My hopes for the EU from the outside

I was one of the 48%, and I offer no apology on what were my beliefs ahead of the June 23 Vote.  I didn't and still don't, consider a British identity and a European identity to be incompatible.

What I posted on social media in the aftermath of the result is though still very much my view nearly six months on.  That was being of course that the result must be respected.

And let's be clear- I am not interested and have not at any stage since June 24 been interested in any Second Referendum!

We should now take the road to leave the EU.  The referendum on June 23 was the highest electoral turnout since 1992.

Of course I want the closest possible relationship with my fellow Europeans, and I don't rule out supporting a re-entry bid into the EU in say a generation's time.

I do though want the EU to reflect on what has happened this year.  I would like the EU to consider doing one of two things.

They could go down the painful route of engineering a reversal of the Euro, at least for some countries.  Subsequently, the EU could become a looser Union.

Or instead, they could go down the route towards further integration, to allow a Common Fiscal Policy, and ultimately become One Sovereign State.

I believe that the lack of a Common Fiscal Policy, is a firm reason why we hear of all the troubles facing some of the Southern European economies.

After all, the old East Germany (as an ex-Communist State) was once a poorer country economically.  But, do the East Germans (now as part of a re-united Germany) have an economic struggle today which is comparable to the Greeks?

Ex-Tory eurosceptic Michael Portillo has mentioned on the odd occasion how the Euro Zone needs to either split up or become one country.

If the EU goes down the route towards further integration, I will re-iterate my point of identity.  That being, I am proud to be British and European.

Of course, I  consider it unlikely the UK would ever in my lifetime re-join the EU on such a model, unless we really were struggling economically.

Should the EU go down the route of a looser union, then of course it does make a re-entry in my lifetime more realistic.

However, I do want to stress that my viewpoint is not comparable to that of the SNP on a new Scottish Independence Referendum; it is my view that a so-called material change of circumstances should not be a case to revisit the EU Membership subject anytime soon.

My viewpoint is more comparable to those Norwegian politicians who support EU entry, but respect that their citizens voted against EU entry for the second time as recent as 1994, and are probably wary of a third referendum a generation on which they have no guarantee of winning.

Ultimately, whatever the EU does decide, with us Brits out of the way, I hope that the key leaders will be able to take a totally fresh viewpoint about what is right for Europe and EU citizens.

The world has moved on a fair bit since the end of World War II, and that is especially true for Mainland Europe.  Watch this space.  I know I will be.

Ranil Jayawardena MP completely wrong on First Past The Post!

Hampshire Conservative MP Ranil Jayawardena is suggesting that all UK elections should be conducted under the controversial First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.

Jayawardena argues how simple and easy FPTP is, compared to other voting systems.  Now, I am going to explain why he is wrong.

English Police Commissioner and Mayoral Elections

These elections are currently conducted under what is known as the Supplementary Voting System, where voters rank their first two choices.

If a candidate does not get 50% of the vote on first preferences, very simply the candidate with the fewest votes drops out, and the second preference votes for that candidate with the fewest votes are subsequently re-distributed to other candidates still in the running.

This process continues until one candidate reaches 50% support.

As I say, all the voter does is rank their first two choices.  They do this by putting two crosses in the respective columns for first and second preference.  As far as simplicity or complexity for the voter goes, is Mr Jayawardena seriously suggesting this system is twice as difficult for the voter as First Past The Post, by virtue of marking two crosses?

If FPTP were introduced for any of these elections, there would quite clearly be some victors who don't have the support of the majority of electors!


Devolved National Parliamentary Elections, including Scotland

These elections are conducted under a Mixed Member System known as the Additional Member System (AMS), in which voters have two votes.

In one vote, a voter elects a local representative.  For the second vote, a voter votes for a party.  This second vote determines an overall proportionality in which the total number of representatives returned closely reflects a party's share of the party vote.

The 2016 Scottish Parliament election will give a clear understanding.  Due to the excellent performance of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in the constituency vote which returned 59 MSPs, their 41.7% share of the party vote saw them obtain only a further 4 MSPs from regional top up lists.

By contrast, both Labour and the Conservatives performed poorly in the constituency vote, and most of their returned MSPs were elected by the regional top up lists.

Ultimately, the SNP only obtained about 48% of all seats for the Scottish Parliament, thus fell short of an overall majority.

Now, lets compare this election to the election twelve months earlier in Scotland for the UK Westminster Parliament.  The SNP won 56 out of 59 seats which were all contested under FPTP.  This was despite the SNP only having a little over 50% of the total vote in Scotland.

First Past The Post is hardly in line with the basic principle of fairness.  But once again, as with the English Mayoral and Police Commissioner Elections, is Mr Jayawardena seriously saying that the AMS system is twice as difficult for the Scots than FPTP is, due to having to mark a cross twice?

Justin Trudeau- Sunny Ways or Same Old?

When Justin Trudeau and his Canadian Liberal Party defeated Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper one whole year ago, I observed from across the Atlantic Ocean that maybe this could be an election that could start a chain of events to break the mould not only in Canada, but also across Canada's southern border, and over here in the UK.

"Sunny Ways," Trudeau proclaimed.  It was all so much an echo of a former Canadian Liberal PM of a bygone age.  And then there was Trudeau's pledge that Canada's 2015 Federal Election would be the last to be conducted under First Past The Post (FPTP).

My optimism was muted by the result being a Liberal majority; I had hoped (as in the case of the UK general election five months earlier) for a hung parliament.

In both the UK and Canada, recent national FPTP elections have seen winning parties secure an overall parliamentary majority, on 40% or less of the popular vote.

Such a set up sees policies voted on by a parliament with a false majority, generally not supported by a majority of citizens, and which can be reversed in a costly way as soon as "the other lot" sweep into power with another false majority.

The United States also uses First Past The Post voting in many elections.  For me, we are talking about the most polarised country in the Western World.  Need I say more.

Now I don't claim to be a major expert on Canadian Politics.  But as a political centrist, I do believe I know enough to know that the ex-Tory PM Stephen Harper was fairly right wing, although not quite as bad as Trump.

For Trudeau now to be apparently suggestive that Canadians aren't that bothered about electoral reform, now they have got rid of Harper, is quite frankly smelling of self-service, as opposed to public service.

What's going to happen the next time the electoral cycle turns, and there is another right-leaning Tory Government in Canada?  Should that happen, then I reckon history could judge Trudeau very unfavourably.  And may I add, he would deserve to be judged in this way.

In the UK, ex-Labour Premier Tony Blair was of course badly tainted by British involvement in Iraq.  But also on the domestic front, Blair had set up the Jenkins Commission on looking into alternative electoral systems.

When it seemed Labour's own selfish partisan interests would be better served by sticking to First Past The Post, such was the electoral dominance of New Labour, the commission's recommendation of a new mixed member proportional system was quietly dropped.  Blair had previously pledged a referendum on any system recommended by Jenkins.

Almost a decade since leaving office, Mr Blair himself has spoken of the worry of Britain heading towards a One Party Conservative State.

Now, I am not suggesting Trudeau's legacy will be some kind of disastrous foreign policy.  But Labour did not lose power in the UK in 2010 because of Iraq.  Blair had been gone for three years!

In any democracy, the inevitability of change does eventually catch up.  Even Sweden, which is often portrayed as a Social Democratic, has had Conservative Prime Ministers.  The most recent was Frederik Reinfeldt from 2006 to 2014.

My belief is that it is fair to say that such governments, as coalitions of two or sometimes more parties, don't stir the same tribal backlashes from voters of a left-leaning perspective.

The same goes for coalition governments headed by a major centre-left party, in the sense that it would be very difficult for Trade Unions to exert excessive influence, in the way the UK Labour Party endured in the 1970s.  Therefore, such a left-leaning government would be unlikely to be perceived as anti-business to people of a right-leaning perspective.

Now, I hope Mr Trudeau reflects on why he entered Politics in the first instance.  He appears to have made the very best of various family connections.  However, does he really want to make a difference?

But even if Trudeau wants to try and quietly bury any findings made by Canada's special committee on electoral reform, I hope some Liberal MPs do take note.  Remember, Canada's oldest party was in third place behind the New Democratic Party (NDP) prior to the 2015 Federal Election.  Who is to say they won't be there again one day.

Electoral Reform has long been on the NDP agenda, and some successful Liberal Candidates would have taken crucial votes off NDP candidates to win their Riding, with some voters fully aware that Trudeau was pledging the next election would be different.

SUNNY WAYS OR SAME OLD?  WELL, THE SUN CERTAINLY DOESN'T SHINE OUT OF JUSTIN'S **** ANYMORE.

Labour and the Tories should split

As new Conservative PM Theresa May takes office in the wake of an EU In/Out Referendum which claimed the scalp of her predecessor, the Labour Party is embarking on a second leadership election campaign within a year.

Ten months ago saw the election of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, following a boost of new hard left-wing members, who were able to secure immediate voting rights for a small price of £3.

That said, Corbyn probably would have still beaten his leadership rivals in the first round anyway, had the new members not had their voting rights.  It is just that we would have heard a lot less of Jeremy's big mandate, had the rules been different.

Since the moment Corbyn took over the reigns of the Labour Party, it seemed so obvious that there was a mismatch between the Parliamentary Labour Party and those who voted him in.  And then, there's been the confusion over exactly where Corbyn stood on the EU.

When one part of the party is genuinely middle of the road, and the other part believes in stuff like printing money, it has become increasingly clear the two wings cannot function as a cohesive party.

SO THIS LEADERSHIP ELECTION BETWEEN CORBYN, ANGELA EAGLE, OWEN SMITH, AND ANYONE ELSE YET TO ENTER IS QUITE FRANKLY A WASTE OF TIME FOR EVERYONE!

The two camps should instead split into two separate parties.  But more crucially, do it in a civilised way so that they could still from time to time form parliamentary alliances on matters they do agree with.

Both parties could in the short term agree not to field candidates against the other in some seats, at least whilst the UK still uses the outdated First Past The Post electoral system.

Should this leadership election go ahead as planned, the one certainty is that one camp will be left bitter.  If Corbyn got re-elected as I expect, everything will be just back to square one.  On the other hand, I have no doubt that the Corbynistas would be left seething if their man did get deposed.

Suggestions that splitting Labour would leave the Conservatives without any Opposition of note, is quite frankly an argument which belongs in a past two-party era, which had two main parties who regularly polled over 90% of the popular vote between them.

The election of Mrs May (or coronation) as Tory leader has not extinguished Tory European splits; it has merely contained them for now at least.  The question on the June 23 ballot paper merely asked if Britons wished to remain in or leave the EU.

The Referendum result in favour of Brexit, does not provide a basis for what kind of relationship with the EU we should now seek.  There will be sharp differences of opinion in Mrs May's Cabinet over which trading model is the right one to negotiate for.  More generally, the ideological differences in the Tory Party go a little bit beyond the EU.

During the recent referendum campaign, former Tory PM Sir John Major challenged some pledges made on the NHS by some prominent Tory pro-Leave campaigners.  Major suggested that the NHS would be as safe in their hands as a pet hamster next to a hungry snake!

The Conservative party (like Labour) is a broad coalition which has been welded together by First Past The Post.  If you compare the Tories with Germany's CDU/Christian Democrat party, who operate in a proportional electoral system, the CDU are hardly the soulmates of the Thatcherite Tory right.

THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY MAY WELL BE NEARLY 200 YEARS OLD, BUT I DO HOPE THERE WILL BE A TORY SPLIT AT SOME POINT AS WELL.

And ultimately, a political realignment in tandem with a fairer voting system will ensure that not only will people be able to vote for something more specific in terms of beliefs, we will get a parliament and government that are more representative of the people.

Brexit Vote set to push Political Reform up the agenda

So Britain has delivered it's verdict- a win for Brexit, ending over 40 years association between the United Kingdom and the European Union (previously the European Economic Community).

Families and friendships alike have all been tested up and down the country.  What struck me the most as I woke up yesterday morning, was how divided we are as a nation, with all sorts of things kicking off on social media.

The divisions go beyond a country almost split in half, and divides between different nations and regions of the UK in the way they voted in the EU Referendum.

Our multi-party democracy is being suppressed by an electoral system designed to maintain a two-party duopoly.  It can be seen from recent elections over the past year and a bit, that different regions of the UK are also being dominated by different parties.

As we seek to bring everyone together, we must seek to renew a common faith in the democratic process.  For many people, election time brings apathy.

The same cannot be said of the EU Referendum.  As a supporter of Remain, it may surprise some that I found the words of one Pro-Brexit former Conservative Defence Secretary to be inspirational.

The chap in question is Dr Liam Fox, who twice went on record during the campaign to speak about how every vote would count equally in this referendum.

Quite clearly every vote does not count equally under Britain's First Past The Post electoral system, especially when one takes into account that David Cameron indicated it would be voters in just 23 constituencies who would decide last year's general election.

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to all electoral systems.  However, the aim should be that every vote should be equal as best as it is possible to deliver.

Consequently, the turnout on Thursday was bigger than last year's election, and was Britain's highest turnout at the polls since 1992.

Comparing the turnout in the 1975 EEC Referendum to the two general elections in 1974, it was the referendum which delivered the lower turnout.

The turnaround now showing the 2016 Referendum to produce a higher turnout than a recent general election, provides further credence that the electoral system is no longer fit for purpose in the modern day.

Political Reform does not end with reforming the voting system.  With the "unelected" European Commission out of the firing line, there will soon be no hiding place for Britain's unelected second chamber, the House of Lords.

If any country wishes to present itself as a democracy, then what place does a huge legislative assembly made up of Bishops and cronies of Prime Ministers etc have?

I didn't want Brexit.  But I do believe that the ramifications of the people's decision is set to unleash further change, and I am hopeful that it will be Democracy itself (not Dr Fox and other senior Leave figures) that will ultimately prove to be the winner.

If you hope the younger people don't vote in EU Referendum, then heaven help the future of UK Democracy.....

I was watching the Champions League Final in a pub in a sleepy village, near Stockton-On-Tees in the North-East of England.

The ridiculous shenanigans of Real Madrid's Pepe was very much a topic of discussion, amongst a group of men mainly aged over 50.  There was perhaps one bloke of a similar age to myself.

There was another issue which these men digressed to, and that was a desire for Brexit.

Some people who are aware of my pro-EU Remain views, may think this would make me totally feel uncomfortable.

Well, although I have consistently as an adult been pro-european, I have accepted for a few years that a referendum on Britain's EU membership would be inevitable.

The subject to Britain's membership of the EU not only divides the Conservative Party, it divides the nation.  There are also divisions in the Labour Party, albeit not to the same extent as Tory divisions.

One of these chaps in the sleepy village pub spoke of his desire for Brexit, however did concede that the younger voters will probably swing the referendum for Remain.

One of the voices subsequently touched on the issue of younger voters not voting, and one of the men clearly stated he hoped the young would not vote!

Where would that leave the future of democracy in the UK?  As it is, our democracy is in crisis, in part due to an outdated electoral system which gives too many MPs a job for life in safe parliamentary seats.

Although the opinion polls (on the whole) and the bookies currently suggest I will get my way, it is not yet a done deal.

WHATEVER THE OUTCOME ON JUNE 23, SUGGESTING HOPE THAT YOUNGER PEOPLE DON'T VOTE IS MORE ABSURD THAN THE SCARE STORIES WHICH HAVE BEEN PEDDLED ON BOTH SIDES DURING THIS REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN!

Why I am voting to REMAIN in the EU

Introduction

Over the past 20 odd years since I have been eligible to vote, I have not always kept a loyalty to the same political tribe.

However, I have always been sort of middle of the road.  When I used to support the Tories a long time ago, my loyalties were always towards the moderate and Pro-European left wing, as opposed to the Thatcherite right.

At times when I have voted Labour, it has been because they were in a cycle of fighting for the middle-ground, and the influence of their left wing was very much reduced.

I have voted Liberal Democrat on some occasions also, and being a centrist was very much at the forefront of my mind when I decided to join the Lib Dems within a week or so of Jeremy Corbyn being elected Labour leader in September of last year.

There is one particular issue in which my views have always been fairly consistent on, and that is Britain's membership of the European Union.  Let there be no misunderstanding here: I have always been pragmatically Pro-European.

I will be VOTING TO REMAIN IN THE EU, and I will now move on to explain why.


Identity

I am proud to be English and British.  I am proud of my family roots in and around Liverpool.  I also have an affinity with Warrington, where I have lived for almost all of my adult life.

But none of the above is a contradiction to being European, and vice versa.  After all, 24 european nations will be participating in the Euro 2016 football tournament this summer in France.  And of course, only 6 of those nations are not members of the EU.


How does the EU work?

In the passing of EU legislation, there are three main institutions.  They are the Commission, the European Council of Ministers (which consists of elected government ministers from across the Member States, who will vary depending upon which topic is up for discussion), and the European Parliament (which elects representatives from across all Member States for five year terms).

The laws are proposed by the Commission.  The Council and Parliament vote to pass the laws.  The Commission subsequently ensures laws are properly applied and implemented.

Another EU institution is the Court of Justice (ECJ).  The ECJ's role is to ensure that European law is interpreted and applied correctly across all Member States.


EU being labelled undemocratic

Some eurosceptics have often made reference to laws being passed by unelected officials.

Whilst I will not pretend the EU is perfect, the brief explanation I have given in the above section does show that laws need to be approved by elected government ministers and MEPS (Members of the European Parliament).

Regards domestic politics in the UK, I am a supporter of reforming the electoral system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons (known as First Past The Post).  There is an important point here regards the argument on democratic deficits, which does link in with the EU.

Amongst the reasons for my viewpoint on House of Commons electoral reform is the low share of the vote needed in some recent general elections for one party to form a majority government. 

Last year, the Conservative Party won a small parliamentary majority with just 37% of the popular vote.  Ten years previously, the Labour Party won an even bigger majority with a smaller share of the vote!

Another reason I would like to see the system reformed is that the majority of people pretty much know who their MP will be as they enter the polling station.  This is due to one party being dominant, and holding a safe constituency seat.

The consequence of an MP holding a safe seat means he or she is more accountable to their local constituency party association than their local electorate!

So how does this issue link into the EU?  The last major reform to British democracy was in 1918, when women obtained the right to vote.

By contrast, the elected European Parliament has gained more powers during the forty three years which Britain has been a member of the EU.

Furthermore, with British MEPs being elected by a system of proportional representation, meaning that a party's share of the national vote closely matches the number of MEPs elected, one can argue that MEPs are potentially more accountable to the electorate than their Westminster counterparts.


The Single Market and the EU

The European Single Market came into force in 1993, enabling EU Member States to be able to trade with each other without restrictions or tariffs.  Citizens of each Member State do not need a work permit to work in another country.

The Single Market has been extended to include Norway, Iceland, and Lichenstein (all non-EU Countries) through agreement in the form of the European Economic Area (EEA).

Switzerland (as another non-EU State) also has access through bilateral treaties.  I will now explain briefly how Norway and Switzerland's relationship with the EU works.


The Norwegian Option

As a member of the EEA, Norway has full access to the European Single Market.  Two notable exceptions though are Agriculture and Fisheries.

As Norway is part of the Single Market, a worker from any part of the Single Market can go to work in Norway without the need for a work permit. 

Despite not being a full member of the EU, Norway still makes significant contributions to the EU budget.

With the Norwegians not being full EU members, there is no Norwegian participation in the European Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.

Therefore, the voting process involved in the passing of EU laws means the Norwegians do not get any say, and European laws will still be applied in Norway.

Norway's current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and her predecessor Jens Stoltenberg (now NATO Secretary General), have both recently gone on record expressing a viewpoint for Britain to remain in the EU.


The Swiss Option

A former Swiss President has described his country's relationship with the EU as complex.  This is because they have around 120 bilateral agreements with the EU.

In simpler terms, the arrangement covers 10 areas.  The Swiss also make significant contributions to the EU budget, and (like Norway) have no say on EU rules.

From a British angle, it is important to note that this bilateral treaty model does not at present permit any cross-border access for financial services, which is a big sector in Britain's economy.

Therefore, comparing Switzerland to the UK is clearly not like for like.

One of those areas in which the bilateral agreements do cover is the Free Movement of People.

In 2014, Switzerland voted in a referendum to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens.

If these limits were to be introduced, there could be implications not just for this area of the bilateral agreements, but also for 6 of the other 9 areas within the bilateral agreements.

Should the Swiss enter a re-negotiation of it's entire relationship with the EU, the question to ask is who has the upper hand?

Would that be the country with a population of 8.4 Million, or the block with 500 Million people?


Other post-Brexit options

We could simply do our own trade agreements around the world via the World Trade Organisation.

One issue with doing that is we would have less bargaining power as a nation of 70 Million, as opposed to being part of a 500 Million strong block.

Furthermore, we would be unable to avoid tariffs in our dealings with the EU, who are our closest and largest market.

Other post-Brexit options include the Turkey Customs Union model.  As Turkey see this as a stepping stone to EU membership, I hardly think this route is worthy of any serious consideration.

More generally, I consider that any arguments made by Leave campaigners are devoid of any credible exit plan.


IN SUMMARY

Being European does not need to be a contradiction to being British.

Whilst there is room for improvement in terms of EU democracy, I believe there is even more room for improvement with regards British democracy.

I believe by following the examples like the Swiss or Norwegian models outside the EU, that we would effectively become some EU Associate Member with no voting rights.

Europe is our closest and largest market, and I feel that pro-Brexiteers have no credible exit plan. 

SO PLEASE VOTE TO REMAIN ON JUNE 23.

EU Referendum Text Debating....

As I returned home from work last night, the time was about 11.15pm.  The BBC's Question Time programme had been on for about 20 minutes.  

A good friend of mine texted me with his views on how the referendum debate was going.  However, with me being Pro-European, and my friend being Eurosceptic, a very healthy exchange of views followed via text.

MATE  You watching question time??

ME  Just getting home now in fact.

MATE  The yes campaign has just been schooled

ME  Brexit are still struggling to find a respectable friendly country who feels we should leave.....

MATE  Yea of course they want us to stay but we are GREAT BRITAIN and can survive on our own! Plus Europe would have to business on OUR terms not there's!

ME  Don't disagree that we would survive. But I consider you are very wrong to suggest any trading relationship would be just on our terms. After all, we are just one country against 26 others. Or put it another way we are 70 Million Market v a Market of 400 Million (without UK).

Oops.  There would actually be 27 Member States!

MATE  Yea but we are Germany's biggest customer I may be over the top about doing business on our terms but I think we would have a very favourable terms, for example how many BMWs Adudis Vws mercs and sokdas on the road do u think they will just stop selling them to us?

ME  Don't suggest Germany wouldn't want to trade. Let me give you an example relating to a specific EU alternative model- Norwegian model. At best they pay half per head of population into the EU budget (although I have seen other suggestions they pay the same) as us to gain full access to the Single Market. If we followed this route, we would have to accept EU directives, without even an opportunity to cast our very significant vote in Council of Ministers.

At this point, I will point out what I mean by my wording "our very significant vote in the Council of Ministers."  The Council of Ministers consists of Government Ministers from all member states.  The Ministers present will depend on the topic under discussion, for example Agriculture.  

The Council will vote on EU Directives, as proposed by the Commission.  As the UK has a population of 70 Million people, our vote strength is significantly stronger than Norway's would be, if Norway were to become an EU Member in the future.  The reason for this is that Norway's population is only around 5 Million people.

Proposals from the European Commission also have to be agreed jointly by the democratically elected European Parliament, as well as the Council.  Once again, as one of Europe's biggest Countries in terms of population, the UK has significantly more MEPs than Norway would have (if the Norwegians were ever to become full members).

ME  On another example, let's take a look at Swiss model. They have a series of bilateral treaties with the EU. One of them is free movement. As I understand it, the Swiss have tried to get free movement amended. But EU say no, and as a bloc of 500 Million people, who has all the power?

MATE  Yea but if we stay in we don't have any say the EU is undemocratic and we are powerless anyway, and whos to say that we don't strike our own unique deal which we could! Any we free movement I would scafire it because we would be able to use the visa waver program just like the Americans do we still have to go through passport control as it is anyway! How is this fair that a unskilled worker from anywhere in Europe which we don't need, but a doctor coming from India for example which we need as a skill is not able to come here freely and has to apply for a visa

MATE  God I have missed our debates me Watson lol

ME  How do you define an unskilled worker? If you wished to mention some types of farm workers doing basic picking of fruit, then I am sure there will be many farm owners who would disagree. On the democratic point, EU is not perfect. However, powers of Parliament have increased over many treaties since 1975. EP now has powers on EU budget. UK democracy is also not perfect taking on board the current govt can get elected with a majority on 37% of the vote. 

By Parliament and EP, I refer to the European Parliament.  My reference to the Government share of the vote, briefly touches my views on Britain's flawed First Past The Post electoral system.

ME  Also on the point of UK democracy, more absurd that Blair got an even bigger majority in 2005 on 35% of the vote!

The subject of Electoral Reform is another area in which my friend and I agree to disagree!

MATE  Ok, so people washing cars, flipping burgers, working in factories packing boxes for example skills that a person who could do without any education, I am not saying they are taking jobs from us because that is simply untrue I was just using that an example of how stupid free movement can be

MATE  I am not one of these people they are taking our jobs just highlighting how unfair it can b

ME  Very often these are jobs native Brits don't want. Immigration has therefore been vital to keep economy ticking over, not that I am saying we can take endless immigration. More generally, immigration is a matter we need engagement with our neighbours on.

MATE  Sate aid prime example that we cannot help out British industry's out when they need it or not being able to let British companies bid for major infucture projects which means tax payers money leaves the county! We cannot control our VAT rates we had to cap in hand to the EU to scrap the tax on tampons that's how little power we have!!

ME  And if we follow Norwegian model, we would be walking away from table and votes at intergovernmental level on issues like VAT.

MATE  Yea our neighbour won't negotiate on that why would they? Especially the eastern eropean countries who depend on there workers taking money out our economy

MATE  Yea but Andy we wouldn't be subject to their rules we can set our own vat rates our own corporation tax rates we wouldn't need to negotiate!

MATE  Commonwealth not common market xx

ME  Well my interpretation is that VAT implications are similar if we are in EEA.
https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/vat-within-eu-and-other-trade-agreement-countries

In other words, once again the Norwegian model in my view would make little difference to our powers on VAT.  If you  copy and paste the link above into an internet search engine, it can be seen it is stated that "goods moved from EFTA countries to EU member states are treated similarly to goods moved between EU member states."

MATE  I am taking about vat within the uk

ME  I realise that, but VAT rules are linked not just to EU, but arguably single market as well. 

Again, I make the case that the Norwegian model will not necessarilly restore British Governmental control on VAT, at least in the context of trading with Europe.  

I hope this has been informative.  Please VOTE REMAIN on June 23.

Iain Duncan Smith, I urge you to now back Electoral Reform

Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith,

I have seen your BBC interview with Andrew Marr regards your resignation as Works and Pensions Secretary, and I would like to pick up on a couple of the points raised.  Before I come to those points, I will make an admission that I have in the past described yourself in what can be described as not exactly glowing terms.

Onto the first point, Marr indicated that many people will find it difficult to see you as the good guy, against a backdrop of the suffering of society's most vulnerable.  As someone who hails from the North of England, I will firmly advise you that this may be an understatement!

However, I for one would be willing to judge you on any future contribution you make to the welfare debate from the backbenches, considering you have been known to have taken a keen interest in welfare prior to entering Government in 2010.

Plus, I am open minded that policy announcements played out in the public domain are not always reflective of discussions that members of a government will play out in private.

My hope going forward is that your resignation will become symbolic of the moment that further cuts in benefits for the most vulnerable, becomes a red line that cannot be crossed.

The other point I would like to raise is your comments about how the Conservatives should not be uncaring about those who don't vote Conservative.  I for one would suggest that the First Past The Post Electoral System has a lot to answer for in respect of this point you have raised.

The main parties will concentrate their resources and policies towards the parliamentary seats they need to win, rather than the seats they won't win.  Plus, recent UK electoral trends have been delivering majority governments on less than 40% of the vote!

I appreciate that there are always tough decisions for governments of all colours.  However, I do believe that had we continued to have a government made up of more than one party following last year's election, it would have been more representative of the people than the mere 37% who voted in your one party Tory Government last year, and that there would have been a few non-Tory Cabinet Ministers able to challenge George Osborne's cost cutting at the expense of the vulnerable.

My recollection of the aftermath of the 2010 general election is that you personally stated the Conservatives had no interest in electoral reform, as your party started it's Coalition negotiations with the Liberal Democrats.  If I am wrong on this recollection, I accept the oversight.

If the UK were to change it's electoral system to a fairer and more proportional voting system, not only would we get the more representative governments I refer to, but every vote would also count.

If every vote were to count, including the vulnerable voter living in a strong Labour or other non-Tory area, then this would go some way in addressing how the Conservative Party behaves towards people who at this moment in time would have little or no incentive to vote Conservative.

Taking these points on board, will you now reconsider your position on Electoral Reform?

Yours Sincerely


Andy J Watson

The stats which undermine Britain's First Past The Post electoral system

When you take a look at Britain's 2015 General Election, there are more than a few disparities between the seats parties won and their share of the vote.

Wasn't it bad enough that the SNP won 95% of the seats in Scotland on 51% of the Scottish vote?  Well, what I am about to say next will really hit.  Did you know that the Conservatives won every Constituency in Cornwall, despite not even gaining 50% of the Cornish vote?

When myself and others who are like-minded on the subject of electoral reform speak of the reasons the First Past The Post electoral system is no longer fit for purpose, a dramatically reduced share of the vote share for the two largest parties is frequently mentioned.

If we compare British general elections over the past 20 years to elections over the 20-25 years since World War II, it is clear that the share of the vote enjoyed by the two major parties has declined from consistently well over 80% to around the mid 60 percentage points.  This is not the most damning statistic though.

In general elections over the last 20 years or so, the winning party has generally achieved a share of the vote which is lower or similar to the party which finished second during general elections in the generation which followed World War II!

So let's look at a few examples of vote share achieved by the two main parties in UK general elections which truly do leave a damning verdict on First Past The Post:

The Conservative Party won the 2015 general election with a small House of Commons majority on just 37% of the vote share!

The Conservatives in 1945 were on the receiving end of a landslide Labour victory, in which Labour gained a parliamentary majority of 145.  The Tories share of the vote was 36% (or 39% if you include the vote share of a Liberal Party breakaway faction who later joined the Conservative Party).

Tony Blair's Labour Party ended 18 years of Tory rule in 1997, winning a stunning Commons majority of 179.  This was despite Labour having a vote share of around 43%!

In fact, Labour gained just under 44% of the vote share in the 1959 general election.  However, that year saw a Tory landslide victory which delivered a 100 seat majority.

THE EVIDENCE IS INCREASINGLY OVERWHELMING THAT BRITAIN'S VOTING SYSTEM IS BROKE, AND DOES NOT WORK FOR THE MODERN DAY.

THE MAIN QUESTION NOW IS HOW LONG SENIOR FIGURES IN THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT CAN PRETEND OTHERWISE?