How do 700+ MEP's accurately and effectively address the concerns of over 500,000,000 people across a diverse continent with diverse communities with different aims, values and concerns, without many people being forgotten about or disregarded?I get that, but a reason for leaving the EU is subsidising the poorer feckless areas which is what already happens in the UK.
So you support giving support in the UK context, but against giving support in the EU context. I think that is contradictory.
Its a matter that could be addressed by full federalisation in my view. As that is not going to happen I suppose my point is moot anyway. It is certainly one of the vagaries of the debate that we can take variable positions on the same position according to our political positions.
Its a strange world Georgie.
And I used the term "We" to refer to the UK, in regards to "we (the UK) have vetos"!Your post said 'it's not about vetos' & continued about reasons for leaving the EU. Read it.
You were using 'we'
I asked you to stop using 'we' in such cases as there is no 'we' as has been demostrated by you (& others) accepting a Norway style Brexit, whilst others are trying to have workers rights & food standards, removed from the agreement & some think the British Empire is coming back.
When it comes to reasons for leaving the EU, it's 'to each his own' not 'we'.
Maybe because the UK establishment did not invest enough in the infrastructure needed in areas outside the South East of England. It's people that create wealth not places, and it's incumbent on governments to provide a level playing field for different areas which is something that successive governments have manifestly failed to do.And where have they made that wealth? They weren't making it in Scotland.
And I used the term "We" to refer to the UK, in regards to "we (the UK) have vetos"!
We've been over this again and again. I've explained this to you again and again. You are arguing from a position i'm not even making.
I can use "we" whenever I like in that context. If you are having trouble understanding the context of how the "we" is being used, that's on you, but i'm willing to clarify if you're having trouble.
We dont even know what Johnson is currently proposing to the EU.You possibly don't remember but the nationalists were forced to say exactly how it would be implemented and wrote a 1000 page document with a lot of technical detail, so the population knew exactly what they were voting for (or at least had the opportunity to find out).
For Brexit, the means of departure were kept deliberately vague which has directly resulted in the mess we're in now where no-one can get a majority for the means of implementation. If the Brexit vote was run along the same lines as the Indyref vote there would be no argument.
How can a ridiculous opinion totally blow someone's argument?Not as simple as that at all - you obviously don't spend much time one here
And, as I say, if the UK genuinely leaves the EU then Scotland will again reject independence in a future referendum - so that blows your argument totally.
How do 700+ MEP's accurately and effectively address the concerns of over 500,000,000 people across a diverse continent with diverse communities with different aims, values and concerns, without many people being forgotten about or disregarded?
The South East isn't a country, is it, so there's no basis for your argument there.Maybe because the UK establishment did not invest enough in the infrastructure needed in areas outside the South East of England. It's people that create wealth not places, and it's incumbent on governments to provide a level playing field for different areas which is something that successive governments have manifestly failed to do.
Do you think the South East of England should be allowed to secede as they generate more wealth there than in the rest of the UK?
As it is not going to happen I can only give my view on how it could.
A system of regional Parliaments subordinate to the EU parliament. They don't have to be based on nations, they could be based on regions within current national boundaries. Like a regional Parliament for NW England or even Greater Manchester. The more democracy the better in my view.
By centralising power, you could actually decentralise power and introduce more localism that can adapt to the needs of the locale.
I don't think the current structure of the EU is fit for purpose, I don't think anybody leave or remain does, it definitely needs a thorough overhaul and it needs to be more democratic and more representative.
Many Brexiteers want exactly that as they see Scotland as a drain on the UK.
What the English proponents of Scottish independence don't seem to factor in is the amount of English wealth generated by Scottish people living south of the border. If a significant number of them upped sticks and headed north after Brexit, England would lose out enormously.
Neither is Scotland according to some.The South East isn't a country, is it, so there's no basis for your argument there.
Your hypothetical placed a Scottish citizen generating wealth for England, by moving to England in order to make it. Your response pretty much destroys your intitial point then, doesn't it. Unless you're suggesting they could repeat that wealth generation in a much smaller population.
And i'm as angry as anyone else about wealth distribution being in favour of the South. One of my ultimate goals is to see Britain become less Londoncentric.
Because that would also tie the rest of the UK into a customs union. The UK isn't 4 countries, it's one country and NI. Scotland is not an independant country, is it, so stop referring to it as such. Scotland voted as part of Great Britain. It's about as relevant as pointing out London was mostly for remain. It disrespects the other regions that voted to leave overwhelmingly.
How do 700+ MEP's accurately and effectively address the concerns of over 500,000,000 people across a diverse continent with diverse communities with different aims, values and concerns, without many people being forgotten about or disregarded?
You must have missed at least two Brexiteers on here saying that if English people were asked, Scotland would get their independence.How on earth can you say that ?
You have simply made that up , I have never heard a leaver say let’s leave the Eu and get rid of Scotland as well
What I have heard and read on the last few pages is a respect for the people of Scotland to decide their own fate
How about we just remain a european "confederacy" at best, decentralise the EuroParl instead and have MEP's representative of members, not joining European Political Parties in a singular centralised building where MEP's are given private limo's and the actions undertaken are often done in secret?As it is not going to happen I can only give my view on how it could.
A system of regional Parliaments subordinate to the EU parliament. They don't have to be based on nations, they could be based on regions within current national boundaries. Like a regional Parliament for NW England or even Greater Manchester. The more democracy the better in my view.
By centralising power, you could actually decentralise power and introduce more localism that can adapt to the needs of the locale.
I don't think the current structure of the EU is fit for purpose, I don't think anybody leave or remain does, it definitely needs a thorough overhaul and it needs to be more democratic and more representative.
You must have missed at least two Brexiteers on here saying that if English people were asked, Scotland would get their independence.
Because there are a growing number of people in England who support their claims of being mistreated and ignored by Westminster?You must have missed at least two Brexiteers on here saying that if English people were asked, Scotland would get their independence.
Not at all contradictory, it's simply a question of sovereignty. We are citizens of a United Kingdom and have consequent rights and responsibilities as such. The EU is not a country yet but a common currency is a precursor to that objective. With it comes an assumed obligation to regulate states within the eurozone through associated economic reforms in order to align them with future further integration. Those rich countries inside the EEA but outside the monetary union and uncommitted to the federal path escape the costs of subsidizing poorer states by not adopting the euro - hence the fatal flaw in the EU project. We are one of them but it certainly does not follow we should be uncommited to tackling inequality in our own country.I get that, but a reason for leaving the EU is subsidising the poorer feckless areas which is what already happens in the UK.
So you support giving support in the UK context, but against giving support in the EU context. I think that is contradictory. Its a matter that could be addressed by full federalisation in my view. As that is not going to happen I suppose my point is moot anyway. It is certainly one of the vagaries of the debate that we can take variable positions on the same position according to our political positions. Its a strange world Georgie.
But we can kick Scotland, NI and Gibraltar out of the EU against their wishes.I must have . England can’t kick scotland out of the U.K. against Scotland’s wishes ????