02:19 PM Post #25
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	How is people coming to live here from other E.U nations a downside? A small country like ours needs to widen the gene pool a bit. Too many chinless wonders as it is. Plus like you said, we can also go to their countries as well. You can't expect to have it just one way. Norway and Switzerland still have to pay the E.U fees and follow some its directives. Their trade is subject to E.U rules as well. I'm curious as to why no other E.U nation is having a referendum. If it's so terrible then surely they'd all be looking for the exit too? It's almost like perhaps the membership provides benefits to it's member states? But surely that can't be right? Found this interesting article and learned some things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=56d986663e0000b7a426ba63%26How%20much%20do%20UK%20farmers%20get%20from%20the%20European%20Union%3F%2613:03&ns_fee=0#post_56d986663e0000b7a426ba63 So even if we voted to leave, it would still take years to actually make to happen and even then they could force another referendum on us. And is our government going to provide the £2 billion a year that the farmers will be losing? And how will we tackle climate change? Edited by Pelador, Mar 4 2016, 02:41 PM.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


Ding	Mar 4 2016, 05:12 PM Post #26
Posts: 671 Group: Duplicate Member #12,579 Joined: August 25, 2015 Gender Male Country Australia Favourite Anime DDZ obviously What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Dragonball I suppose. Don't really read mango	The EU will fail eventually. Better to leave on your own terms and be ahead of the game
	Dingo Dingo


+ Sandy Shore	Mar 4 2016, 05:14 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	Pelador How is people coming to live here from other E.U nations a downside? A small country like ours needs to widen the gene pool a bit. Too many chinless wonders as it is. Why does a country like ours need to widen the gene pool a bit? How is that even an argument? No one is suggesting that no one from outside the UK can ever come here again, they're suggesting that the current numbers under the EU, where we don't have full control of our borders, is far too much. Before modern times, the largest migrant wave in to Britain was some 50,000 French Protestants fleeing persecution. It was a one-off thing. Now, there is four-six times that much every year. The immigration problem is not a matter of "widening the gene pool"—that was doing perfectly fine before the EU, even you must recognise—it's a matter of housing, money, school placements, doctor appointments, job vacancies, culture, identity, and tensions that come from all of these problems. It is almost criminal to hand wave the immigration problem with "we're practically mutants; let them all in and fix our genetic deficiencies". Not only is it far from the truth, it downplays all of the genuine issues of welcoming any and all seeking to come here. Quote: Plus like you said, we can also go to their countries as well. You can't expect to have it just one way. If this were just the European countries with economies like ours, where we get to experience each others cultures more, and some percentage work there if they wish, fine. But it's all the Eastern European countries that are much poorer, simply siphoning off the richer countries. It's genuinely not a two-way relationship. How many hundreds-of-thousands of British or German people are going to live in Poland or Romania, and maybe take a job there, or some benefits? Barely even a few-hundred. "We're rich, and it's up to us to share the wealth" you might protest. Sure - but we can't just let all of the poor of the world in to our countries. It's absurd. It puts strains on our own country—as mentioned above—in-addition to the £8.5 billion we pay out to help other countries - a figure which increases by the year. We can still help others, and we don't need to do so at the expense of ourselves. Quote: Norway and Switzerland still have to pay the E.U fees and follow some its directives. Their trade is subject to E.U rules as well. That's fine. It's the rest of it that is undesirable. Quote: I'm curious as to why no other E.U nation is having a referendum. If it's so terrible then surely they'd all be looking for the exit too? It's almost like perhaps the membership provides benefits to it's member states? But surely that can't be right? There are plenty of countries with a push to leave the EU, only, none are so big as in the UK. Yet. It's not surprising considering the deceit under which we joined. The EU has some desirable quirks, sure, but it's not what people in 1975 signed up for, and it's foolish to pin your mast to a sinking ship. Still, your argument amounts to little more than rhetoric. What if someone said: I'm curious as to why no other EU nation is having a referendum. If the EU is so good then surely the UK wouldn't be looking for the exit? It's almost like it's perhaps not a good system to be under, and they realise this? But surely that can't be right? Quote: So even if we voted to leave, it would still take years to actually make to happen and even then they could force another referendum on us. We'll discuss that when, and if it comes to that. That's a terrible argument to vote to stay. If that's a concern of yours, then while that's being sorted out we'll still be under the EU. Hooray. Quote: And is our government going to provide the £2 billion a year that the farmers will be losing? And how will we tackle climate change? According to this, the UK, when all was said and done, gave away £8.5 billion to the EU. Norway on the other hand, according to this, pays £666 million (860 million euro) from 2014 - 2020. If we get a deal like Norway, or even double—even triple—then what's £2 billion between Britain and her farmers, eh? Why do we need the EU to tackle climate change? Why can't we continue to down that route without them? It's a non sequitur; it simply doesn't follow that we need the EU for such a policy. Ginyu I can only assume the majority of those voters are not from the EU and don't have any knowledge on how important the EU is to a member state. It's not important for countries like the UK, Germany, and France. It's important to other, mostly Eastern European countries—well, I say important, it's more of a benefit than an importance—and has become important to countries like Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Greece, which have been damaged by the EU. Though even they would be doing better without the EU trying to keep their euro afloat. There are some nice little benefits, like the Court of Justice, but it doesn't outweigh the negatives. Certainly not for countries that could be doing much better outside of it. Both of your comments here have spoken of the greatness of the EU, and how the UK needs it, but you haven't defended that notion, I'm afraid. Edit:- Why is the page so stretched? Edited by Sandy Shore, Mar 4 2016, 05:52 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2