trash80
Established Member
I believe there are ways to find out who your MEP is these days, something called the internets
I believe there are ways to find out who your MEP is these days, something called the internets
Democracy is only as good as the votersWell yes thats always been the problem in a nutshell. People are generally quite lazy/ignorant about issues of governance which is why politicians (at all levels) get away with so much.
I know who two of my MEPs are.I’ve no idea who my local MEP is.
I have TEN (apparently), one very famous, several I know by name but I'm not aware that any one 'represents' the area where I live*, which to me is the reason why people don't think they have an MEP - the constituencies are so large and diverse. Scotland is one constituency represented by 6 MEPs - how can anyone cover Orkney and Shetland, the Highlands, Aberdeen and the oil industry, Glasgow, Edinburgh, the Borders, and other distinct areas doubtless I will be reminded of. All because of the ridiculous PR system. If we had to have this system then each MEP should have been allocated to a distinct geographic area so we would have one MEP to contact, not a whole brigade who can decide whether they are going to deal with my enquiry or not.Why would I want to contact an MP who wasn't mine? (And it's very easy to "contact" all three of those, in the same way as every MP. You won't hear back from them, you might get a form letter back at best). It's a better system than MEPs though - I don't have an MEP, who should I write a letter to for them to ignore?
Snap!I know who two of my MEPs are.
Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan
It's yet more Project Fear. Along the same lines as people on here suggesting that "the EU" might unilaterally decide to require British people to apply for visas to travel into the EU come March. It's all blatant nonsense.
I'm confused.
The problem is exactly this - that very few people who their MEP is, certainly fewer than know who their MP is. I’ve no idea who my local MEP is.
People just don’t care.
It was in the news today about fears that British driving license holders may have to seek to obtain an International driving permit to drive to EU countries. Given that, according to the list on the AA website, there seem to be only be around six developed countries [1] that actually require an International driving permit for those with a British photocard driving license wishing to rent or drive a car there on holiday, I'm not sure whether the EU would really want to be lumped in with the likes of Iran, Pakistan and Russia who require British license holders to have such a permit.
[1] I may have missed one or two in the debate over whether a country is developed or not; I counted Bahrain, Brunei, South Korea, Japan, Singapore & Russia.
Sort of like Karen Bradley the The Northern Ireland secretary who admits she knows nothing about Northern Ireland yet will be making decisions which impact the Provence.
I am not the one who keeps saying they voted to leave the EU to stop EU immigration. I am responding to the point raised saying that once we leave we can stop all these nasty EU people coming over here and taking our jobs. Pointing out the fact that Non EU immigration would be an easier thing to solve if we wanted to and it accounts for a larger % of immigration.But non EU migration is completely within the the UK government's control.
I'm permanently surprised (well, no I'm not after two years of this) that so much of the pro-EU argument is about immigration. Apparently Britain never let any nasty foreigners in before the EU, seems to be the argument.
But non EU migration is completely within the the UK government's control.
Can those who voted to leave who think lower immigration from the EU will improve conditions (overcrowding/traffic) in the south-east please explain why Brexiteer-in-chief Weatherspoon's boss Tim Martin says, on Radio 4 today, "We'll need a significant level of immigration over the next 10, 20, 30 years to keep growing the economy."
Can those who voted to leave who think lower immigration from the EU will improve conditions (overcrowding/traffic) in the south-east please explain why Brexiteer-in-chief Weatherspoon's boss Tim Martin says, on Radio 4 today, "We'll need a significant level of immigration over the next 10, 20, 30 years to keep growing the economy."
Which do you want, increasing immigration - and in the case of Weatherspoons probably cheap, low-paid immigration; or decreasing immigration (as in the decreasing rates from the EU)? If Mogg/Rab etc explain that we DO need more and more cheap labour, therefore higher immigration rates than today, is that consistent with your vote?
I'm confused.
Is it? Countries outside the EU are well aware that the number of immigrants arriving in Britain will go down post-Brexit so they are demanding that Britain gives their citizens more working visas if Britain wants a post-Brexit trade deal.
That doesn't answer the question (and I'm not so sure the voting public would be as accepting as you regarding price increases whether it be beer, hotel prices or fuel duty which is due to rise) - if Brexit meant net immigration rose, ie. under control but we need more, maybe substantially more, would you be OK with it?If Tim Martin find he has trouble recruiting then the answer is simply supply versus demand economics - he will have to raise the wage level he pays to make it more competitive.
If that means I have to pay a bit more then so be it - I’m quite content with that if it means the south-east doesn’t have to have every inch of space built over to provide flats, and with the added benefit that the amount we pay to subsidise welfare payments to the unemployed goes down.
A bit of upward pressure on wages in the hospitality industry certainly wouldn’t amiss - in a traditionally very poorly paid sector.
It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.That's in the event of a no deal Brexit i.e. one where Britain cannot agree any kind of future relationship with the EU - countries like Canada, America and Australia all have some form of relationship with the EU.
It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.
Normal immigration has never been the issue. The open door German Immigration policy of letting in anyone without even the most basic of checks has been, and has been what the likes of UKIP have focused on and what the mainstream parties should have focused on too
It also sounds far-fetched that when we leave without a deal we will have exactly the same footing in the world as Mauritania with almost zero trade deals, but I understand that would be exactly the position and all our trade deals are either with or via the EU, which due to our vote will be torn to shreds next March if we leave deal-less.It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.
Source: IndependentEurostar trains would be turned back from Europe if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal, a leading French minister has warned. Nathalie Loiseau, the minister for European affairs, said it was “correct” that both trains and planes from the UK would be barred without an exit agreement.
That doesn't answer the question (and I'm not so sure the voting public would be as accepting as you regarding price increases whether it be beer, hotel prices or fuel duty which is due to rise) - if Brexit meant net immigration rose, ie. under control but we need more, maybe substantially more, would you be OK with it?
Another thing about a No Deal:
Source: Independent
I love the emotive language. Like a Eurostar is really going to get as far as the tunnel and then have to return to Britain!
They can demand what they like but we don’t have to agree to it. That’s the beauty of being out of the EU.
I can. "You want to trade with us...then we demand 10,000 visas, thank you" multiplied by the number of countries we need to trade with. Also, people won't accept price rises (see under "railway tickets!" meaning industry will have to employ people happy with minimum wages - so in those industries you ahve alluded to they will be demanding immigrants who are happy to accept a low wage (could be a relative fortune to them) to keep their costs low.I can’t see how it could lead to an increase over and above what we have seen with free movement. However I’m happier with *any* arrangement where there is scope to turn down entry, unlike being committed to having an open floodgate to the entire population of 27 countries, some of which are very much more economically out of step with Britain.
I suppose an alternative is that the British just lower their own wage expectations?"You want to trade with us...then we demand 10,000 visas, thank you" multiplied by the number of countries we need to trade with. Also, people won't accept price rises (see under "railway tickets!" meaning industry will have to employ people happy with minimum wages - so in those industries you ahve alluded to they will be demanding immigrants who are happy to accept a low wage (could be a relative fortune to them) to keep their costs low.
Otherwise, higher wages = more costs for the consumer and as you have mentioned pubs and hotels, some would go out of business (as would farmers) = more unemployment = more taxes to pay for it.
Plus it appears the top-line hard Brexiters want a deregulated work industry, which can only mean reductions in workers rights?
Source: Ec.uropa.eu