Out. We don't need to be part of a 'union' that tells us what to do. I've read all about the paid holidays, better the devil you know etc. Does anyone honestly think that our paid holidays will end, that our passports will no longer entitle us to live in other parts of europe? As for better the devil you know, we did OK for millennia prior to the EU, we'll do OK without it. We will continue to trade with the common market (that's what it was disguised as), and there are burgeoning markets across the globe, fear not, we'll survive.
You could well feel the same with a PR system too. If you support a smaller party outside of 2 or 3 big ones, and they eventually do well on an election day, join a coalition government dominated by one of the big Parties, invariably they get nothing they want done, done in Government, except maybe they get a little bone or 2. Result is their voters see them as not being able to keep their promises and they vote badly next time. Like what hapoened with the UK Lib Dems, but far more common in countries with PR.
The NATO forces who saved Thousands from slaughter in Bosnia deserve high praise for that Col. Unfortunately, the NATO forces who invaded Iraq have caused how many people to lose their lives in the chaos that has followed? 2 million might be a conservative estimate and another few million displaced people. The citizens who live in neutral countries do not carry responsibility for that on their conscience.
I think I have pants on, but you never know... I've stopped wearing dresses, though. Consider your comment regarding not justifying the way things are has been duly noted and understood. Ta. I'll move on (slightly). It's certainly true that the current system delivered a majority government and that makes executing decisions easier because they can generally do whatever they want. Because it's not really supported by the majority vote in total, it's a bit frustrating and annoying to see the way both "big" parties behave when asked serious questions that never get a straight answer. I'm not impressed by the name calling and games that they both play. The existing system doesn't require politicians to listen, consider and negotiate to get things done. Instead they grandstand and bluster. People like me feel disenfranchised. If Commons seats were allocated in proportion to the popular vote across the whole country, irrespective of constituency, we'd have a different take on things that I would at least feel involved in.
Supporters of less mainstream / less traditional parties will always feel disenfranchised to a degree. Interesting to note how the last election would have looked under PR: Conservatives : 240 Labour : 213 UKIP : 83 Lib Dem : 53 SNP : 37 Green : 24 The likely outcome of that would be a majority coalition between UKIP and the Tories. So you'd have the same government as today, but with Farage and the excesses of the UKIP right having a voice in power. The only alternative would be a Labour / Lib Dem / SNP minority government, which would be unworkable due to having too many voices at the table and an inability to get a majority vote on anything in Parliament. The only benefit from either of those scenarios would likely be that you feel more involved. I'm not sure the consequential issues for the nation as a whole are a price worth paying for that, important as individual votes and voters are.
Chaz, thanks for the analysis - I was too lazy to work it out. If you're OK to take this a little further? If PR had actually delivered us those seat numbers, I would agree with your summary. However, I would suggest that some of those 2015 votes were tactical, because of the system we have based on constituency results. For example, perhaps some people voted for (say, Labour) to stop (say, UKIP) from getting in at their constituency when they really wanted to vote (say, Green). The numbers are probably distorted, and under this system we will never know. I don't expect to see anything change in my lifetime. There's too much inertia, too many vested interests and we've all got lives to lead. Ho hum.
Point taken. However, as I didn't take the decision to go to any war, my conscience is untroubled. Blair on the other hand should be eternally ashamed. I think the first Gulf War was justified and although the 2nd one has indeed created a complete mess and cost many lives, Saddam wasn't exactly peace loving and was responsible for countless lives lost too. Although Countries who go to war certainly have to live with that decision, do not Countries who remain forever neutral possibly have to live with being guilty of the appeasement of despots and tyrants?
A second thought, now I come to think of it. The 'in' side needs to make as much of the 'softer' benefits as they can. The one that springs to mind for me is bringing down roaming costs over the years to very soon becoming nothing - which for many people is a huge deal!
I presume Stan would have stated in his OP that he didn't want Johnny Foreigners to take part if that indeed was his intention.
Obviously I accept that if your own personal situation benefits from Remain, then that's what you'll favour. But about 2/3rds of UK laws are EU made or influenced now (source - Business in Britain - Farage said 75% in his debate with Clegg which was probably something of an exaggeration). The unelected Commission is behind most (it is the tail that wags the dog). Cameron's opt outs aren't worth the paper they're written on because (a) the European Parliament has to approve them after the referendum and may well water them down and (b) if there was a challenge to them in the European Court by, say, a trade union out of one of the East European countries, the European Court would take note of them but would not be bound by them, until they are enshrined in a Treaty, which looks a long way off. An independent Britain can work with the EU on matters of security, military incl Nato etc. It is essential that it does. But it should not be bound into an organisation in which 19 of the 28 members will be voting as one, dominant member (led by Germany), so that the UK ( and the other 8 members) will find themselves marginalised. If the UK does vote Remain, the vote must be respected - but it will be just the beginning of the problems for the UK imo, unless it joins the Euro "club within a club", which is surely unthinkable
"A Dark Chapter" barely describes the dreadful abuse of children at the BBC. The rule was "talent before morals", and the frightening thing is, it is accepted that this has not changed. Even now, there is a culture of fear at the BBC that dissuades those abused or witnessing abuse from coming forward. The response of BBC management? Sack Tony Blackburn Large parts of the BBC are rotten - break it up now, so the abundance of true talent can find a home elsewhere in a healthy climate
They need us. We're skilled at deservedly coming last and keeping a stiff, if slightly quivering, upper lip
