If we vote for Brexit what happens

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

if our government does the wrong thing then you can vote against them : when the EU does the wrong thing you have no redress.
Clearly you hate democracy.

Oddly enough about 60% of the UK population did just that at the last election, still didn't change the government mind you

I wouldn't describe the FPTP system as being some pure form of democracy either.

leveller2911

BobQ wrote: »

Are you serious? The British people's standards of living depends on employment in or ownership of large or small companies that trade with other EU countries. We export about 45% of our exports to the EU and import about 50% of our imports from the EU. About 3m jobs depend on the EU nation's trading with us.

Post some proof that this won't continue....

I do not see how my quality of life will be improved by paying more for my groceries, or having a health service staffed by vacancies etc.

I was watching the House of Commons select committee a couple of months ago and they were questioning Patrick Minford (economist) and his research suggests that food prices would reduce by around 18% if we left the EU because we would be paying the world price for food. The session is probably on youtube if you care to have a look.

Now I'm not saying he's right or wrong because I'm not educated enough but have a look at his research and see what you think.

http://www.patrickminford.net/


Regarding the NHS, can you post a link to where I said "all immigrants must leave the UK" (Best of luck with that one).

I do believe we should have the freedom to employ those best qualified to do the job and we should also make sure we train enough of our own people. This problem is down to our own Govt and not the EU. The current Govt have scrapped the bursary for nurses training which is a disgrace imo.

Currently the perverse fact is we are turning away highly qualified people from outside the EU in favour of some lesser qualified people within the EU purely because we have no control over EU migrants but need to keep immigration down as much as possible.

Bob who would you rather have treating you?.A highly respected,qualified surgeon from India or a average surgeon from Bulgaria?. I want you to have the best Bob......:D

Unless you are prepared to have a UK population of 80million within a decade or so but without the infrastructure to support them all then we need to control the numbers.

You and I both know the infrastructure will not be built and the thing is the majority of middle class people want mass immigration , cheap labour which will help to keep the value of your stocks and shares up as long as it doesn't infringe on your/their lifestyles so no Social Housing estates next door , the local school not having 16 different languages,waiting times increased at the local surgery etc etc etc .

I might be persuaded that this is a small price to pay if wages rose due to the shortages of labour but I suspect this Government would just allow temporary immigration to suppress wages.

I don't see a problem in allowing increased immigration for skill shortages as long as we skill up our own workforce.

The Tory Brexiteers have already said that Brexit would facilitate cutting back on employment rights and I believe they will do just that.

Oh you mean like Zero Hours contracts for workers...........oh wait we already have that shameful practice going on and the EU has done f*ck all about that. Guess what Bob, If they did cut back on employment Rights then every 5 years you and I get to decide if we like their ideas or not.......

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Oddly enough about 60% of the UK population did just that at the last election, still didn't change the government mind you

I wouldn't describe the FPTP system as being some pure form of democracy either.

What is a 'pure' form of democracy?

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

What is a 'pure' form of democracy?

Something closer to PR would undoubtedly give us a government more representative of the people, at the expense of a "weaker" government.

A lot of people who seem concerned about the democratic deficit of the EU don't seem too concerned about the issue here mind you, although I suppose if you can get absolute power on 40% of the vote you don't have much incentive to change it.

I do take the point about the lack of accountability of the EU, but to be honest they just haven't done that much to really annoy me over the years, for all some like to claim that we have no power any more and are dictated to by the EU on everything, most of the decisions which have annoyed me in recentish times have been made here.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Something closer to PR would undoubtedly give us a government more representative of the people, at the expense of a "weaker" government.

A lot of people who seem concerned about the democratic deficit of the EU don't seem too concerned about the issue here mind you, although I suppose if you can get absolute power on 40% of the vote you don't have much incentive to change it.

I do take the point about the lack of accountability of the EU, but to be honest they just haven't done that much to really annoy me over the years, for all some like to claim that we have no power any more and are dictated to by the EU on everything, most of the decisions which have annoyed me in recentish times have been made here.

why do you think a weaker government is a more pure form of government?

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you think a weaker government is a more pure form of government?

It represents the views of the people more closely than the FPTP system.

It doesn't give absolute power to one the 2 big parties if they can get somewhere near 40% of the vote irrespective of the views of the other 60%

It doesn't force people to vote tactically for a party which isn't their first choice in the hope of their vote meaning something in the particular constituency they happen to vote in.

It doesn't leave you in a situation where some votes in this country matter a hell of a lot more than others, depending on the makeup of their constituency and how marginal it is.

I am, to say the least, no fan of UKIP, but a lot of people in the UK do support them and it is something of a joke that in return for that significant level of support they have the grand total of 1 MP, because they don't have massively strong regional strongholds, compare and contrast to the representation the SNP has in the UK parliament.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

It represents the views of the people more closely than the FPTP system.

It doesn't give absolute power to one the 2 big parties if they can get somewhere near 40% of the vote irrespective of the views of the other 60%

It doesn't force people to vote tactically for a party which isn't their first choice in the hope of their vote meaning something in the particular constituency they happen to vote in.

It doesn't leave you in a situation where some votes in this country matter a hell of a lot more than others, depending on the makeup of their constituency and how marginal it is.

I am, to say the least, no fan of UKIP, but a lot of people in the UK do support them and it is something of a joke that in return for that significant level of support they have the grand total of 1 MP, because they don't have massively strong regional strongholds, compare and contrast to the representation the SNP has in the UK parliament.

but PR system can give a small party a permanent huge influence if they are in a coalition where they form a small but deciding balance of power

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

but PR system can give a small party a permanent huge influence if they are in a coalition where they form a small but deciding balance of power

Well that's up to the leaders of the parties to decide on, and if the voters don't like what they agree they can always vote for another party next time around, at least every vote counts equally for something.

In the last coalition we had here, lets be honest it was very much the Tories calling the shots, with the LibDems having some moderating influence, and there wasn't even a massive difference in share of the vote between those parties (although obviously there was in parliamentary representation).

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Well that's up to the leaders of the parties to decide on, and if the voters don't like what they agree they can always vote for another party next time around, at least every vote counts equally for something.

In the last coalition we had here, lets be honest it was very much the Tories calling the shots, with the LibDems having some moderating influence, and there wasn't even a massive difference in share of the vote between those parties (although obviously there was in parliamentary representation).

that's true of the FPTP system too
if the voters don't like it they can voter differently next time and once again have a small minority determining policy rather than a large minority as under the FPTP system

both seem very 'impure' to me

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

It represents the views of the people more closely than the FPTP system.

It doesn't give absolute power to one the 2 big parties if they can get somewhere near 40% of the vote irrespective of the views of the other 60%

It doesn't force people to vote tactically for a party which isn't their first choice in the hope of their vote meaning something in the particular constituency they happen to vote in.

It doesn't leave you in a situation where some votes in this country matter a hell of a lot more than others, depending on the makeup of their constituency and how marginal it is.

I am, to say the least, no fan of UKIP, but a lot of people in the UK do support them and it is something of a joke that in return for that significant level of support they have the grand total of 1 MP, because they don't have massively strong regional strongholds, compare and contrast to the representation the SNP has in the UK parliament.

You may not be aware, but in an act of true democracy the British people were recently asked if they wished to changed the electoral system and it was totally rejected. Therefore FPTP may not be the purest theoretical form, but it is the democratically chosen one.