I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
I dont think that anyone can justify the difference in votes per seat as being fair. Although I was glad of it at the time. I wouldnt disagree with your comments on PR. Although I am sure that this is a matter of opinion. One of the criticisms voiced by many people over PR, is that it often produces coalition governments. Yet some people may view this as a good thing. I think that the UKIP result in the EU election may have been in some way down to our inherent disdain for EU elections in this country. Surely every vote counting should be important to any democracy, rather than liking the result.
The cynic in me finds it quite amusing that it is the Lib Dems who always go on about PR. And that it is starting to look like Reform will get more votes than the Lib Dems. And get between 0-2 seats. As opposed to the 30-60 the Lib Dems will get.
It is even possible that the Lib Dems will become the Official Opposition. With the 2nd most seats. And the 4th most votes.
Coalition Govts are usually horrible. Where the tiny tail wags the large dog.
You cannot have a system where every vote counts. All mature PR systems have a Minimum Threshold before Representation.
The other problem within the UK system is the make up of it. There is a Population of 67 million. But it is essential to have divisions including Wales (3 million, less than 5% of the total) and Northern Ireland (less than 2 million, less than 3% of the total). Votes will inevitably be weighted, whatever system is chosen
I agree that, on some level, numbers of votes nationally as a whole, should have weight. To use Wales and Northern Ireland as examples, it is important that Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the DUP should elect Representatives.
But it is ridiculous that all 3 will likely each have more MPs than Reform. When more people will vote for Reform than the total votes cast for everyone by all voters in Wales and Northern Ireland combined
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
I dont think that anyone can justify the difference in votes per seat as being fair. Although I was glad of it at the time. I wouldnt disagree with your comments on PR. Although I am sure that this is a matter of opinion. One of the criticisms voiced by many people over PR, is that it often produces coalition governments. Yet some people may view this as a good thing. I think that the UKIP result in the EU election may have been in some way down to our inherent disdain for EU elections in this country. Surely every vote counting should be important to any democracy, rather than liking the result.
I looked up the turnout figures. The European figures were very low in comparison to general elections. As low as 24% in 1999. Usually less than half the general election turnouts.
The cynic in me finds it quite amusing that it is the Lib Dems who always go on about PR. And that it is starting to look like Reform will get more votes than the Lib Dems. And get between 0-2 seats. As opposed to the 30-60 the Lib Dems will get.
It is even possible that the Lib Dems will become the Official Opposition. With the 2nd most seats. And the 4th most votes.
Coalition Govts are usually horrible. Where the tiny tail wags the large dog.
You cannot have a system where every vote counts. All mature PR systems have a Minimum Threshold before Representation.
The other problem within the UK system is the make up of it. There is a Population of 67 million. But it is essential to have divisions including Wales (3 million, less than 5% of the total) and Northern Ireland (less than 2 million, less than 3% of the total). Votes will inevitably be weighted, whatever system is chosen
I agree that, on some level, numbers of votes nationally as a whole, should have weight. To use Wales and Northern Ireland as examples, it is important that Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the DUP should elect Representatives.
But it is ridiculous that all 3 will likely each have more MPs than Reform. When more people will vote for Reform than the total votes cast for everyone by all voters in Wales and Northern Ireland combined
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
Why is nobody talking about Brexit in the UK election?
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I think we will rejoin at some point in the future. There appears to be a growing majority in favour of doing so. Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime. I think my Dads generation had a biased view of Europe. Particularly of the Germans, over the War. As well as some of the countries that remained neutral, and those that folded very quickly. My generation may have been brainwashed by their views. The younger generations seem at least less affected by these opinions, and may have a more balanced view of Europe. Hence the growing majority. The old doddery biased Brexiteers dying off, and an increasing number of young unbiased citizens qualifying to vote.
There are a number of things that you can bank on, as time goes on. The Unionists in NI are certain to never be happy with the border. We will continue to do our own trade deals. All of which will have to be binned on rejoining. We will continue to diverge from the EU. The binning of the trade deals, and the divergence will cause more disruption, and costs, for businesses, when we rejoin. So logically, there are real advantages in doing it sooner rather than later.
"I think we will rejoin at some point in the future.
Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime."
Me too, though bear in mind I'd imagine the entire end-to-end timescale will probably be best part of 20 years. So maybe (I very much hope) in your lifetime, but almost certainly not in mine.
"I think we will rejoin at some point in the future.
Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime."
Me too, though bear in mind I'd imagine the entire end-to-end timescale will probably be best part of 20 years. So maybe (I very much hope) in your lifetime, but almost certainly not in mine.
"I think we will rejoin at some point in the future.
Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime."
Me too, though bear in mind I'd imagine the entire end-to-end timescale will probably be best part of 20 years. So maybe (I very much hope) in your lifetime, but almost certainly not in mine.
Both leaders seem afraid to even mention it. I have no idea how long it would take from start to finish. If we had rejoined the day after we left, it would have been simple, because nothing would have changed. The longer we are out, the more disruption there will be.
One bit that is ironic for me is that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be going crackers. They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left. Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms.
If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back. We could have accepted some from applications completed in France.
Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead.
The UK government will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda as part of its plan to relocate asylum seekers there. The cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda includes an average payment of £105,000 for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs.
"The UK government will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda as part of its plan to relocate asylum seekers there. The cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda includes an average payment of £105,000 for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs."
Is/was this Rwanda thing ever really going to happen?
"The UK government will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda as part of its plan to relocate asylum seekers there. The cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda includes an average payment of £105,000 for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs."
Is/was this Rwanda thing ever really going to happen?
They dont have an alternative. Keir Starmer has said he will stop it anyway. That means back to square one in July. Rwanda will be happy with the money for nothing. Keir Starmer is going to smash the gangs. If only it was that easy. Perhaps the challenge for his second week in power, will be to arrest all our major drug dealers. He will have his feet up by week 3.
There it is in a nutshell. 720 M.E.P. who have no say in making legislation.
Unelected Commission who hold the power and make the legislation.
Unelected and unaccountable, except to their own paymasters, and yet people seem to be on board with that idea.
Strange then that in other parts of the world unelected people making all the rules are referred to as dictatorships or regimes, whilst all the time coming under pressure to allow democracy.
Ursula and Co can keep putting the telescope to the blind eye and saying I see no ships but nationalism is not going away any time soon. UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain and Poland all have a growing undercurrent of nationalism and the continual ignorance of the EU to this won't help.
Nationalism is not one of those things that if you ignore it, it goes away. On the contrary, if you ignore it, it grows and feeds and sustains itself.
The only question for the EU is will it find the reforms it needs to appeal to a broader church or will it continue to self serve, as the cracks widen, to the point where the entire edifice becomes dangerously unstable.
I wonder how, if after July 4th the winning party were not allowed to make legislation but had to defer to some unelected body, the British electorate would react.
I'm guessing, not well. Still if it was good enough whilst we were in the EU eh?
Britain is heading for a populist tsunami far greater than anything seen in Europe
@HAYSIE said "One bit that is ironic for me is that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be going crackers. They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left. Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms."
"If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back. We could have accepted some from applications completed in France."
"Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead".
I say.
Woah. Stop right there, not everybody who voted Leave is or was a racist. That's another typical EU style profile in another nutshell.
Not only do you support unelected legislation makers. You think anybody who opposes your rose tinted Europhile views is racist, bigoted and fascist.
@HAYSIE said "One bit that is ironic for me is that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be going crackers. They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left. Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms."
"If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back. We could have accepted some from applications completed in France."
"Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead".
I say.
Woah. Stop right there, not everybody who voted Leave is or was a racist. That's another typical EU style profile in another nutshell.
Not only do you support unelected legislation makers. You think anybody who opposes your rose tinted Europhile views is racist, bigoted and fascist.
Well that told me.
Except its bollox.
I would agree that not everybody that voted for Brexit was not racist. That would have been a very stupid allegation to make. Also obviously untrue. I would have hoped you might have thought of me as a little wiser than someone who might suggest that. But there you go.
So we have agreed that not everyone that voted for Brexit was racist. However you can bet your bottom dollar that every racist that voted in the referendum will have voted to Leave. I am not sure what a typical EU style profile is or where the first nutshell went.
I was making three points in the post in question.
The first was that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be extremely disappointed, with what has happened since. It came up in tonights debate that despite the Tories promise in every manifesto since David Cameron, to reduce immigration, the numbers have doubled, if you compare the three years before the referendum, and the last three years. Of course I had in mind Farages comments made on the media rounds last Sunday. Where he made very harsh comments over the number of Muslims coming in. He seemed perplexed over the numbers, and the percentage that are Muslims. Farage was probably the most prominent Brexiteer, over the longest period, and is clearly a racist. He seemed to think that things are much worse now, than when we had FoM. I do not share any views with Farage. None at all. Zero. Zilch. I cant stand the man.
The second point was that I read somewhere the other day that the French were unable to do a deal with us on returning asylum seekers, but that would not have been the case if we were still EU members. Thats it.
The third point was that if we were still members, we could have saved a fortune on the Rwanda plan, as there would have been no need of it. We could have just returned them to France. End of.
@HAYSIE said "One bit that is ironic for me is that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be going crackers. They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left. Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms."
"If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back. We could have accepted some from applications completed in France."
"Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead".
I say.
Woah. Stop right there, not everybody who voted Leave is or was a racist. That's another typical EU style profile in another nutshell.
Not only do you support unelected legislation makers. You think anybody who opposes your rose tinted Europhile views is racist, bigoted and fascist.
Just on this point. I dont really support anyone in the EU. I dont know very much about them. I dont have any rose tinted glasses. I do respect the views of others, even when they are mistaken, or just wrong.
My view is that we were better in, than out. Brexit was a mistake, which we are going to have to live with. Well at least for a bit. Thats it.
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
To put that in perspective. In 2014. Ukip got 24 seats with a 27% vote share. Labour got 20 with 25% of the vote The Tories got 19 with 24% of the vote. This was based on a 35% turnout, and 15.8 million votes cast.
In 2015 in the uk general election. The Tories had the most seats, 331, with a 37% share of the vote, and a 66.2% turnout, so around 31 million votes cast.
Completely off topic, but what an extraordinary 'photo that is. I did a very rough calculation that there's 1,500 new cars there, with an approx total value of £45 million. Extraordinary.
Comments
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation
2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany
3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments.
4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections
5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us"
6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly
Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly
Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership.
We have lost out in many ways since leaving.
I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion.
When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain.
You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system.
If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat.
Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term
The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
Although I was glad of it at the time.
I wouldnt disagree with your comments on PR.
Although I am sure that this is a matter of opinion.
One of the criticisms voiced by many people over PR, is that it often produces coalition governments.
Yet some people may view this as a good thing.
I think that the UKIP result in the EU election may have been in some way down to our inherent disdain for EU elections in this country.
Surely every vote counting should be important to any democracy, rather than liking the result.
It is even possible that the Lib Dems will become the Official Opposition. With the 2nd most seats. And the 4th most votes.
Coalition Govts are usually horrible. Where the tiny tail wags the large dog.
You cannot have a system where every vote counts. All mature PR systems have a Minimum Threshold before Representation.
The other problem within the UK system is the make up of it. There is a Population of 67 million. But it is essential to have divisions including Wales (3 million, less than 5% of the total) and Northern Ireland (less than 2 million, less than 3% of the total). Votes will inevitably be weighted, whatever system is chosen
I agree that, on some level, numbers of votes nationally as a whole, should have weight. To use Wales and Northern Ireland as examples, it is important that Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the DUP should elect Representatives.
But it is ridiculous that all 3 will likely each have more MPs than Reform. When more people will vote for Reform than the total votes cast for everyone by all voters in Wales and Northern Ireland combined
The European figures were very low in comparison to general elections.
As low as 24% in 1999.
Usually less than half the general election turnouts.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/european-parliament-elections-how-has-the-uk-voted-in-the-past/
The average turnout for Uk general elections since 1918, is apparently 73%.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/why-is-nobody-talking-about-brexit-in-the-uk-election/ar-BB1o53TV?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=ebcc0edee32e45e4a7032f1fc47d2d24&ei=45#fullscreen
There appears to be a growing majority in favour of doing so.
Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime.
I think my Dads generation had a biased view of Europe.
Particularly of the Germans, over the War.
As well as some of the countries that remained neutral, and those that folded very quickly.
My generation may have been brainwashed by their views.
The younger generations seem at least less affected by these opinions, and may have a more balanced view of Europe.
Hence the growing majority.
The old doddery biased Brexiteers dying off, and an increasing number of young unbiased citizens qualifying to vote.
There are a number of things that you can bank on, as time goes on.
The Unionists in NI are certain to never be happy with the border.
We will continue to do our own trade deals.
All of which will have to be binned on rejoining.
We will continue to diverge from the EU.
The binning of the trade deals, and the divergence will cause more disruption, and costs, for businesses, when we rejoin.
So logically, there are real advantages in doing it sooner rather than later.
@HAYSIE
"I think we will rejoin at some point in the future.
Although I am not sure if this will happen in my lifetime."
Me too, though bear in mind I'd imagine the entire end-to-end timescale will probably be best part of 20 years. So maybe (I very much hope) in your lifetime, but almost certainly not in mine.
I have no idea how long it would take from start to finish.
If we had rejoined the day after we left, it would have been simple, because nothing would have changed.
The longer we are out, the more disruption there will be.
One bit that is ironic for me is that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be going crackers.
They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left.
Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms.
If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back.
We could have accepted some from applications completed in France.
Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead.
The UK government will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda as part of its plan to relocate asylum seekers there. The cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda includes an average payment of £105,000 for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs.
"The UK government will pay at least £370 million to Rwanda as part of its plan to relocate asylum seekers there. The cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda includes an average payment of £105,000 for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs."
Is/was this Rwanda thing ever really going to happen?
Saw this on BBC News today....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp440pzp85ro
Feels more & more like just a PR stunt.
Keir Starmer has said he will stop it anyway.
That means back to square one in July.
Rwanda will be happy with the money for nothing.
Keir Starmer is going to smash the gangs.
If only it was that easy.
Perhaps the challenge for his second week in power, will be to arrest all our major drug dealers.
He will have his feet up by week 3.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/britain-faces-populist-tsunami-far-181522053.html
They thought we were going to control our borders, but look what has happened since we left.
Farage and his Islamaphobic mob are up in arms."
"If we were still in, we could probably do a deal with France to send the boat people back.
We could have accepted some from applications completed in France."
"Think how much money that would have saved on the Rwanda scheme, and where the money could have gone instead".
I say.
Woah. Stop right there, not everybody who voted Leave is or was a racist. That's another typical EU style profile in another nutshell.
Not only do you support unelected legislation makers. You think anybody who opposes your rose tinted Europhile views is racist, bigoted and fascist.
Except its bollox.
I would agree that not everybody that voted for Brexit was not racist.
That would have been a very stupid allegation to make.
Also obviously untrue.
I would have hoped you might have thought of me as a little wiser than someone who might suggest that.
But there you go.
So we have agreed that not everyone that voted for Brexit was racist.
However you can bet your bottom dollar that every racist that voted in the referendum will have voted to Leave.
I am not sure what a typical EU style profile is or where the first nutshell went.
I was making three points in the post in question.
The first was that all the racists that voted for Brexit must be extremely disappointed, with what has happened since.
It came up in tonights debate that despite the Tories promise in every manifesto since David Cameron, to reduce immigration, the numbers have doubled, if you compare the three years before the referendum, and the last three years.
Of course I had in mind Farages comments made on the media rounds last Sunday.
Where he made very harsh comments over the number of Muslims coming in.
He seemed perplexed over the numbers, and the percentage that are Muslims.
Farage was probably the most prominent Brexiteer, over the longest period, and is clearly a racist.
He seemed to think that things are much worse now, than when we had FoM.
I do not share any views with Farage.
None at all.
Zero.
Zilch.
I cant stand the man.
The second point was that I read somewhere the other day that the French were unable to do a deal with us on returning asylum seekers, but that would not have been the case if we were still EU members.
Thats it.
The third point was that if we were still members, we could have saved a fortune on the Rwanda plan, as there would have been no need of it.
We could have just returned them to France.
End of.
I dont really support anyone in the EU.
I dont know very much about them.
I dont have any rose tinted glasses.
I do respect the views of others, even when they are mistaken, or just wrong.
My view is that we were better in, than out.
Brexit was a mistake, which we are going to have to live with.
Well at least for a bit.
Thats it.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/brussels-slap-multibillion-euro-tariffs-085525923.html
In 2014.
Ukip got 24 seats with a 27% vote share.
Labour got 20 with 25% of the vote
The Tories got 19 with 24% of the vote.
This was based on a 35% turnout, and 15.8 million votes cast.
In 2015 in the uk general election.
The Tories had the most seats, 331, with a 37% share of the vote, and a 66.2% turnout, so around 31 million votes cast.
Completely off topic, but what an extraordinary 'photo that is. I did a very rough calculation that there's 1,500 new cars there, with an approx total value of £45 million. Extraordinary.