EPTAt the end of the day it is just a matter of where you draw the line. Personally, it makes no difference to me whether law is made in Westminster or Brussels.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
At the end of the day it is just a matter of where you draw the line. Personally, it makes no difference to me whether law is made in Westminster or Brussels. | ||
KwarK
United States44330 Posts
However many issues have a purely national scope and are linked to value systems that are not internationally shared. Voting rights for the incarcerated is a good current example of this conflict with the EU. The EU is demanding that the UK end the disenfranchisement of convicts during their time in prison in the Westminster elections. This is an issue which concerns national elections, rather than those to the EU parliament, impacts zero people outside of Britain and has been decided in line with the will of the British people. The EU has decided that British prisoners have political rights in Britain that the British people don't believe they have and are arguing with the British government over it. It's a national sovereignty issue. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44330 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27427 Posts
There are benefits to being in the EU which IMO are not taken advantage of by our populace at large. I think in terms of public opinion that something has to give, be it regnotiation or even leaving. Not something I want but it definitely appears to be the general desire nationally. | ||
|
NoxiousNoodles
United Kingdom61 Posts
On December 20 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote: Advising, sure. But claiming to be a higher court with the power to enfranchise individuals in British Parliamentary elections, no. You seem to be suggesting that the ECtHR has imposed itself onto the UK. This is hardly true. We chose to accept its status as a higher court in the Human Rights Act. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 20 2013 04:15 Nyxisto wrote: The topic is a little controversial, but as far as i know general consensus is that in the short run nuclear power is significantly more expensive than oil/gas, but cheaper than renewable energy. In the long run renewable energy is least expensive, due to prices for fossil fuels and uranium going up. And naturally the only choice, as renewable energy is the only energy source we're not going to run out of. Sorry but we have these things called planes. Nowadays flying has become the cheapest and fastest way to travel. There are many factors that affect a countries immigration policy, but it's geographical shape is probably the least important one.(inside the EU, for regions with war at their borders or similar problems that's another issue.) It's a controversial stance to be sure. Nuclear's got a bad rap it's gotta shed, and a lot of that bad rap is enshrined in law. As I mentioned, if you read it, uranium's no longer the only choice for nuclear reactor. Thorium fuel is sitting around in shipping containers unused, waiting. In direct contrast is the false praise renewable wind/solar gets. It is energy, but the power demands of a large company translates into energy NOW. Making large use of diffuse sources require massive batteries for storage (and many other storage and transit problems), natural gas plants for start up and wind down, major cleaning staff, present environmental challenges (birds, bats, etc), and suffer from NIMBY-ism's eyesore. The power demands are what we're not going to run out of, and the renewable energies aren't gonna supply enough of it. I know in the 80s negotiating, there was much talk about justifying conflicting immigration policies stemming from that big difference. If that has faded in recent years, then maybe so, I don't really know. Kwark wrote: However many issues have a purely national scope and are linked to value systems that are not internationally shared. Voting rights for the incarcerated is a good current example of this conflict with the EU. The EU is demanding that the UK end the disenfranchisement of convicts during their time in prison in the Westminster elections. This is an issue which concerns national elections, rather than those to the EU parliament, impacts zero people outside of Britain and has been decided in line with the will of the British people. The EU has decided that British prisoners have political rights in Britain that the British people don't believe they have and are arguing with the British government over it. It's a national sovereignty issue. How can you put up with this meddling? The EU decides on an issue, demands compliance, directly against the will of the British people? Shameful. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
After 1950 the western nations have basically accepted that humans have universal rights and that fundamental right issues should be handled on a supranational level. "It only affects the people of country X so only country X has something to say on that matter" is a kind o reasoning that isn't really consistent with the ideas that Europe(and the rest of the West) have shared for a very long time now. Regarding further European integration i'm pretty sure the UK has very little lose and a lot to gain. Losing national sovereignty sounds much scarier than it actual is. I personally don't feel any less independent than i did ten years ago. @Danglars: Regarding all the fancy stuff in the nuclear energy department: I'll actually wait until i see it. I have heard everything from fusion reactors to harvesting unlimited uranium out of the ocean and other cool ideas. But I'd only bank on it if i see that it's working. At the moment it sounds a little more like "It's the technology of the future, and it always will be". And that renewable energies can't produce sufficient amount of energy isn't really true. We (Germany) basically went from practically nothing to 25% in the last 15 years. We're aiming for 50% at 2040 and 80% renewable at 2050. It's pretty ambitious but i think we're still on schedule. Renewable energy still seems to have that "it's hip but it isn't really working for industrial countries" vibe, which is completely unjustified. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On December 20 2013 04:02 Joel-E wrote: 2) We have 0 control over our borders. To deport foreign criminals we MUST get permission from the European parliament. The UK isn't in the Schengen zone so does have control over non-EU citizens coming into the country and the ECHR is overseen by the Council of Europe, it's got nothing to do with the European parliament. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44330 Posts
On December 20 2013 10:49 jello_biafra wrote: The UK isn't in the Schengen zone so does have control over non-EU citizens coming into the country and the ECHR is overseen by the Council of Europe, it's got nothing to do with the European parliament. He doesn't actually know what the EU is. It's not worth talking to him really. | ||
|
Joel-E
United Kingdom50 Posts
On December 20 2013 11:12 KwarK wrote: He doesn't actually know what the EU is. It's not worth talking to him really. Okay then I was wrong about that. What about the thousands of criminals that come from europe? Rather than insult me you might want to try coming up with a rational argument. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44330 Posts
On December 20 2013 20:59 Joel-E wrote: Okay then I was wrong about that. What about the thousands of criminals that come from europe? Rather than insult me you might want to try coming up with a rational argument. You don't know enough about the subject to come up with a rational question, let alone understand a rational response. The Schengen zone are the countries with no border controls. You can cross borders between them without showing a passport etc. The UK opted out, at the time because of the desire to police the border with EIRE, the UK has the right to police her borders. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27427 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 20 2013 03:34 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not sure if i get your point. The EU is a single market, it doesn't get much freer(is that a word?) than that. And protectionism isn't really a good thing, especially for customers. I get that, but being a member of the EU isn't going to take that away. I feel like the EU-skepticism is largely a product of fear mongering of politicians that struggle to solve their countries problems and have to point the finger at someone else. I mean the EU isn't really doing anything significant. They're struggling to get a bank union running that won't have any effect anyway. And that Germany, due to it's history, has been reluctant to fall back on traditionalist impulses has at least in my eyes been really beneficial for the country. With all the shit the country had to endure, that it ended up being more federal and dynamic nowadays and lacks national tendencies is a very big plus. Don't take this as an insult, but sometimes i feel like the UK and France are the two old grumpy noblemen of Europe that no matter how the reality has changed just don't want to accept that they'll going to have to give up some of their old approaches and maybe start to open up and modernize a bit. To the first bold - no, you obviously don't really get it, because Kwark explained pretty succinctly why people in the UK have a problem with it in principle. We're pretty big on keeping our sovereignty right here, not bleeding it away to Europe. Whether it's truly "significant" at the moment misses the point. To the second bold - what does this mean? Why is giving sovereignty away either opening up or modernising? To what end are we doing this? You pretty much proved Kwark's point in as much as you're approaching the issue from a specific mindset, a mindset that British people, by and large, don't share. edit: this being a particularly good example On December 20 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote: However many issues have a purely national scope and are linked to value systems that are not internationally shared. Voting rights for the incarcerated is a good current example of this conflict with the EU. The EU is demanding that the UK end the disenfranchisement of convicts during their time in prison in the Westminster elections. This is an issue which concerns national elections, rather than those to the EU parliament, impacts zero people outside of Britain and has been decided in line with the will of the British people. The EU has decided that British prisoners have political rights in Britain that the British people don't believe they have and are arguing with the British government over it. It's a national sovereignty issue. edit 2: On December 20 2013 08:55 Nyxisto wrote: And if you want the EU to really mean something you can't be perfectly autonomic. Being a full fledged EU member while still keeping complete national sovereignty isn't really possible. Especially not if we're talking about human rights issues( for example prisoners having the right to vote or not). I and many others don't see being able to vote in prison as a fundamental human right. It's for us to decide, or it should be. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On December 20 2013 07:14 KwarK wrote: Advising, sure. But claiming to be a higher court with the power to enfranchise individuals in British Parliamentary elections, no. On December 20 2013 08:54 Danglars wrote: How can you put up with this meddling? The EU decides on an issue, demands compliance, directly against the will of the British people? Shameful. On December 20 2013 21:47 marvellosity wrote: I and many others don't see being able to vote in prison as a fundamental human right. It's for us to decide, or it should be. Should we take this to mean that British Sovereignty is absolute no matter what the population votes for? I honestly think the whole debate is by the by. Banging on about British sovereignty is an appeal to nationalist sentiment and is a means not a motivation. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 20 2013 21:47 marvellosity wrote: To the first bold - no, you obviously don't really get it, because Kwark explained pretty succinctly why people in the UK have a problem with it in principle. Just because I disagree with it doesn't mean i don't understand it. I just think the reason for these kind of resentments towards the EU stems from nationalistic impulses rather than from rational decision making or actual bad experience. Why is giving sovereignty away either opening up or modernising? To what end are we doing this? You pretty much proved Kwark's point in as much as you're approaching the issue from a specific mindset, a mindset that British people, by and large, don't share. Well with the rapidly expending communication, wealth and education we now have I think a growing amount of people actually notices how artificial the borders we have set are. Cosmopolitanism is on a steady rise and national sovereignty is getting increasingly in it's way. I'll admit that this is not true for all social classes. Especially the "losers" of the last two decades feel increasingly left behind and that's why we see these new nationalistic anti-academic parties on the rise again. National borders and the kind of national identity, that especially conservatives want to preserve, are probably going to lose their meaning even further in the long run. So that's what i meant with modernization. Just for economical reasons it makes sense to step away from it. European is undergoing a demographic change, and we are hugely dependent on immigration(and not just people who hold 8 degrees) to keep our workforce young. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27427 Posts
Little things such as taking advantage of things like the Erasmus programme seem less common here. Alas I couldn't due to personal circumstance but with the fees rise it was actually more economical for me to study in a bunch of other EU nations | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 21 2013 04:51 Nyxisto wrote: Just because I disagree with it doesn't mean i don't understand it. I just think the reason for these kind of resentments towards the EU stems from nationalistic impulses rather than from rational decision making or actual bad experience. To stick with the example, most British people believe people in prison should not be allowed to vote, and therefore this is actually a "bad experience" edit: I'm not making the argument that we should withdraw from the EU or anything, free trade, immigration, blablabla that we need/want for our economy, that's great - but it does not, or should not, imply that we give away decision-making in these areas or other areas in order to achieve this. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I would expect that most labour supporters would be fine with prisoners voting, while most tory supporters would be against it simply because I would think most prisoners would not vote tory. Also, we don't have to completely give us decision making. We can be and are part of EU decision making. | ||
| ||
