The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[truman]

Who do you think you are?

You've not input anything to why you think our 9% representation is a good thing.

I'm using the quantity of Uk representatives in parliament. EU is 9% , Uk is 100%.

 

Now, why don't you tell me why you think that is a good situation?

 

Considering there are 28 members and we have 9% of the Meps than we aren't in a bad position are we? It's 3 times more than fairness would suggest..

[tinfoilhat]

I've written it already in the reply, if you go back and read it.

Have you noticed you are just repeating the the same petty question, but aren't actually offering any alternative view?

 

Are you suggesting we should have had total control of the EU then?

[SnailyBoy]

I've written it already in the reply, if you go back and read it.

Have you noticed you are just repeating the the same petty question, but aren't actually offering any alternative view?

 

I've read it, it makes no sense.

 

Maybe you should try again?

[woodview]

Are you suggesting we should have had total control of the EU then?

No not at all. If you were going to be part of such an organisation, then 9% is an appropriate level of control, as it is about our % of population of the EU as a whole.

If we were part of a worldwide parliament we'd have maybe 1% representation, on the same basis.

The situation of 100% represenation in Uk parliament is fine.

I'd rather have further regionalisation, rather than further centralisation. i.e the opposite of what the EU is about.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2018 at 12:47 ----------

 

Considering there are 28 members and we have 9% of the Meps than we aren't in a bad position are we? It's 3 times more than fairness would suggest..

It's proportionate to our population of the EU, so not unfair either way.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2018 at 12:57 ----------

 

I've read it, it makes no sense.

 

Maybe you should try again?

We only have 9% of MPs there. Why is that difficult to understand?

So, can you explain why you think that is a good situation, in terms of the UK population being able to influence that parliament and have our democratic wishes applied?

[L00b]

No not at all. If you were going to be part of such an organisation, then 9% is an appropriate level of control, as it is about our % of population of the EU as a whole.

If we were part of a worldwide parliament we'd have maybe 1% representation, on the same basis.

The situation of 100% represenation in Uk parliament is fine.

I'd rather have further regionalisation, rather than further centralisation. i.e the opposite of what the EU is about.

Looking forward to the break up of the Union, then?

[woodview]

Looking forward to the break up of the Union, then?

Why would I? If Scotland vote for independance, then that is their right and they can vote on it as they wish. I'd welcome them to stay, but I wouldn't apply some kind of hold over them either.

They can do that whether we stay or leave the EU.

[SnailyBoy]

We only have 9% of MPs there. Why is that difficult to understand?

So, can you explain why you think that is a good situation, in terms of the UK population being able to influence that parliament and have our democratic wishes applied?

 

So your metric for measuring 'democratic influence' is a simple percentage.

 

Is that seriously how you're making an assessment?

[I1L2T3]

The idea that 100% of MPs at Westminster are 100% representing their constituents is utterly comical.

 

Many have outside interests and jobs, and in my career I’ve actually worked alongside parliamentary lobbyists whose job it is to get MPs on side with the plans of corporates.

 

A lot of MPs are there to represent their own ideological views, their outside interests and their outside jobs. You are only useful to them on Election Day, and they will pretend to be interested in you for a few months before that.

 

Same for all big parties.

 

The idea that giving these people more power means they will work more in our interests is an utter joke. If anything it unfetters them. They will be even worse.

[woodview]

The idea that 100% of MPs at Westminster are 100% representing their constituents is utterly comical.

 

Many have outside interests and jobs, and in my career I’ve actually worked alongside parliamentary lobbyists whose job it is to get MPs on side with the plans of corporates.

 

A lot of MPs are there to represent their own ideological views, their outside interests and their outside jobs. You are only useful to them on Election Day, and they will pretend to be interested in you for a few months before that.

 

Same for all big parties.

 

The idea that giving these people more power means they will work more in our interests is an utter joke. If anything it unfetters them. They will be even worse.

I agree with your first points. They can't represent all their consitiuents because we don't have PR. As you say, many have other jobs, and many are career politicians. It needs a shake up.

 

But the same can be said for MEPs.

I'm not saying our parliament is perfect, far from it. I dispair of it a lot of the time. However, it is closer under our influence than the european parliament.

I simply don't like the dilution that it brings.

[tinfoilhat]

I agree with your first points. They can't represent all their consitiuents because we don't have PR. As you say, many have other jobs, and many are career politicians. It needs a shake up.

 

But the same can be said for MEPs.

I'm not saying our parliament is perfect, far from it. I dispair of it a lot of the time. However, it is closer under our influence than the european parliament.

I simply don't like the dilution that it brings.

 

Even with PR they can't represent all their constituents, they could do half at best. Look at brexit. Half the country is happy, half really really aren't.