Students should vote Conservative

British students everywhere know the 'right' choice to make: vote for Labour and "kick the Tories out".

Well, you could just vote for the Tories.

*SHOCK* The Tories? That selfish, NHS-privatising, benefit-cutting Nasty Party??

Yes, I say you should vote for them.

And this is where I lose the attention of most people my age. After all, they say if you're young and vote Tory, you've got no heart.

The problem is, if Labour were to win, much of what students are hoping for won't actually happen. The Labour manifesto is like a bag of goodies, offering lots of nice things to capture the 'Young' vote, which often suffers from low turnout. A lot of these policies are self-defeating in the long term and actually worsen the issues they are meant to solve.

The words "saddled with debt" are a favourite buzzword Jeremy Corbyn when debating tuition fees. However, it deliberately makes you feel you are having something bad done to you by the mean Tories. People choose to go to university. They know how much money they will have to pay and voluntarily enter into that commitment. By paying off student loans, we are simply providing money for a service we asked for.

Many disagree with this status quo, and would like to see higher education as something free for all. Now, while that sounds nice, there is a flipside to putting the burden back on the taxpayer. Tuition fees were introduced in 1998 by Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His slogan was "Education, Education, Education", taking active steps to increase facilities in schools. Why on earth would he want students to pay for their own higher learning?

Letting students pay for their education was necessary in order to increase the number of students attending university. Before then, fewer people were able to attend higher education because places were proportional to the amount of tax that could be raised and the lack of places disproportionately rejected young people of the working classes. We can see this in Scotland, where the SNP abolished tuition fees. A cap was put on places to afford it. Since then, the number of young Scots attending university has more than halved. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38316717

The idea that abolishing tuition fees will allow more people to get into university is false. Many won't have the opportunity to go at all. At least with student loans, you can pay for your tuition fees when able, and only if you are able.

There are many other reasons why the Labour manifesto is wonky. They believe it will be possible to fund more public services by raising corporation tax to 26%. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that when George Osborne lowered the corporation tax rate to 20%, the amount of money raised by the tax increased. Raising corporation tax will actually lose us money, rather than gain it, as corporations change their behaviour in reaction to taxes. Try "investing in the future" with that. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-effect-of-labours-corporation-tax

There are reasons to have misgivings about the leadership of Labour. After all, you would get Jeremy Corbyn. A very nice guy who has opposed 30 years of anti-terror legislation and has trouble distinguishing between a soldier fighting to defend their country and a terrorist trying to instil fear in the public. It's all violence to him, and he still has not said he'd be willing to authorise a drone strike to defend his own citizens. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329 

I rather like Jeremy Corbyn. He's gentle with good intentions, but no idea how to apply them to reality in a way that works. He's nothing like John McDonnell who would become the new Chancellor in a Labour government, known for saying "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table." He's also rather preferable to Diane Abbott who would become the first Home Secretary to think that "White people love playing divide and rule" and that "on balance, Mao did more good than harm".

So, why vote Tory? It's not because they're running a good campaign. They're complacent and are all too easy to view in a negative light, when they make brutal, and often unpopular, decisions on the basis they will help this country recover in the long term. However, they know how to navigate the pitfalls of Brexit negotiations and they're the best way of avoiding a Labour government that would fail to achieve its promises and potentially bankrupt the country, assuming it doesn't endanger its citizens first.

A Final Plea for Brexit

Dear Britain,

Today, we’ll all be voting on the future of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the European Union. Throughout the past few weeks, I have been disappointed with both the Leave and Remain campaigns, both twisting limited quantities of information into soundbites to suit their respective agendas. With Vote Leave, I am especially disappointed, as I think there is a strong case for Brexit, and they failed to do that case justice, making themselves fodder for the accusations of the opposing side.

I am aware that many of you currently lean on the Remain side of the debate. I agree with you that passion and pride are insufficient when making an important decision for the future of ourselves, our country and our family. We also need to use our heads and look through the facts to come to a prudent decision. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve been given all those facts. In my debates with friends online, I have had the opportunity to research the EU at length, and hope to share what I have learned with you. Perhaps, it will change your mind.

This is not to say that the other points of the debate aren’t important, but I think the central issue should be what has changed since when we voted to join the European Economic Community, back in 1973. That is the shift from just an economic union to a political union. Remain have managed to persuade this country that the risk of the future lies with our Economy if we vote to leave. In my opinion, I think that greater and more permanent risks lie with the future of our Democracy. The more I research into how the European Union has changed from the European Economic Community of 1957 to the would-be federalist ‘super-state’ of today, the more convinced I am that leaving the EU is the right decision for our future and those generations after us.

It is important to first dispel the hyperbole from the Vote Leave campaign that the five presidents of the EU are unelected. That is not strictly true. The three that really count in the legislature are the President of the European Parliament (PEP), where MEPs elected by EU citizens can vote on laws, the President of the Council of the European Union (PCE), where the leaders of the 28 member states negotiate EU treaties, and the President of the European Commission (PEC), which holds sole executive power to initiate and write the legislation that is voted into effect.

The PEP (currently Martin Schulz of the S&D) is elected by the Members of the European Parliament. This is straightforward. The PCE (currently Donald Tusk of the EPP) is elected by national leaders sitting on the European Council, also straightforward. The PEC (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) is the most powerful of them all, and yes, he too is elected. Upon the election of the MEPs, the result of that election is looked at by the European Council. A candidate is then picked by the Council from the Party with the strongest plurality in the Parliament. This candidate is finally elected into their position as PEC by the EU Parliament. It is not quite the same as how we do things in our House of Commons, the election of the PEC being rather more like how the House of Lords treats incoming bills, approving a readily-selected option or vetoing it,  but it is still technically democratic. It is also a very indirect kind of democracy, our only direct input being the election of those MEPs. But, it is still democratic.

The problem with the democracy in the European Union is rather more insidious, and more to do with the rapidly reducing ability that the UK has in protecting its largely Eurosceptic interests against the very Europhilic interests of the other EU member states.

The bicameral legislature of the European Union took inspiration from our own British Parliament, and similarly, has a series of parties making it up. It is however, more European in using Proportional Representation, rather than First-Past-The-Post. These parties are made up of blocs of national parties. For example, our Labour Party combines with other Centre-Left parties throughout the EU to form the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats (S&D). You can see them in the big red zone above. Currently, the European party to hold a plurality is the European People’s Party (EPP), a Centre-Right party, populated by mostly Christian Democratic parties. You can see them in the big, blue zone. Combined with the S&D and the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe (ALDE) in the yellow zone, these three parties command a huge majority in the 7^th European Parliament (elected 2014) of 475 out of 751 seats (facts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament).

However, in those same elections of 2014, the United Kingdom voted only 21 of its 73 MEPs to this majority. 20 of them were elected to the S&D via Labour. 1 was voted to the ALDE via the Liberal Democrats. Of the rest, most notably 24 were voted to Europe of Freedom & Democracy (EFDD) in the pale-blue zone via UKIP and another 20 were voted to the European Conservatives & Reformists (ECR) in the dark-blue zone via the Conservatives and UPP.

This presents a crucial point. The vast majority of the British-elected MEPs, our only form of direct democracy, sits in the small opposition of the European Parliament. Another crucial point. The EPP, which holds the plurality in the majority, is the only European party without a single British MEP in it. Not only this, but the United Kingdom is also the only country in the entire European Union to not have any presence in that European party. Because of this, the largest party in the European Parliament uniquely does not have British interests represented.

To get a sense of how much the British elected MEPs oppose the motions approved by the EU Parliament, it is worth enclosing a small table which shows the percentage of occasions, the British MEPs have voted in favour of the EU motions (http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/uk-meps-lose-most-in-the-european-parliament/). In the previous European Parliament of 2004-9, the UK largely sat with the other member states, agreeing with about 80% of the votes. We know from this that most laws passed in the EU are non-controversial. However, from 2009 onwards, there was a clear drop in British agreement to about 65%. The only other country to experience a similar drop, albeit less extreme, is Greece. What we can glean from this is that in the laws that created controversy and disagreement in the European Parliament, it was the British MEPs more than any other who did not want the motion to be passed, and, sitting so much in the opposition parties, they are most often outvoted. While democratic, it seems quite clear from this that our elected MEPs have less influence on how the EU is run than any other country, by a wide margin.

This problem is not confined to the European Parliament. The PEC, Jean-Claude Juncker, was appointed for election by the Council from the EPP. David Cameron was one of the few members of the Council voting against his appointment. Also, the PCE, Donald Tusk, was elected by a vote from the same Council. He is also with the EPP. In this way, the EPP, with no British interests, and indeed, who the British repeatedly try to resist, effectively control the EU and their agenda of ‘an ever closer union’ is pushed.

The three main Presidents have made no secret of their federalist intentions. The PEP, Martin Schulz of the S&D, tweeted this in 2013: “US have one currency, one Central Bank and one Govt. Europe has one currency, one Central Bank and...17 govts! Cannot go on like this.” (https://twitter.com/MartinSchulz/status/353060776707235841).

Similarly, the PEC, Jean-Claude Juncker, has made it no secret that he would like there to be a European Army (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary).

Over time, the UK has been decreasingly able to resist the agenda. On the Council of the European Union, leaders of member states are able to exercise a veto against some decisions. However, the number of areas where decisions can be vetoed has decreased significantly due to the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, which replaced the older Nice Treaty. This new Treaty came into effect in 2014 and changed the voting rules for 45 different areas of legislation, including Common Defence Policy, Rules Concerning the Armaments Agency, Transport, Criminal Law and even Culture:

Area	Nice	Lisbon	Reference
Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs	Unanimity	QMV following unanimous request	15b TEU
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency	Unanimity	QMV	28D§2 TEU
Freedom to establish a business	Unanimity	QMV	50 TFEU
Self-employment access rights	Unanimity	QMV	50 TFEU
Freedom, security and justice – cooperation and evaluation	Unanimity	QMV	70 TFEU
Border checks	Unanimity	QMV	77 TFEU
Asylum	Unanimity	QMV	78 TFEU
Immigration	Unanimity	QMV	79 TFEU
Crime prevention incentives	Unanimity	QMV	69c TFEU
Eurojust	Unanimity	QMV	69d TFEU
Police cooperation	Unanimity	QMV	69f TFEU
Europol	Unanimity	QMV	69g TFEU
Transport	Unanimity	QMV	71§2 TFEU
European Central Bank	Unanimity	QMV (in part)	129 TFEU, 283 TFEU
Culture	Unanimity	QMV	151 TFEU
Structural and Cohension Funds	Unanimity	QMV	161 TFEU
Organisation of the Council of the European Union	Unanimity	QMV	201b TFEU
European Court of Justice	Unanimity	QMV	245, 224a, 225a TFEU
Freedom of movement for workers	Unanimity	QMV	46 TFEU
Social security	Unanimity	QMV	48 TFEU
Criminal judicial cooperation	Unanimity	QMV	69a TFEU
Criminal law	Unanimity	QMV	69b TFEU
President of the European Council election	(New item)	QMV	9b§5 TEU
Foreign Affairs High Representative election	(New item)	QMV	9e§1 TEU
Funding the Common Foreign and Security Policy	Unanimity	QMV	28 TEU
Common defense policy	Unanimity	QMV	28e TEU
Withdrawal of a member state	(new item)	QMV	49a TEU
General economic interest services	Unanimity	QMV	16 TFEU
Diplomatic and consular protection	Unanimity	QMV	20 TFEU
Citizens initiative regulations	Unanimity	QMV	21 TFEU
Intellectual property	Unanimity	QMV	97a TFEU
Eurozone external representation	Unanimity	QMV	115c TFEU
Sport	Unanimity	QMV	149 TFEU
Space	Unanimity	QMV	172a TFEU
Energy	Unanimity	QMV	176a TFEU
Tourism	Unanimity	QMV	176b TFEU
Civil protection	Unanimity	QMV	176c TFEU
Administrative cooperation	Unanimity	QMV	176d TFEU
Emergency international aid	Unanimity	QMV	188i TFEU
Humanitarian aid	Unanimity	QMV	188j TFEU
Response to natural disasters or terrorism	(new item)	QMV	188R§3 TFEU
Economic and Social Committee	QMV	QMV	256a TFEU
Committee of the Regions	Unanimity	QMV	256a TFEU
Economic and Social Committee	Unanimity	QMV	256a TFEU
The EU budget	Unanimity	QMV	269 TFEU

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas).

In this very broad range of different areas of varying levels of importance, the Unanimity (and thus, the power to veto) has been replaced with a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). This means that for all these areas, if our Prime Minister happened to disagree with the majority of the leaders from the other EU member states, the motion would still be passed and we would have to obey while we continued to be within the EU.

We still have the ability to veto in some areas. For example, if he wanted to, David Cameron could veto Turkey’s accession to the EU. However, in the case where the majority of other EU member states, and thus the parties in power, have such a common desire for further union between existing states, all it takes is one British Prime Minister who shares their views to sign away those vetoes. This is what happened in 2007, when the passionate Europhile, Gordon Brown, who never won a British election, signed the Lisbon Treaty. Seven years later, the British Prime Minister has had to manage with the loss of that control.

For the above reasons, we can see a clear intention in the dominant elements of the European Union that there be further integration into an effective super-state. We can also see a clear, growing resistance from the majority of British MEPs to this further integration. Finally, we can see the removal of our ability to resist these changes over time. The direction is clear and the momentum unstoppable

.

If we don’t vote to Leave the EU, the future will likely be the loss of British sovereignty and independence as Europe establishes itself as a single super-state.