Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qpr1976, Telford Ranger, kiwiqpr and 1 other person
TootingExcess said:
FPTP encourages a two-party system, whereas I don't think modern society fits that model. Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith, Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn represent four completely different political points of view - who should be in different parties. People want that choice nowadays, if you are a pro-European one nation Tory (or a Blairite Labour voter) - and you have a choice of Jeremy Corbyn or IDS - you may as well not bother voting.
Click to expand...
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.
 
QPR Oslo said:
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.
Click to expand...
PR would pretty much guarantee that for the UK.
 
rangercol said:
I think you should read what I said again mate. I didn't say that "the UK's membership of the EU is what caused" my security fears.
TBH I'd rather belong to a Nation that at least tries to put things right, as in the case of Bosnia, accepting that we often get it wrong, as in the 2nd Gulf War, than be a Nation that forever remains neutral.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chaz said:
I didn't say they were the same - simply that they would deliver what you want in terms of a better representation of the vote in Parliament.

And I'm not justifying anything. I think the overrepresentation that the last election gave the SNP is horrendously unfair. However, it did deliver a majority government instead of another coalition of unwilling bedfellows, and as such, you could argue that it served a purpose in the overall scheme of things.

As for your dress? In honesty, we're simply glad you put on your pants.

you DO put on your pants, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheBigDipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
Chaz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
finglasqpr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
QPR Oslo said:
British citizens living in the UK have more control on what happens in the UK than any place I know of. You get to vote in national elections every 4 or 5 years, more often if the local MP dies or quits etc. Then you have local election's, elections to the European parliament about as often, plus referendums like this one. Ample voting opportunities across the board.

As far as the EU goes the UK has opted out of/negotiated out of any need for you to worry about "control of our own destiny". For Geopolitical reasons it is essential Britain stays in Europe, and high time Britain made a contribution to our area in line with the size, history and standing our Country once had, and not just financial. Time to vote In, and for the Government to get involved in securing a better future for the whole region.
Click to expand...

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: sheffordqpr, Uber_Hoop, KPDHoopster and 1 other person
"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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back