EU referendum opinion poll.

[digitalalba]

And you know everyone would vote the same under PR?

Eh?

[digitalalba]

What do you mean? 

One set of laws for a world superstate?

[theessexfox]

If you get 10% of the votes, you get 10% status in Parliament, in our case, 65 MP's.

And how's that worked out, which 65 UKIP MPs get chosen, say if UKIP get 10% of the vote? Who is my local representative?

[digitalalba]

And how's that worked out, which 65 UKIP MPs get chosen, say if UKIP get 10% of the vote? Who is my local representative?

Each party, as we do in the EU election, organise their preferred list of candidates. I must admit, non localised MP status would be a bit strange, but at least we'd have the choice of a lot of political persuasions rather than the forced one we have now.

[theessexfox]

Each party, as we do in the EU election, organise their preferred list of candidates. I must admit, non localised MP status would be a bit strange, but at least we'd have the choice of a lot of political persuasions rather than the forced one we have now.

Right okay, I prefer a system of local representation and stable government though FPTP has many flaws, if you rank pure proportionality above that then that's fair enough, is that system used anywhere?

[Carl the Llama]

One set of laws for a world superstate?

Where possible, yeah.  Allow the various states to make their own state laws, serving as legislative Petri dishes allowing for the constant evolution of laws to reflect contemporary society a lot like what happens in the USA.

[Claridge]

Each party, as we do in the EU election, organise their preferred list of candidates. I must admit, non localised MP status would be a bit strange, but at least we'd have the choice of a lot of political persuasions rather than the forced one we have now.

And if there's 20 parties.do they all sit around chatting nicely and then pass a law?

Read what happened in Weimar Germany to see what a croc of shit pr is.what if the bnp has the casting vote ? Or the communists.sounds good in theory but in reality it can be a disaster unless your an extremist as you get some power,publicity etc...

[Benguin]

free movement, common market, echr and the fact that a year of my studies would have been for nothing is for stay

 

The sheer cost (all though I'm not convinced the difference in trade won't affect this) The fact that it is not reflective by and large of the electorate and the fact I quite like the idea of the UK being a little rich island that's like "fvck y'all, we'll take care of ourselves" is for the leave camp.

 

I'll probably vote stay though come a referendum.

[Harry - LCFC]

And if there's 20 parties.do they all sit around chatting nicely and then pass a law?

Read what happened in Weimar Germany to see what a croc of shit pr is.what if the bnp has the casting vote ? Or the communists.sounds good in theory but in reality it can be a disaster unless your an extremist as you get some power,publicity etc...

 

There are plenty of countries who use PR, or some limited form of it, in the world today. Many of them function smoothly.

 

You choosing to pick out the worst example where the negative consequences were more the result of exceptional circumstances than the electoral system looks rather biased. I don't know whether PR is superior to our current system or not, but it doesn't seem to be the inevitable disaster you appear to be suggesting it is.

[The Railway Man]

Ah good.  I do want a federal superstate because it's better than having different laws every few hundred kilometres and it breeds a sense of unity across borders rather than confirming our differences.  Being an idealist I'd like to see that idea expanded into a world government but baby steps and all that.

 

I don't think I've once claimed it to be a great success, I thought I was making it clear that I want to stay despite its failings because the general idea is too important to just give up on - in your case over what I wholeheartedly believe to be unfair misgivings about it being democratic; as Alf suggested earlier it seems you don't class this brand of democracy within your definition of the term.  But even if we disagree at least you have clearly defined concerns instead of banging the right-wing drum like a big pompous child mentioning no names.

 

It's driving people apart at the minute more than pulling them together, forcing people together never goes well, the EU committed suiced for me the day it went into Greece and decided it could run the country ahead of what it's people had voted for.

 

The Dutch are clamouring for one now, polls there show 44-43 to leave.

 

Referendums aren't going to settle these issues either as it's going to be so close either way, we are going to have a European Union where at minumum nearly half the people of Europe want to leave, it has no long term future.

[BlueSi13]

Fair play to Carl the Llama making it clear that he is a remainer due to his desire to see a one world government (ruled by whoever holds the biggest stick I suppose). 

 

As for the referendum, a vote to remain will undoubtably be seen by the EU that the UK is fully on board with the plan for further integration.  Cameron's deal will be torn apart upon appeal and the erosion of our sovereignty and nationhood will continue unhindered.  Of course the UK will have absolutely no remit to protest this, as after all, we voted to remain didn't we and we all knew what the end-game of the EU was.

 

But hey as long as our petrol bills don't go up by a couple of pence per litre.  Happy days right?

[Carl the Llama]

Fair play to Carl the Llama making it clear that he is a remainer due to his desire to see a one world government (ruled by whoever holds the biggest stick I suppose). 

 

As for the referendum, a vote to remain will undoubtably be seen by the EU that the UK is fully on board with the plan for further integration.  Cameron's deal will be torn apart upon appeal and the erosion of our sovereignty and nationhood will continue unhindered.  Of course the UK will have absolutely no remit to protest this, as after all, we voted to remain didn't we and we all knew what the end-game of the EU was.

 

But hey as long as our petrol bills don't go up by a couple of pence per litre.  Happy days right?

I don't get this argument, the kindest description for such thinking is paranoid.  Why would it be torn apart?  Who in Europe would gain from antagonising an entire nation in such a way?  Are you calling Donald Tusk a liar or just saying he has no idea what he's talking about? (Before you turn the same question back on me I'm certain that Gove is deliberately and cynically bullshitting to stoke up anti-EU sentiment.)

 

In such a ridiculous scenario it's hard to imagine Cameron not immediately calling for another referendum which would very likely win and see us actually leave.

[The Railway Man]

I don't get this argument, the kindest description for such thinking is paranoid.  Why would it be torn apart?  Who in Europe would gain from antagonising an entire nation in such a way?  Are you calling Donald Tusk a liar or just saying he has no idea what he's talking about? (Before you turn the same question back on me I'm certain that Gove is deliberately and cynically bullshitting to stoke up anti-EU sentiment.)

 

In such a ridiculous scenario it's hard to imagine Cameron not immediately calling for another referendum which would very likely win and see us actually leave.

 

 

Cameron is a devout Europhile and didn't even want this referendum, it was just something he had to do to try and show UKIP voters he was doing something about Europe, he never expected to get a overall majority and it would have been the first thing he would have tossed off in a coalition negotiation.

 

Europe could rip up the agreement, shit on it and wipe it in his face and he'd still dance for joy at staying in, let alone demand another referendum.

[Harry - LCFC]

In such a ridiculous scenario it's hard to imagine Cameron not immediately calling for another referendum which would very likely win and see us actually leave.

 

I find that spectacularly easy to imagine.

[Carl the Llama]

I find that spectacularly easy to imagine.

The public fallout would be massive, it would be political suicide not to call a 2nd referendum in such extreme circumstances.

 

End of the day it's all a moot point so it's barely worth discussing.

[RobHawk]

In regards to whether or not the EU is democratic.

 

I noticed on BBC news this morning that OFCOM are due to shake up the cable network and are imposing regulation on BT to open up the network to other providers (or something along those lines).

 

I'm wondering if those who think the EU is not democratic are up in arms about this? OFCOM are telling British businesses what to do and i don't remember voting anybody into OFCOM. I know its not exactly the same but surely the principle is?

[davieG]

In regards to whether or not the EU is democratic.

 

I noticed on BBC news this morning that OFCOM are due to shake up the cable network and are imposing regulation on BT to open up the network to other providers (or something along those lines).

 

I'm wondering if those who think the EU is not democratic are up in arms about this? OFCOM are telling British businesses what to do and i don't remember voting anybody into OFCOM. I know its not exactly the same but surely the principle is?

Ofcom has nothing to do with EU

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/what-is-ofcom/

 

Ofcom operates under a number of Acts of Parliament, including in particular the Communications Act 2003. Ofcom must act within the powers and duties set for it by Parliament in legislation.

[Strokes]

In regards to whether or not the EU is democratic.

 

I noticed on BBC news this morning that OFCOM are due to shake up the cable network and are imposing regulation on BT to open up the network to other providers (or something along those lines).

 

I'm wondering if those who think the EU is not democratic are up in arms about this? OFCOM are telling British businesses what to do and i don't remember voting anybody into OFCOM. I know its not exactly the same but surely the principle is?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, ofcom is acting on legislation that was voted in by parliament.

[RobHawk]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, ofcom is acting on legislation that was voted in by parliament.

I think i'll pipe down then!

[digitalalba]

Right okay, I prefer a system of local representation and stable government though FPTP has many flaws, if you rank pure proportionality above that then that's fair enough, is that system used anywhere?

I can't remember where, but yes I think it's used in a few countries. Should be able to google it.

 

You'll still have local representation via councils.

Is stable government (one party government is what you mean) a good thing if the majority people don't vote for it? That's what we have now.

[digitalalba]

Where possible, yeah.  Allow the various states to make their own state laws, serving as legislative Petri dishes allowing for the constant evolution of laws to reflect contemporary society a lot like what happens in the USA.

'where possible', how vague an answer and concept is that...THEN you contradict yourself. Do you realise that?

Constant evolution of laws, my word, it gets worse.

 

Are you more in favour of a few people as possible in charge, or as many as possible?

[Claridge]

There are plenty of countries who use PR, or some limited form of it, in the world today. Many of them function smoothly.

 

You choosing to pick out the worst example where the negative consequences were more the result of exceptional circumstances than the electoral system looks rather biased. I don't know whether PR is superior to our current system or not, but it doesn't seem to be the inevitable disaster you appear to be suggesting it is.

An economic crash, 6 terrorist bombings in UK cities and a charismatic leader of a right wing party. Probably won't happen , but it could, would you be so sure that people would vote sensibly in those circumstances. 

Do people really want a system that gives a chance to extremists?

The system we have is not perfect but its the best one for this country.

[digitalalba]

And if there's 20 parties.do they all sit around chatting nicely and then pass a law?

Read what happened in Weimar Germany to see what a croc of shit pr is.what if the bnp has the casting vote ? Or the communists.sounds good in theory but in reality it can be a disaster unless your an extremist as you get some power,publicity etc...

Your first point, I see your concern, but you either believe in democracy, or you don't. The more politically diverse your country, the worse FPTP is.

If a party has the casting vote, then it's because the PEOPLE (remember them) want it that way = democracy.

 

UKIP 4 million votes - 1 MP.

SNP 1.5 million votes - 56 MP's.

 

There needs to be change.

[Thracian]

Fair play to Carl the Llama making it clear that he is a remainer due to his desire to see a one world government (ruled by whoever holds the biggest stick I suppose). 

 

As for the referendum, a vote to remain will undoubtably be seen by the EU that the UK is fully on board with the plan for further integration.  Cameron's deal will be torn apart upon appeal and the erosion of our sovereignty and nationhood will continue unhindered.  Of course the UK will have absolutely no remit to protest this, as after all, we voted to remain didn't we and we all knew what the end-game of the EU was.

 

But hey as long as our petrol bills don't go up by a couple of pence per litre.  Happy days right?

Sadly Carl's theory is flawed.

1) People aren't the same. It's no use pretending they're the same and I don't see much merit in trying to make them the same. Individuality is important to the world for ideas, innovation and progress in every direction. Teamwork is vital to bring ideas to fruition but the less control of people - on a constructive basis - the better.

Religion is an example. It's all about power and control from the centre but delegated to the outposts.

And look at what that's been responsible for - more killings, maimings and despair than anything apart from natural causes...much the same as so many examples relating to big empires and dictatorships. Organisations seem to corrupt themselves in the end so the smaller they are, the less the damage.

2) The ill-consequence for people having a world government, as opposed to more localised government, doesn't bear thinking about in the wrong hands. It was bad enough having Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia or Chairman Mao in China without us now going global.

3) Localised government is much more aware of localised needs and concerns. People on the coast whose community makes their living from the sea don't have the same concerns as wheat farmers in the middle of the US. Even having European rule, never mind world rule is ridiculously distant and the distance shows when considering how far Europe's attitudes have disillusioned so many European people and with good reason.

As for fuel there's no need to worry!

[digitalalba]

It is an irnony Thracian, that the people who drive to make us the same, also thrive on the idea of diversity. LSD is against the law

 

The EU was probably designed to steer us to a world government. Can you imagine that, one single person as leader of the world - nightmare.

 

Excellent third point.