The voting goes nearly all day until 10pm tonight (BST), so we can vote before or after work, some schools get the day off as we use there place as places to vote, or people send off their votes in the post.
Ah okay, thought you meant you just turned 18 hence why you could vote for the first time. Now I just don't understand why you can vote for the first time now!
in our voting system its very hard for every vote to count so alot of people dont bother because they think they cant make a difference
for example if you live in an area with one party being dominant then it takes ALOT of people if you area to vote for the same different party to make a change and if there isnt a change in your local area there wont be a change nationally
Means you don't have to get the majority vote ON THE DAY to win.
EDIT:
Basically we don't vote from the Prime Minister, we vote for who we want our local MP to be (Lib Dem, Tory, Labour) - our vote is to change what party runs our area and it has to be majority vote for it to change.
My area is Tory, if i voted labour but the rest of the area voted Tory, my vote is essentially useless because the person with the most places under their "control" wins.
Which is why sometimes the leading party doesn't have to get the majority on election day to win.
That doesn't make sense at all! We have regional government, but our votes will all count in the general election. Our votes get added up to all the votes in general.
I am a student which means I can vote in two different areas, though I only get to choose one (I edited for clarification!). In my home area, it is likely to be a huge Liberal Democrat majority (the longest serving MP in the party lives there). In my university area, it is likely to be a close race between Conservative and Labour. If I wanted to vote for Liberal Democrat at university then it would in all honesty be a complete waste of time, and at the same time the Liberal Democrats do not get anything for having a huge majority in my home area.
This pretty much sums up British politics, or should that be British political malaise?
I am not sure about the specifics to be honest; I think they are just trying to be as flexible as possible. In some cases, university accommodation automatically registers whoever lives there, but you can happily choose to vote in your home area if you wanted to.
Something like that... it's constituency linked first past the post - so winner takes all in each seat - with the party with the most seats forming a government.
So say if the results were Tory 36% Lib Dem 32% Labour 25% Other 7% but that was to pan out in every constituency - the Torys would win with 100% of the seats!
Obviously it's not quite that simple, that's just one possibility - what usually happens is there's a large chunk of seats that one party wins by a massive majority so if you're voting for any other party in that seat your vote is effectively meaningless. So what happens is the three parties go toe to toe in "marginal" seats - i.e. ones with a small majority where everythings to play for. The party that wins the election is the party that wins the most marginal seats.
The disadvantage of that is that parties like BNP & UKIP will gain more votes. People know next time their vote will make a difference. That's the problem in a number of european countries. It's democratic but it feeds extreme-right groups. And especially with the tabloids in the UK, spreading lies and openly supporting parties (doesn't happen in other countries) I fear either BNP or UKIP could gain quite a lot and be a party of around 5-10% with a lot more influence. Especially with 35% of the people not voting... Imagine if they all give a 'protest vote' and vote for BNP/UKIP.
That's what they say though, I think this is the problem like Nick Clegg said so many times "it's ok saying things are going to change", but he was just playing them two off against eachother at the start.
They all say what everyone wants to hear, they only say the bad things when they are forced to, they are never sorry for doing things only sorry for getting caught.
I was probably wrong in saying the parties are the same, I mean after looking at their policies and promises, and listening to them live - they all seem to have some that will relate to another parties.
i voted lib dem coz i was very impressed with their policies and they want to change the system although I'm not so keen on their stance on europe... just look at Greece thankgoodness we didnt take the Euro we'd be in the same situation
The problems in Greece have very little to do with the currency. Not entering the euro was probably one of the biggest mistakes you guys have ever made.
Ok so the euro hasn't been doing so well due to PIIGS countries so now after all these years you anti-euro Brits can finally say ''I told you so haha!'' And yes at this point in time it seems like it was a wise idea not to join but up until a month or two ago there was no bragging about what a great idea it was not to join.
Fact is things haven't been so so great for you guys in recent years and we can list all the pros and cons you want but back in 99 joining the euro would have been the wisest decision. It's hard to predict the future but ultimately these problems are likely to be solved and you guys will be back in the same boat you were before and IMO the pros outweigh the cons by far.
Anyway I am much better at explaining this stuff in words/discussion than having to type it all down.
Why would you be in the same situation as Greece if you were in the euro? Afaik the UK has a deficit of 12% (2nd highest in Europe) which is a staggering 160 bn. How on earth would it be worse if you were in the euro? The average deficit in EU is around 6%.
The problems Greece has is not because of the euro but a combination of lots of things. Lot's of tax evasion which means an important part (10-20%) of the population doesn't pay tax income. The unions have way too much power in Greece which means they block every proposition to increase taxes in order to pay for the huge debts, etc... I don't think I have to explain what the situation would be if Greece had the drachma now, it would have been bankrupt now so they should be lucky they are in the euro.
If the UK was in or out of the euro it wouldn't have made a difference to the UK situation whatsoever. On contrary, even a weak euro is still worth 1.15£, imagine what a strong euro is... If the UK would have joined the euro 5 years ago when it was 1.5 € for a pound you'd all have 30% more savings by now and when it was higher 6 months ago you'd all have 50% more savings. Yes that's a very bad situation indeed...
if we had the euro the financial markets would have put us in the same boat as greece and treated us the same
true there's alot of problems unique to Greece and others that are similar to Britian but the main difference is that becuase we have our own currency we can do more to help get out of our problems, plus we pay our taxes. We can pay for our debt whereas greece can't and the markets know this hence they wont lend to greece. If we were in the euro then the finance markets would be alot less sympathic and would stop lending.
The markets base themselves on public debt, deficit, household savings & debt, dynamism of the country (future growth of the economy?), strength of the currency, the real estate sector, etc... and based on these parameters the UK is nowhere close to Greece. Yes the deficit is high in the UK but the public debt is much lower and the UK economy is way more dynamic. Greece's economy won't be back to 2007 levels till 2017, won't happen for the UK. The UK can still way more easily pay the interests on it's debt compared to Greece. The UK has way more room to increase taxes and cut cost compared to Greece, level of tax evasion & corruption isn't as high in the UK compared to Greece, etc... It's just not comparable.
If the UK was in the euro it wouldn't have made a difference whatsoever. The markets would still focus on Greece,Spain, Portugal and not on the UK. Yes the currency matters but only if it's a weak currency like the greek drachma, then the markets would focus on that country because people would put their savings in strong currencies like euro or dollar. That currency (drachma) would collapse because no one would want to invest in it, no one would want to buy Greek bonds. That's a situation where the UK wouldn't be in, if it would be part of the euro or not, it wouldn't happen so to say it's good to be outside the euro because of this is absolute bullshit. Let me remind you that a euro is still worth 1.15£. It's the pound that is becoming weaker internationally, not the euro. The euro was way overvalued at 1.50 for 1 dollar, now it's back to a more realistic level.
The difference is, the pound is (longterm wise) losing to every other major currency worldwide except the dollar, not so for the euro. The pound or the euro, it won't make a difference when the markets turn to you. Or maybe not, having a (relatively weak) pound will make it even more difficult, a strong euro could actually save the UK longterm wise. If the UK had adopted the euro in the beginning it would have had a fixed rate of 1.50/1.60 euro for a pound which would make all british 50% richer compared to now. You would have been much, much richer + London would be financilly even more dominant thx to euro which would bring a lot more revenue for the UK + the UK would be part of a strong, improving currency on the worldstage. Yes, a very good decision to not join the euro -___-
Read my comment as response to tosspot a bit below to read more.
this is what happens when people with no expertise in economics start talking about the subject like they actually know what they are talking about
pound sure seemed like a good idea when the € was first introduced but nobody listened to the people claiming it would only go downhill. it only went downhill.
euro would not have put us in the same position as greece, nowhere near.
You're fundamentally wrong here with reference simply to the Greek problems, if we were apart of the Eurozone WE would be bailing out Greece a financial burden we cannot afford. Germany is contributing €22 Billion, as the bailout is proportionate of Economy size within the Eurozone the UK would be contributing (if it were apart of the Euro) approximately €15 Billion.
The Eurozone as a financial concept is being stretched to its limits right now, Germany as a nation had widescale objections to the Greek bailout. The protectionalism and self preservation of each country means concepts like the euro will fail when times are hard. In the UK right now we are free to set our own interest rates as and when we need to, rather than having them set continent wide to save those economies which are tourist driven.
London is the biggest financial center in the world (Ironically Leeds follows it in Europe), before tourism can recover (A primary reason for Greek and Spanish financial collapse) the financial services must recover. Meaning, the UK, with the pound, regulated in London will lead its own path out of recession ahead of the southern European nations despite its budget defecit.
i'm not a fan of the euro, i just don't believe it is to blame for economic problems at the moment. although i do by my own admission have no interest in economics
though it has to be said that we relied on financial services too much in the UK in the past which left us very vunerable, we need some more balance like Germany has. Although I agree that we have the control to make our own way out of recession and we'll be stronger in the future because of it.
The UK is paying for the Greek bail-out too as a member of the IMF which will cost a couple of billion, the UK just doesn't have to contribute to the 80bn from Eurozone members, only from the 30bn from IMF.
And your comment about Leeds being the 2nd biggest financial city in Europe is laughable. Any source for this? I'm not even sure why I should give a source, it's general knowledge London is 1st, Paris 2nd & Frankfurt 3rd. http://www.citymayors.com/economics/financial-cities.html Leeds isn't even on the list. I bet your statement that Leeds is nr. 2 in Europe is based on 1 minor aspect in finance which would make them the nr. 2 but frankly I wouldn't even know what it would be.
About the rest of your comment. It's in UK's interest too that Greece doesn't default on its debt. Where do you think those debt come from? Mainly from French, German & UK banks. If Greece defaults UK's (& German/French) banks are in the shit too (wouldn't see their money back) and we all know what happens when the banks are in big trouble. Check the last 2 years.
And the reason Greece is in trouble has nothing to do with the euro. Tax evasion in Greece is a very big problem, more than in every other country in EU. If every Greek would pay taxes on their income the governments income would rise with at least 20 bn. They wouldn't have any deficit anymore. The problem of this tax evasion is widespread corruption which also translates in a big public sector. Government employees giving jobs to friends etc... Public sector needs to be much smaller & more effective.
If Greece weren't in the euro they would be even more fucked. Everyone would put it's savings in euro or dollar which would make the drachma collapse. No one would invest in Greek bonds, they would lose all their money on a useless currency. Now that would cause riots in Greece.
If the UK was in or out of the euro it wouldn't have made a difference to the UK situation whatsoever. The financial situation of that particular country is important for the markets, not the currency itself except if it's a weak one ofc but both the pound and the euro are still stable currencies so it has nothing to do with this. Public debt, deficit, savings rate, dynamism of the economy of the country (future GDP growth?), strenght of the currency, household debt, etc... those are the parameters where the markets look too so if the UK would be in the euro or not wouldn't make a difference. The UK is not in the same situation as Greece.
Let me remind you that even a weak euro is still worth 1.15£, not bad for a weak currency in crisis + it's still high compared to 10 years ago when it as like 1.5. The pound is becoming weaker & weaker internationally, not the euro and if the UK would have joined the euro 5 years ago when it was 1.5 € for a pound (fixed ratio) you'd all have 30% more savings by now and when it was higher 6 months ago you'd all have 50% more savings. Yes that's a very bad situation indeed...
UKIP but thats only because our main 3 parties are just pitiful atm. I remember when my grandad used to be proud to vote labour. This year he isnt voting labour and wont vote conservitive. So I suppose for me my vote with just be wasted on UKIP as no one else will vote them :C
I want to vote UKIP because I think we need to get our of Europe before we can make any meaningful changes (75% of our laws are made by people we didn't vote for, how is that democracy?), and we'll never be able to tackle the immigration problems we have here while we're in Europe because there's nothing we can do under European law about EU migrants, only non-EU migrants, which are the smallest part of the problem.
However a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote at the moment because of our unfair voting system, so I'm tempted to vote Lib-Dem who are commited to changing it. Once we have proportional representation a vote for UKIP (or anyone else) will mean something.
Having said that Lib-Dem have some really stupid policies. They want to scrap plans to build more Nuclear power stations. We're heading for power cuts in the UK as it is because we don't have enough capacity, they'd only make it worse. They also want closer integration with Europe which is totally the wrong way to go for us IMO.
So I'm probably going to vote Conservative, they at least have a more anti-Europe stance, they've promised a referendum on any further surrender of sovereignty (but then so did Labour, and they went back on that promise), and I like what they've been saying about cutting benefits to those who choose not to work, and making cuts in the public sector.
There's a Polish guy works for my firm, he's a nice guy and works hard and I've nothing but admiration for a young lad who left his country and family behind and learnt a new language to work in another country.
The problem with immigration is the demand it places on our public services, health, education, housing etc., all paid for by a social system that these immigrants haven't contributed to.
You're looking at six months to claim back job seekers - no work within three months 'n risk deportation. That's plenty time to pay into the social welfare system... oh 'n there be VAT too...
If someone born in the UK is an unfair burden on social services that's our problem to deal with. If someone not born in the UK comes here and becomes a burden on our social services, why is that our problem?
Because they didn't choose to come here, they were born here, and it's our responsibility to do something about a situation our own society has created.
I don't agree with supporting idle people any more than any other self-respecting tax payer, but we wouldn't have to deal with people coming here and claiming benefits if they didn't come in the first place.
There are a lot of eastern Europeans in my town, and most are put up in hotels, so I'm not surprised they're not in what you refer to as social housing. They're still a cost to the state, which my taxes fund.
I can't take your comment serious if you use the '75% of our laws are made in Europe' bullcrap. That number is made by UKIP, a party known to be against the EU. Great source really...
Just because so many UKIP/BNP people say it's 75% doesn't mean it's true. The real number is more between 10-20% and most of those are about trade deals. In today's age there's a lot of cross-border activity so 'some' EU legislation is absolutely necessary. Not to mention that a lot of the EU law goes to the EU member states itself in order to be rectified, not by the EU itself.
Besides, how is it not democratic? The system it is now is that you vote for your national parties and those parties will choose politicians to represent their party at the European parliament. How is that not democratic? Or would you want to choose politicians from Hungary or Slovenia you don't know about?
No, I want politicians from Hungary to decide matters in Hungary, and politicians from Slovenia to decide matters in Slovenia .... and politicians in England to decide matters in England.
Well, it's already like that now. Afaik the ones your voting for now are English politicians to decide matters in England :)
You got politicians on local level, on Scotland/England and/or UK level. The only difference is that there is an extra level up, an EU level. And because of globalization and so many projects and stuff done internationally, it's quite logic no? Cross-border co-operation about criminality, justice, environment (how can you control the quality of rivers, sea, etc... on country level??), chemicals, standardized food quality labels, etc... If you want it or not but in today's age it's necessary. Do you know as an EU citizen your allowed healthcare in any EU member state for the same cost as a 'local' person. If there wasn't the EU you would have had to pay waaaay more. I could give you 100 examples of this. Is the EU rly that bad? EU legislation is way better & more effective then UK legislation by the way.
Do you know how many laws and rules you have to obey from international organisations like UN, IMF, etc...but strangely enough I don't hear any1 complaining about that. The EU is a similar thing but it goes a bit deeper about international co-operation, trading agreements, etc... There's nothing wrong with that, no?
Don't forget another terrible think the EU inflicted on us, the Human Rights Act dude =) a "criminal's charter"... pointless shit like the right to education, right to free elections, right to property...
You can't just say "labour went back on their promise" Conversatives gave a cast-iron gaurantee that they would have a referundum on europe if they got into power and then went back on it.
We NEED to be in Europe and work together.
Again it's great everyone saying they will do this and that, and if another party got into power that would be a change, but a good one?
The Conservatives promised to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but as the treaty has now been ratified there's nothing to have a referendum on (other than leaving Europe altogether, which no major party wants).
It was actually after the Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed as he was the final guy.
So he made a promise he knew he couldn't keep, typical Party Leader ;)
He promised he would do it no matter what, and then changed what he wanted to do later by saying if it's already in place he can't do anything, actually saying it would be "illegal"
So, the U-turn happened before the treaty was ratified (because it couldn't have been a U-turn afterwards) but after the last country ratified it? Which is it, your 2 statements can't both be right. :)
As it happens the Conservatives made a promise right up until the moment they were unable to keep it, and then made it clear they wouldn't be able to keep it and withdrew it. It's pretty simple logic to follow and in no way indicative of being a false promise, unlike Labour who did promise a referendum well in advance and when it was completely viable, and then went back on it long before the deadline had passed to do it.
If you say so, obviously there is no point talking about it if you are set to thinking like that.
I hope another party gets into power and realises how difficult things actually are and then everyone can slate them. Then we will go back to the party that knows what they are doing, it happens like a life cycle.
The net difference between Brits in Europe & Europeans over here is fairly small... we've well over a million people across the continent working away, earning their dollar.
The torys only offer a referendum on any constitutional changes - the Lib Dems will give you a straight in out choice =) either we're actively involved as a positive benefactor (what I believe) or we're out - enough dicking around ^^
And did you not see the interview on the beeb with Lord Pearson? Fecks sake kendle he couldn't even remember his own policies... he had one mantra - Europe, Europe, Europe - the rest he couldn't remember... "I'm sure some researcher figured that out". Fucks sake kendle... expected more. Google it, find it - be ashamed.
Not true. The million Brits abroad figure includes 700,000 retired, so not earning their dollar at all (cba to quote the source, read it somewhere a couple of days ago).
Yeah it's in their manifesto - although admittedly it does state it'd only be triggered by the next 'significant' change in the UKs relationship with Europe.
So you could argue it'd never actually come into play, and could be somewhat of a cop out on their previous promise over Lisbon...
I have no time for UKIP other than their policy on Europe, they'd make a shite government no 2 ways about it, I'd only have voted for them as a protest vote, but until we get proper electoral reform there's no real point voting for anyone other than the main 3 parties.
Look at the part leaders careers too... Brown some uni shit then labour party hack, Cameron played around in television then became a tory party hack, Clegg was a prize winning journalist, negotiated trade deals 'n worked at the EU commission.
UKIP?
BNP?
Green Party ;)
iedreen wel, wij niet
They do anything to not give us a day off.
The other reason we wouldn't vote is because all the parties are crap :)
But this is my first chance to vote so I may as well put it to good use.
in malta it's serious business, turnout of ~90% and there is only like 0.2% difference between the 2 parties
in our voting system its very hard for every vote to count so alot of people dont bother because they think they cant make a difference
for example if you live in an area with one party being dominant then it takes ALOT of people if you area to vote for the same different party to make a change and if there isnt a change in your local area there wont be a change nationally
EDIT:
Basically we don't vote from the Prime Minister, we vote for who we want our local MP to be (Lib Dem, Tory, Labour) - our vote is to change what party runs our area and it has to be majority vote for it to change.
My area is Tory, if i voted labour but the rest of the area voted Tory, my vote is essentially useless because the person with the most places under their "control" wins.
Which is why sometimes the leading party doesn't have to get the majority on election day to win.
This pretty much sums up British politics, or should that be British political malaise?
So say if the results were Tory 36% Lib Dem 32% Labour 25% Other 7% but that was to pan out in every constituency - the Torys would win with 100% of the seats!
Obviously it's not quite that simple, that's just one possibility - what usually happens is there's a large chunk of seats that one party wins by a massive majority so if you're voting for any other party in that seat your vote is effectively meaningless. So what happens is the three parties go toe to toe in "marginal" seats - i.e. ones with a small majority where everythings to play for. The party that wins the election is the party that wins the most marginal seats.
I've more faith in the British people than that.
current electoral system is ridiculous, how anyone can think of voting for a party that hasn't atleast pledged to reform/address it is beyond me
I am still not decided and will have to see what pops into my head at the polling station.
-e- woah! we had tory come into power here a few years back, to say tax money has gone down the shitter is an understatement.
Just because it's not communist vs raging capitalist as in the "glory days" anymore doesn't mean they all agree on everything... barely anything tbh
They all say what everyone wants to hear, they only say the bad things when they are forced to, they are never sorry for doing things only sorry for getting caught.
I was probably wrong in saying the parties are the same, I mean after looking at their policies and promises, and listening to them live - they all seem to have some that will relate to another parties.
i voted lib dem coz i was very impressed with their policies and they want to change the system although I'm not so keen on their stance on europe... just look at Greece thankgoodness we didnt take the Euro we'd be in the same situation
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-gbp.en.html
im sooooooo glad we never entered the euro pile of shit that turned out to be for the countries involved.
Fact is things haven't been so so great for you guys in recent years and we can list all the pros and cons you want but back in 99 joining the euro would have been the wisest decision. It's hard to predict the future but ultimately these problems are likely to be solved and you guys will be back in the same boat you were before and IMO the pros outweigh the cons by far.
Anyway I am much better at explaining this stuff in words/discussion than having to type it all down.
The problems Greece has is not because of the euro but a combination of lots of things. Lot's of tax evasion which means an important part (10-20%) of the population doesn't pay tax income. The unions have way too much power in Greece which means they block every proposition to increase taxes in order to pay for the huge debts, etc... I don't think I have to explain what the situation would be if Greece had the drachma now, it would have been bankrupt now so they should be lucky they are in the euro.
If the UK was in or out of the euro it wouldn't have made a difference to the UK situation whatsoever. On contrary, even a weak euro is still worth 1.15£, imagine what a strong euro is... If the UK would have joined the euro 5 years ago when it was 1.5 € for a pound you'd all have 30% more savings by now and when it was higher 6 months ago you'd all have 50% more savings. Yes that's a very bad situation indeed...
if we had the euro the financial markets would have put us in the same boat as greece and treated us the same
true there's alot of problems unique to Greece and others that are similar to Britian but the main difference is that becuase we have our own currency we can do more to help get out of our problems, plus we pay our taxes. We can pay for our debt whereas greece can't and the markets know this hence they wont lend to greece. If we were in the euro then the finance markets would be alot less sympathic and would stop lending.
keep the pound!
The markets base themselves on public debt, deficit, household savings & debt, dynamism of the country (future growth of the economy?), strength of the currency, the real estate sector, etc... and based on these parameters the UK is nowhere close to Greece. Yes the deficit is high in the UK but the public debt is much lower and the UK economy is way more dynamic. Greece's economy won't be back to 2007 levels till 2017, won't happen for the UK. The UK can still way more easily pay the interests on it's debt compared to Greece. The UK has way more room to increase taxes and cut cost compared to Greece, level of tax evasion & corruption isn't as high in the UK compared to Greece, etc... It's just not comparable.
If the UK was in the euro it wouldn't have made a difference whatsoever. The markets would still focus on Greece,Spain, Portugal and not on the UK. Yes the currency matters but only if it's a weak currency like the greek drachma, then the markets would focus on that country because people would put their savings in strong currencies like euro or dollar. That currency (drachma) would collapse because no one would want to invest in it, no one would want to buy Greek bonds. That's a situation where the UK wouldn't be in, if it would be part of the euro or not, it wouldn't happen so to say it's good to be outside the euro because of this is absolute bullshit. Let me remind you that a euro is still worth 1.15£. It's the pound that is becoming weaker internationally, not the euro. The euro was way overvalued at 1.50 for 1 dollar, now it's back to a more realistic level.
The difference is, the pound is (longterm wise) losing to every other major currency worldwide except the dollar, not so for the euro. The pound or the euro, it won't make a difference when the markets turn to you. Or maybe not, having a (relatively weak) pound will make it even more difficult, a strong euro could actually save the UK longterm wise. If the UK had adopted the euro in the beginning it would have had a fixed rate of 1.50/1.60 euro for a pound which would make all british 50% richer compared to now. You would have been much, much richer + London would be financilly even more dominant thx to euro which would bring a lot more revenue for the UK + the UK would be part of a strong, improving currency on the worldstage. Yes, a very good decision to not join the euro -___-
Read my comment as response to tosspot a bit below to read more.
pound sure seemed like a good idea when the € was first introduced but nobody listened to the people claiming it would only go downhill. it only went downhill.
euro would not have put us in the same position as greece, nowhere near.
The Eurozone as a financial concept is being stretched to its limits right now, Germany as a nation had widescale objections to the Greek bailout. The protectionalism and self preservation of each country means concepts like the euro will fail when times are hard. In the UK right now we are free to set our own interest rates as and when we need to, rather than having them set continent wide to save those economies which are tourist driven.
London is the biggest financial center in the world (Ironically Leeds follows it in Europe), before tourism can recover (A primary reason for Greek and Spanish financial collapse) the financial services must recover. Meaning, the UK, with the pound, regulated in London will lead its own path out of recession ahead of the southern European nations despite its budget defecit.
though it has to be said that we relied on financial services too much in the UK in the past which left us very vunerable, we need some more balance like Germany has. Although I agree that we have the control to make our own way out of recession and we'll be stronger in the future because of it.
And your comment about Leeds being the 2nd biggest financial city in Europe is laughable. Any source for this? I'm not even sure why I should give a source, it's general knowledge London is 1st, Paris 2nd & Frankfurt 3rd.
http://www.citymayors.com/economics/financial-cities.html Leeds isn't even on the list. I bet your statement that Leeds is nr. 2 in Europe is based on 1 minor aspect in finance which would make them the nr. 2 but frankly I wouldn't even know what it would be.
About the rest of your comment. It's in UK's interest too that Greece doesn't default on its debt. Where do you think those debt come from? Mainly from French, German & UK banks. If Greece defaults UK's (& German/French) banks are in the shit too (wouldn't see their money back) and we all know what happens when the banks are in big trouble. Check the last 2 years.
And the reason Greece is in trouble has nothing to do with the euro. Tax evasion in Greece is a very big problem, more than in every other country in EU. If every Greek would pay taxes on their income the governments income would rise with at least 20 bn. They wouldn't have any deficit anymore. The problem of this tax evasion is widespread corruption which also translates in a big public sector. Government employees giving jobs to friends etc... Public sector needs to be much smaller & more effective.
If Greece weren't in the euro they would be even more fucked. Everyone would put it's savings in euro or dollar which would make the drachma collapse. No one would invest in Greek bonds, they would lose all their money on a useless currency. Now that would cause riots in Greece.
If the UK was in or out of the euro it wouldn't have made a difference to the UK situation whatsoever. The financial situation of that particular country is important for the markets, not the currency itself except if it's a weak one ofc but both the pound and the euro are still stable currencies so it has nothing to do with this. Public debt, deficit, savings rate, dynamism of the economy of the country (future GDP growth?), strenght of the currency, household debt, etc... those are the parameters where the markets look too so if the UK would be in the euro or not wouldn't make a difference. The UK is not in the same situation as Greece.
Let me remind you that even a weak euro is still worth 1.15£, not bad for a weak currency in crisis + it's still high compared to 10 years ago when it as like 1.5. The pound is becoming weaker & weaker internationally, not the euro and if the UK would have joined the euro 5 years ago when it was 1.5 € for a pound (fixed ratio) you'd all have 30% more savings by now and when it was higher 6 months ago you'd all have 50% more savings. Yes that's a very bad situation indeed...
e: http://nos.nl/video/155003-arjen-van-der-horst-interviewt-nick-clegg-in-het-nederlands.html
In France we vote on Sunday.
However a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote at the moment because of our unfair voting system, so I'm tempted to vote Lib-Dem who are commited to changing it. Once we have proportional representation a vote for UKIP (or anyone else) will mean something.
Having said that Lib-Dem have some really stupid policies. They want to scrap plans to build more Nuclear power stations. We're heading for power cuts in the UK as it is because we don't have enough capacity, they'd only make it worse. They also want closer integration with Europe which is totally the wrong way to go for us IMO.
So I'm probably going to vote Conservative, they at least have a more anti-Europe stance, they've promised a referendum on any further surrender of sovereignty (but then so did Labour, and they went back on that promise), and I like what they've been saying about cutting benefits to those who choose not to work, and making cuts in the public sector.
Decisions, decisions ...
Go and work for the same salery and it will be solved. This crap piss me off.
There's a Polish guy works for my firm, he's a nice guy and works hard and I've nothing but admiration for a young lad who left his country and family behind and learnt a new language to work in another country.
The problem with immigration is the demand it places on our public services, health, education, housing etc., all paid for by a social system that these immigrants haven't contributed to.
Why? Sorry, I don't really know your tax-system.
As Kendle points out, those that work and pay tax are as welcome as anyone else in this country. Those that dont, should be limited.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/teen-pregnancy-netherlands-sex
Also if you do get pregnant in the Netherlands you get fuck all and you will be most likely living with your parents.
A single mother here gets more money a month by being on benefits rather than working. Great.
I don't agree with supporting idle people any more than any other self-respecting tax payer, but we wouldn't have to deal with people coming here and claiming benefits if they didn't come in the first place.
Immigrants from the new EU member states can only receive benefits after working 12 months.
Don't just believe what the tabloids write =)
Just because so many UKIP/BNP people say it's 75% doesn't mean it's true. The real number is more between 10-20% and most of those are about trade deals. In today's age there's a lot of cross-border activity so 'some' EU legislation is absolutely necessary. Not to mention that a lot of the EU law goes to the EU member states itself in order to be rectified, not by the EU itself.
Besides, how is it not democratic? The system it is now is that you vote for your national parties and those parties will choose politicians to represent their party at the European parliament. How is that not democratic? Or would you want to choose politicians from Hungary or Slovenia you don't know about?
No, I want politicians from Hungary to decide matters in Hungary, and politicians from Slovenia to decide matters in Slovenia .... and politicians in England to decide matters in England.
You got politicians on local level, on Scotland/England and/or UK level. The only difference is that there is an extra level up, an EU level. And because of globalization and so many projects and stuff done internationally, it's quite logic no? Cross-border co-operation about criminality, justice, environment (how can you control the quality of rivers, sea, etc... on country level??), chemicals, standardized food quality labels, etc... If you want it or not but in today's age it's necessary. Do you know as an EU citizen your allowed healthcare in any EU member state for the same cost as a 'local' person. If there wasn't the EU you would have had to pay waaaay more. I could give you 100 examples of this. Is the EU rly that bad? EU legislation is way better & more effective then UK legislation by the way.
Do you know how many laws and rules you have to obey from international organisations like UN, IMF, etc...but strangely enough I don't hear any1 complaining about that. The EU is a similar thing but it goes a bit deeper about international co-operation, trading agreements, etc... There's nothing wrong with that, no?
:)
We NEED to be in Europe and work together.
Again it's great everyone saying they will do this and that, and if another party got into power that would be a change, but a good one?
So he made a promise he knew he couldn't keep, typical Party Leader ;)
He promised he would do it no matter what, and then changed what he wanted to do later by saying if it's already in place he can't do anything, actually saying it would be "illegal"
As it happens the Conservatives made a promise right up until the moment they were unable to keep it, and then made it clear they wouldn't be able to keep it and withdrew it. It's pretty simple logic to follow and in no way indicative of being a false promise, unlike Labour who did promise a referendum well in advance and when it was completely viable, and then went back on it long before the deadline had passed to do it.
I hope another party gets into power and realises how difficult things actually are and then everyone can slate them. Then we will go back to the party that knows what they are doing, it happens like a life cycle.
There is no other way to think about it without being factually incorrect.
Tuesday 3rd Nov 2009 Czech President ratifies treaty :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/lisbon-treaty-vaclav-klaus-ratified
Wednesday 4th Nov 2009 Conservatives ditch plan for referendum :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/04/david-cameron-referendum-campaign-over
The torys only offer a referendum on any constitutional changes - the Lib Dems will give you a straight in out choice =) either we're actively involved as a positive benefactor (what I believe) or we're out - enough dicking around ^^
And did you not see the interview on the beeb with Lord Pearson? Fecks sake kendle he couldn't even remember his own policies... he had one mantra - Europe, Europe, Europe - the rest he couldn't remember... "I'm sure some researcher figured that out". Fucks sake kendle... expected more. Google it, find it - be ashamed.
Not true. The million Brits abroad figure includes 700,000 retired, so not earning their dollar at all (cba to quote the source, read it somewhere a couple of days ago).
Never knew that, do you have a source for that?
So you could argue it'd never actually come into play, and could be somewhat of a cop out on their previous promise over Lisbon...
I have no time for UKIP other than their policy on Europe, they'd make a shite government no 2 ways about it, I'd only have voted for them as a protest vote, but until we get proper electoral reform there's no real point voting for anyone other than the main 3 parties.
Being 300 miles away from my constituency makes it a little difficult now! :(
Chancellor for each party:
Labour - Alistair Darling
Conservative - George Osbourne
Lib Dem - Vince Cable
If Labour don't get in, my next choice would be Vince Cable. I don't want a boy scout looking after our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRVvjGL2C0
Laughable.
Hmm...
Hung parliament then?