"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". ...
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Very interesting. Out of interest, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain as PM did he also become leader of the Conservative party at the same time?
Good job a leadership contest wasn't required!
No, Chamberlain remained as Conservative leader until his diagnosis of terminal cancer in October.
There's an interesting 'what if' there - what if Chamberlain dies a year / two years / three years earlier.
Thanks.
Of course there are lots of interesting 'what-if' moments in 1940-41. C. J. Samsome's novel Dominion is chillingly enjoyable, splitting from reality at the point that Halifax rather than Churchill becomes PM on 10 May 1940, with dire consequences for Britain and the rest of Europe.
Yes! Read that in 48 hours. Cracking Winter read, especially if you live in London.
Made me realise that the bus route numbers haven't changed a bit!
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Becoming part of a federal Europe? I can see that going down well in the country.
Not at the moment because we still have this delusion that we are size of Australia with the economic clout of the USA.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
Riiiiight.
Your words, not mine.
Disowning 'Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.' already?
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
35% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be minions of the EU". The remaining 65% voted either to leave or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Thatcher was not PM in this century, just Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
Not a very inspired bunch, and even I would rate Dave top.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Another Brexiteer who is mistakenly living in the wrong century.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Even less of a ringing endorsement of remaining
True, but Remaining was the status quo. To change it should have had a higher requirement than less than 2/5ths of the electorate. If the Leave vote had been 50% + 1 of the electorate rather than those voting then your point would be unassailable.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". ...
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Very interesting. Out of interest, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain as PM did he also become leader of the Conservative party at the same time?
Good job a leadership contest wasn't required!
No, Chamberlain remained as Conservative leader until his diagnosis of terminal cancer in October.
There's an interesting 'what if' there - what if Chamberlain dies a year / two years / three years earlier.
Thanks.
Of course there are lots of interesting 'what-if' moments in 1940-41. C. J. Samsome's novel Dominion is chillingly enjoyable, splitting from reality at the point that Halifax rather than Churchill becomes PM on 10 May 1940, with dire consequences for Britain and the rest of Europe.
Yes! Read that in 48 hours. Cracking Winter read, especially if you live in London.
Made me realise that the bus route numbers haven't changed a bit!
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Becoming part of a federal Europe? I can see that going down well in the country.
Not at the moment because we still have this delusion that we are size of Australia with the economic clout of the USA.
We do? Wasn't there a poll on a question about Britain's influence in the world, and we see ourselves as others see us (i.e. no presumption of exceptionalism)?
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Becoming part of a federal Europe? I can see that going down well in the country.
Not at the moment because we still have this delusion that we are size of Australia with the economic clout of the USA.
We do? Wasn't there a poll on a question about Britain's influence in the world, and we see ourselves as others see us (i.e. no presumption of exceptionalism)?
Questioning remainer logic with stats?!
That'll never do young Rob, sir! Back of the queue...
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Another Brexiteer who is mistakenly living in the wrong century.
Remember it was social care and security which caused the government difficulties in the election while the NHS played a much more minor role than normal.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Thatcher was not PM in this century, just Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
Not a very inspired bunch, and even I would rate Dave top.
Blair was clearly top of those four, although he screwed-up royally over Iraq. Dave's cock-up over the EU will have much longer lasting adverse consequences for this country.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
Riiiiight.
Your words, not mine.
Disowning 'Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.' already?
No. I said that bit about "external control"
I never mentioned 0% - you said that.
We had "external control" and we still had our own govts who were accountable to us and the "external control" was not exactly onerous. Ensuring people's rights and that water quality was better than when we joined and that people should not be worked to death in sweatshops, etc, etc, was hardly a bad thing.
Are you really postulating that you want total sovreign control so that we can return to filthy beaches, less rights, poorer working conditions and Labour being able to nationalise everything?
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
Riiiiight.
Your words, not mine.
Disowning 'Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.' already?
No. I said that bit about "external control"
I never mentioned 0% - you said that.
We had "external control" and we still had our own govts who were accountable to us and the "external control" was not exactly onerous. Ensuring people's rights and that water quality was better than when we joined and that people should not be worked to death in sweatshops, etc, etc, was hardly a bad thing.
Are you really postulating that you want total sovreign control so that we can return to filthy beaches, less rights, poorer working conditions and Labour being able to nationalise everything?
I'm surprised the UK made any progress on social/welfare reforms before joining the EU.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
Riiiiight.
Your words, not mine.
Disowning 'Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.' already?
No. I said that bit about "external control"
I never mentioned 0% - you said that.
We had "external control" and we still had our own govts who were accountable to us and the "external control" was not exactly onerous. Ensuring people's rights and that water quality was better than when we joined and that people should not be worked to death in sweatshops, etc, etc, was hardly a bad thing.
Are you really postulating that you want total sovreign control so that we can return to filthy beaches, less rights, poorer working conditions and Labour being able to nationalise everything?
I want total sovereign control precisely because our own priorities should be set by our own people. No-one should have external control on our policies.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Even less of a ringing endorsement of remaining
True, but Remaining was the status quo. To change it should have had a higher requirement than less than 2/5ths of the electorate. If the Leave vote had been 50% + 1 of the electorate rather than those voting then your point would be unassailable.
Agreed - it was a massive mistake from Cameron not to insist on that given the fundamental nature of the constitutional change at stake.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Thatcher was not PM in this century, just Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
Not a very inspired bunch, and even I would rate Dave top.
Blair was clearly top of those four, although he screwed-up royally over Iraq. Dave's cock-up over the EU will have much longer lasting adverse consequences for this country.
Nah, they're all pretty terrible.
None a patch on Thatcher, Mac, Atlee, Churchill, Balfour....
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Even less of a ringing endorsement of remaining
True, but Remaining was the status quo. To change it should have had a higher requirement than less than 2/5ths of the electorate. If the Leave vote had been 50% + 1 of the electorate rather than those voting then your point would be unassailable.
Agreed - it was a massive mistake from Cameron not to insist on that given the fundamental nature of the constitutional change at stake.
Given how many times he was forced to make a u-turn on the 'rules', I'd hazard it wasn't in his power to do so.
He wouldn't have lasted till lunchtime before Brady's postbox overflowed.
My view, the sooner we leave the EU, the sooner we rejoin.
It won't bring Gideon back, you know.
1) He's never coming back
2) Somethings are more important than George
Like I said last year, the Brexiteers are Juncker's fifth columnists.
No, you REMAINERs are Juncker's fifth columnists.
LEAVERs = RAF EU = Luftwaffe TSE = Lord Haw Haw
Substantial numbers of our RAF aircrew were European migrants who came here as refugees.
One cannot help but wonder if our current government would have deported them instead.
Them Polish Spitfire pilots, comin' over 'ere, takin' our Spitfires, climbin' to angels 18 vector one nine zero in our sky, and shootin' down our Heinkels...oh.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Even less of a ringing endorsement of remaining
True, but Remaining was the status quo. To change it should have had a higher requirement than less than 2/5ths of the electorate. If the Leave vote had been 50% + 1 of the electorate rather than those voting then your point would be unassailable.
Agreed - it was a massive mistake from Cameron not to insist on that given the fundamental nature of the constitutional change at stake.
That's just gerrymandering, which always poisons the well.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
Thatcher's a bloke?
Thatcher was not PM in this century, just Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
Not a very inspired bunch, and even I would rate Dave top.
Blair was clearly top of those four, although he screwed-up royally over Iraq. Dave's cock-up over the EU will have much longer lasting adverse consequences for this country.
Nah, they're all pretty terrible.
None a patch on Thatcher, Mac, Atlee, Churchill, Balfour....
Surprised to see you mention Attlee - wouldn't have thought he was your cup of tea at all?!
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
Good to see that Mrs May has a choice of role models when it comes to strategic decision making
2016 - our declaration of war 2017 - our Dunkirk, on the face of it a complete mess, but we live to fight another day 2020 - D Day!
You think we're going back into Europe in 2020? That's a bold prediction.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
Good to see that Mrs May has a choice of role models when it comes to strategic decision making
2016 - our declaration of war 2017 - our Dunkirk, on the face of it a complete mess, but we live to fight another day 2020 - D Day!
You think we're going back into Europe in 2020? That's a bold prediction.
Na, he's talking about our enforcement of the Treaty of Troyes.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
Britain's military focus has always been to defend trade by controlling the sea. Wars on land have always required the recruitment of proxies to do the bulk land fighting, since the year dot. Essentially, if you go to war with Britain she will assemble an invincible coalition against you, however long it takes.
In that respect all Britain's wars have been the same. There are exceptions such as colonial wars, but the above pattern is the norm. WW1 was so enervating because owing to the inadequacy of France and Russia as allies UK had to do all the heavy lifting at sea and on land and in the air. Suez was a fiasco because the coalition was inadequate.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
From a technical perspective, we're likely to have worse trade arrangements with the rest of the world for quite some time following Brexit.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
I don't think that's in our hands: that's in the hands of the EU and its members.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
I don't think that's in our hands: that's in the hands of the EU and its members.
I think it would be a very underhand thing of the EU to do if it wasn't agreed to by HMG.
It's just sad the way the Conservatives let down the millions who vote for them.
Sorry, Sean, but this is just wrong. Like all major parties, the Conservative Party is of course a coalition of people with broadly similar views on lots of things, and a divergence of views on some issues. 'Letting down millions who vote for them' just means 'not everything people who vote for them is achievable in practice, and in any case the people who vote for them don't all want the same thing on every issue'.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
I don't think that's in our hands: that's in the hands of the EU and its members.
I think it would be a very underhand thing of the EU to do if it wasn't agreed to by HMG.
If the EU wants to offer British citizens some amorphous concept of EU Citizenship that's their business. Likewise, if the UK government wants to make it illegal to be both British and an EU Citizen then that's their business too.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
I don't think that's in our hands: that's in the hands of the EU and its members.
I think it would be a very underhand thing of the EU to do if it wasn't agreed to by HMG.
Confused now... Are you talking about the EU offering UK citizens EU citizenship post-Brexit? (if so yes please!) But could the UK government prevent that?
Thanks to the EU, same sex partners had their pension rights compulsorily backdated for all pension attributable to service before 2005 by the Supreme Court today. Its healthy progressive influence will be sorely missed after Britain has left it.
Is that a good thing? Yes, it's a good thing because it's manifestly the fair thing to do, and consistent with same-sex marriage as a concept. No, it's a bad thing because it imposes new and unexpected retrospective liabilities on defined-benefit pension funds.
You can argue it either way, but God only knows why the EU should have anything to do with it. It should be a decision for parliament, which is the relevant democratically-elected body.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
I don't think that's in our hands: that's in the hands of the EU and its members.
I think it would be a very underhand thing of the EU to do if it wasn't agreed to by HMG.
If the EU wants to offer British citizens some amorphous concept of EU Citizenship that's their business. Likewise, if the UK government wants to make it illegal to be both British and an EU Citizen then that's their business too.
Ok, both points make sense, but what if significant numbers of indivuduals select the EU citizenship in preference to UK citizenship? Could get interesing.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
Britain's military focus has always been to defend trade by controlling the sea. Wars on land have always required the recruitment of proxies to do the bulk land fighting, since the year dot. Essentially, if you go to war with Britain she will assemble an invincible coalition against you, however long it takes.
In that respect all Britain's wars have been the same. There are exceptions such as colonial wars, but the above pattern is the norm. WW1 was so enervating because owing to the inadequacy of France and Russia as allies UK had to do all the heavy lifting at sea and on land and in the air. Suez was a fiasco because the coalition was inadequate.
Bit harsh on the French, they racked up twice as many losses (in absolute and relative terms) in WW1 as we did
Thanks to the EU, same sex partners had their pension rights compulsorily backdated for all pension attributable to service before 2005 by the Supreme Court today. Its healthy progressive influence will be sorely missed after Britain has left it.
Is that a good thing? Yes, it's a good thing because it's manifestly the fair thing to do, and consistent with same-sex marriage as a concept. No, it's a bad thing because it imposes new and unexpected retrospective liabilities on defined-benefit pension funds.
You can argue it either way, but God only knows why the EU should have anything to do with it. It should be a decision for parliament, which is the relevant democratically-elected body.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Even less of a ringing endorsement of remaining
True, but Remaining was the status quo. To change it should have had a higher requirement than less than 2/5ths of the electorate. If the Leave vote had been 50% + 1 of the electorate rather than those voting then your point would be unassailable.
Agreed - it was a massive mistake from Cameron not to insist on that given the fundamental nature of the constitutional change at stake.
That's just gerrymandering, which always poisons the well.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
Riiiiight.
Your words, not mine.
Disowning 'Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.' already?
No. I said that bit about "external control"
I never mentioned 0% - you said that.
We had "external control" and we still had our own govts who were accountable to us and the "external control" was not exactly onerous. Ensuring people's rights and that water quality was better than when we joined and that people should not be worked to death in sweatshops, etc, etc, was hardly a bad thing.
Are you really postulating that you want total sovreign control so that we can return to filthy beaches, less rights, poorer working conditions and Labour being able to nationalise everything?
I want total sovereign control precisely because our own priorities should be set by our own people. No-one should have external control on our policies.
It is not a rational position to throw away the advances we have made just so we can proclaim ourselves as the architects of our own mess.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
If the EU wants to offer British citizens some amorphous concept of EU Citizenship that's their business. Likewise, if the UK government wants to make it illegal to be both British and an EU Citizen then that's their business too.
Ok, both points make sense, but what if significant numbers of indivuduals select the EU citizenship in preference to UK citizenship? Could get interesing.
The govt would have real trouble making Dual/EU Citizenship illegal. Start with Northern Ireland - almost every adult there has dual citizenship and it is recognised by the Good Friday Agreement.
It would also be discriminatory in the sense that dual UK/non-EU citizenship would be legal whilst UK/EU would not and if ALL dual citizenship was banned then a lot of people might start packing their bags.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
Absolutely.
Although, personally I think we need a constitution that limits the power of the government. Democracy, all too often, is tyranny of the majority. (Or in the UK, tyranny of the plurality.)
If the EU wants to offer British citizens some amorphous concept of EU Citizenship that's their business. Likewise, if the UK government wants to make it illegal to be both British and an EU Citizen then that's their business too.
Ok, both points make sense, but what if significant numbers of indivuduals select the EU citizenship in preference to UK citizenship? Could get interesing.
The govt would have real trouble making Dual/EU Citizenship illegal. Start with Northern Ireland - almost every adult there has dual citizenship and it is recognised by the Good Friday Agreement.
It would also be discriminatory in the sense that dual UK/non-EU citizenship would be legal whilst UK/EU would not and if ALL dual citizenship was banned then a lot of people might start packing their bags.
Yes, makes sense, thanks. I wonder if Davis and co will be trying to get the EU to agree not to offer EU-citizenship then?
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
I'm unclear why you think proportional representation would be an improvement. It makes it harder to boot out the government. The great advantage of FPTP is precisely that swing voters can swing it, as we just (almost) saw.
In any case, if you are lucky enough to live in an ultra-safe Tory seat, all that means is that the vast majority of your fellow constituents get the MP they want. I struggle to see why that's a bad thing.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
PR is not more democratic. It gives even more power to the parties at the expense of the electorate. We should be reducing the power of the parties not increasing it.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
PR is not more democratic. It gives even more power to the parties at the expense of the electorate. We should be reducing the power of the parties not increasing it.
The problem with elections is that they give legitimacy to politicians. Discuss.
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer.
That's precisely why it is happening. When they no longer have the answers and don't have any friends left to phone, the only thing left is to ask the audience.
We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
But it is a political union, and what's more the majority of British people alive have never known anything else but to be a part of it. This lack of understanding of ourselves is why we are completely ill-equipped to perceive what is required to execute Brexit.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
I'm unclear why you think proportional representation would be an improvement. It makes it harder to boot out the government. The great advantage of FPTP is precisely that swing voters can swing it, as we just (almost) saw.
In any case, if you are lucky enough to live in an ultra-safe Tory seat, all that means is that the vast majority of your fellow constituents get the MP they want. I struggle to see why that's a bad thing.
It's a bad thing for me - my vote doesn't count towards anything. I believe one of the reasons why the EU ref brought out lots of people who didn't normally vote was because every vote counted - no one was voting in a constituency that was a foregone conclusion.
Anyhow, we had the AV referendum, it got trounced, I don't expect to see PR in my lifetime. I'll get over it
My view, the sooner we leave the EU, the sooner we rejoin.
Perhaps but on what terms could we rejoin ? Would the EU offer us the terms (including the opt-outs) on which we left in 2016 ?
The opt-outs that are set in stone in treaties, yes. Not because they'd want to, but because changing treaties is an enormously difficult process.
The rebate (which is not in a treaty), would I think go.
The opt outs will remain until we actually leave the EU. Once that has happened a legal process will take place to write the UK out of all the treaties. When that is completed any reentry by the UK would be governed by an entirely new accession treaty and there would be no requirement for the EU to include any of the previous opt outs
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
PR is not more democratic. It gives even more power to the parties at the expense of the electorate. We should be reducing the power of the parties not increasing it.
The problem with elections is that they give legitimacy to politicians. Discuss.
Actually the problem is they give legitimacy to parties as opposed to politicians.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
I'm unclear why you think proportional representation would be an improvement...
PR would lead to more coalitions and therefore more consensual government. I think the 2010 coalition was much better than the mess we've had since 2015.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
I'm unclear why you think proportional representation would be an improvement...
PR would lead to more coalitions and therefore more consensual government. I think the 2010 coalition was much better than the mess we've had since 2015.
With PR you are guaranteed to get a stitch-up after the vote has taken place as the parties clobber a coalition together.
O/T, how the hell did the Tories lose Peterborough?
It was 61% Leave, no big student vote, not a liberal constituency, socially similar to places like Stevenage and Harlow. It should have been a slam dunk.
Because a lot of the 61% had more to do with punishing the Tories than with Brexit.
There was probably a significant personal vote against Stewart Jackson.
But is there any particular reason to believe that was bigger in 2017 as compared with 2015?
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
I'm unclear why you think proportional representation would be an improvement...
PR would lead to more coalitions and therefore more consensual government. I think the 2010 coalition was much better than the mess we've had since 2015.
With PR you are guaranteed to get a stitch-up after the vote has taken place as the parties clobber a coalition together.
It's an overridingly good thing Richard... the numbers involved will mean minimal impact on DB schemes, most of which have already moved in this direction anyway.
Fair enough. But what's it got to do with the EU?
No idea but I expect Alastair Meeks can explain.
I'm very suspicious of arguments which go along the line of 'I want our democratically-elected MPs to be overruled by an unelected EU simply because I happen on this issue to disagree with what parliament has decided'. That way tyranny lies.
I'd have more truck with your argument a) if I saw much evidence of our democratically elected MPs voting with their consciences rather than for what their party tells them or b) we had an electoral system that ensured a more proportional representation of MP numbers to electoral votes.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
PR is not more democratic. It gives even more power to the parties at the expense of the electorate. We should be reducing the power of the parties not increasing it.
FPTP would work if there were no party whips. But there are. So the argument that FPTP MPs are constituency representatives won't wash. They're party representatives, even if they only got 35 or 40% of the vote. Once we're honest about this it's easy to see that PR is fairer.
Iain Martin in The Times screams for Theresa May to go and go soon. I think just about everyone agrees (including probably La May herself) and on that basis, Coral's 5/2 against her departing this year looks like very fair value to me. DYOR!
Comments
Made me realise that the bus route numbers haven't changed a bit!
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not a very inspired bunch, and even I would rate Dave top.
That'll never do young Rob, sir! Back of the queue...
Military
Mar 2010 199
Mar 2015 161
Mar 2017 157
Police
Mar 2010 295
Mar 2015 255
Mar 2017 241
Education
Mar 2010 1,670
Mar 2015 1,516
May 2017 1,521
NHS
Mar 2010 1,559
Mar 2015 1,545
Mar 2017 1,604
Other health and social work
Mar 2010 391
Mar 2015 295
Mar 2017 261
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics
Remember it was social care and security which caused the government difficulties in the election while the NHS played a much more minor role than normal.
I never mentioned 0% - you said that.
We had "external control" and we still had our own govts who were accountable to us and the "external control" was not exactly onerous. Ensuring people's rights and that water quality was better than when we joined and that people should not be worked to death in sweatshops, etc, etc, was hardly a bad thing.
Are you really postulating that you want total sovreign control so that we can return to filthy beaches, less rights, poorer working conditions and Labour being able to nationalise everything?
(bet you thought you'd never hear that again...)
The rebate (which is not in a treaty), would I think go.
None a patch on Thatcher, Mac, Atlee, Churchill, Balfour....
He wouldn't have lasted till lunchtime before Brady's postbox overflowed.
In that respect all Britain's wars have been the same. There are exceptions such as colonial wars, but the above pattern is the norm. WW1 was so enervating because owing to the inadequacy of France and Russia as allies UK had to do all the heavy lifting at sea and on land and in the air. Suez was a fiasco because the coalition was inadequate.
Jezza should prefer that as it is gender-neutral (although the mention of God might cause him a problem, I guess).
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/885236352631091200
So much for Corbyn being a hard Brexiter
You can argue it either way, but God only knows why the EU should have anything to do with it. It should be a decision for parliament, which is the relevant democratically-elected body.
It would also be discriminatory in the sense that dual UK/non-EU citizenship would be legal whilst UK/EU would not and if ALL dual citizenship was banned then a lot of people might start packing their bags.
I live in an ultra safe Tory seat. I don't really feel any connection to my MP; to me, he's as faceless as any EU bureaucrat tbh.
Although, personally I think we need a constitution that limits the power of the government. Democracy, all too often, is tyranny of the majority. (Or in the UK, tyranny of the plurality.)
In any case, if you are lucky enough to live in an ultra-safe Tory seat, all that means is that the vast majority of your fellow constituents get the MP they want. I struggle to see why that's a bad thing.
Anyhow, we had the AV referendum, it got trounced, I don't expect to see PR in my lifetime. I'll get over it
PR would lead to more coalitions and therefore more consensual government. I think the 2010 coalition was much better than the mess we've had since 2015.
DYOR!
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-correct-punctuation-of-donald-trump-jrs-name/amp