On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>
>>
>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>
>What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?

Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
western Indian Ocean?

A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>
>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>
> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
> western Indian Ocean?
>
> A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
> when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...
>

Brexit has made us all poorer, not richer. Brexit was lose-lose, but the UK
lost relatively more than the EU.

On 28/02/2023 14:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <7P-dnd4pCbUxbGH-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 18:08:44 on Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 26/02/2023 14:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis
>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes:
>>>>>> anti-immigration,  £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and opposing
>>>>>> "ever greater  federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with a golden
>>>>>> future making  independent trade deals and  getting to keep more
>>>>>> of our own fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a
>>>>> joke,  but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries"
>>>>> was a real  thing.
>>>>
>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>
>>>  Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what
>>> attraction  that would have had.
>>
>> It (was belived that it) would have stopped Corbyn (re)nationalising
>> all the things.
>
> Why would Brexit have stopped Corbyn?

There was a belief that remaining in the EU would prevent the
(re)creation of a more-or-less national verticaly integrated monopoly
state railway, as there would be an EU requirement to tender operating
contracts.

See Spain - and even France - opening up the rail market.

--
Arthur Figgis

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 18:39, Tweed wrote:
>> Yes. But you could ignore it. Being an EU citizen imposed no personal
>> obligations on you. Losing my citizenship removes real practical rights
>> from me, such as being able to work in any EU country or being able to stay
>> in other EU countries for lengthy periods.
>
>
> Will the SNP have as much support in the future? It seems to have
> dropped since Sturgeon's resignation and will it fall further now we
> seem to know why she resigned.

Do we know why she resigned? Do you know a reason apart from what she
said?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>
>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>
> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
> western Indian Ocean?
>
> A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
> when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...
>
>

Since France paid in more than it gets out, what makes you think UK paid
for that motorway?

https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/studies/berthold-busch-bjoern-kauder-samina-sultan-net-contributors-and-net-recipients-in-the-eu.html

Although the financial flows between the Member States and the EU budget
represent only a part of EU policy, they are nevertheless a particularly
important one. There are various ways of calculating the net position. In
the following, this report uses the method of the European Commission,
which excludes customs revenues on the revenue side and administrative
expenditures on the expenditure side. Accordingly, in 2021 ten states paid
more into the EU budget than they received from it; they were thus net
contributors. 17 states were net recipients. If we first compare the
absolute amounts, we see that Germany was the largest net contributor in
2021 with an amount of 21.4 billion euros. It is followed by France with
10.9 billion euros and the Netherlands with just under 4.1 billion euros.
The top 5 are rounded out by Sweden (EUR 2.5 billion) and Denmark (around
EUR 1.5 billion). In terms of net recipients, Poland leads with EUR 12.9
billion. It is followed by Greece with EUR 4.7 billion and Hungary with EUR
4.3 billion. Romania (EUR 4.2 billion) and Spain (EUR 3.5 billion) take the
other places. Looking at the net positions relative to gross national
income (GNI), the picture shifts somewhat. However, the largest net
contributor remains Germany, which contributes 0.58 percent of GNI. It is
followed by the Netherlands with 0.48 percent, Sweden with 0.46 percent and
France and Denmark with 0.43 percent each. In terms of net recipients,
Croatia leads the way with 3.08 percent of GNI. It is followed by Lithuania
and Hungary with 3.05 and 2.89 percent, respectively. Bulgaria (2.84
percent) and Latvia (2.76 percent) are next in line.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:46:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 19:00:56 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:21:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:50:28 +0100
>>>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>On 27.02.23 11:45, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:38:30 +0000
>>>>> Brian <Brian@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats democracy for you, suck it up.
>>>>
>>>>Democracy involves the people being free to object to government
>>>>policies they don't like. "If you don't like it, suck it up" is not a
>>>>feature of a democratic system, that's what dictatorships do.
>>>
>>>Dictatorships hold referendums and undertake to follow the outcome do they?
>>>When did this happen?
>>>
>>>There seems to be a big problem with people such as yourself only believing
>>>something is democratic if you agree with the outcome of the vote. Thats not
>>>how democracy works. I'm not happy with the SNP having most of the seats in
>>>scotland but thats how the vote went, end of. As I said, suck it up.
>>>
>>The SNP and the Scottish Greens have the majority of seats in the
>>Scottish Parliament because they together had the majority of the
>>party vote in the PR system designated by Westminster.
>>They have an even greater majority in the Scottish representation in
>>Westminster because of the dodgy voting system used for UK Parliament
>>elections. Extrapolating from the SP vote, you can still expect an SNP
>>majority in the Scottish bit of Westminster.
>
>There is no perfect election system when there are > 2 parties standing.
>You either have FPTP or coalitions based on voting proportions or a combination
>of the two. All have their pros and cons. If you can think of a better system
>then I'm sure there'd be plenty of willing listeners.
>
You tend to have a toss-up between a points system in the form of STV
or a system that attempts to match the result to overall party
preference (which only works where independents are a minor feature).

The d'Hondt system used for the Scottish Parliament is intended to do
the latter. The first vote is for a person in the immediate
constituency who is not inevitably your preferred choice rather than
the one seen as least worst or most likely to block a candidate if you
are voting tactically. The second vote is for a party over a
multi-constituency area and is used to determine the overall
proportion of party representation in the Parliament by adding
appropriate list members to the persons chosen by FPTP on the first
ballot. Unfortunately, too many people think they are first and second
choices and the media greatly encourages that misunderstanding.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:53:17 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2023 18:39, Tweed wrote:
>>> Yes. But you could ignore it. Being an EU citizen imposed no personal
>>> obligations on you. Losing my citizenship removes real practical rights
>>> from me, such as being able to work in any EU country or being able to stay
>>> in other EU countries for lengthy periods.
>>
>>
>> Will the SNP have as much support in the future? It seems to have
>> dropped since Sturgeon's resignation and will it fall further now we
>> seem to know why she resigned.
>
>Do we know why she resigned? Do you know a reason apart from what she
>said?
>
"No longer has stamina to carry on in pressured and demanding role" -
Grauniad

"she had had to consider the “physical and mental impact” of leading
the country after being in charge since 2014." Independent

"14 reasons" (aye, right!) - P&J
[https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/5401084/nicola-sturgeon-stepped-down-first-minister/]
Reason 2 – "Time taking its toll" matches other media but some of the
others given are off the standard Unionist list of "failures".

To some extent you pays yer money and takes yer choice but as she has
seen off several PMs and opposition party branch managers then the
amount of time in the job cannot be ignored as a significant factor.

On 28 Feb 2023 at 9:15:30 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>>
>>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>>
>> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>> western Indian Ocean?
>>
>> A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
>> when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...
>>
>>
>
> Since France paid in more than it gets out, what makes you think UK paid
> for that motorway?
>
> <https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/studies/berthold-busch-bjoern-kauder-samina-sultan-net-contributors-and-net-recipients-in-the-eu.html>
>
> Although the financial flows between the Member States and the EU budget
> represent only a part of EU policy, they are nevertheless a particularly
> important one. There are various ways of calculating the net position. In
> the following, this report uses the method of the European Commission,
> which excludes customs revenues on the revenue side and administrative
> expenditures on the expenditure side. Accordingly, in 2021 ten states paid
> more into the EU budget than they received from it; they were thus net
> contributors. 17 states were net recipients. If we first compare the
> absolute amounts, we see that Germany was the largest net contributor in
> 2021 with an amount of 21.4 billion euros. It is followed by France with
> 10.9 billion euros and the Netherlands with just under 4.1 billion euros.
> The top 5 are rounded out by Sweden (EUR 2.5 billion) and Denmark (around
> EUR 1.5 billion). In terms of net recipients, Poland leads with EUR 12.9
> billion. It is followed by Greece with EUR 4.7 billion and Hungary with EUR
> 4.3 billion. Romania (EUR 4.2 billion) and Spain (EUR 3.5 billion) take the
> other places.

Although even with those numbers, you need some tunnel vision to assume that
Germany doesn't get anything in return for those 21.4 billion euros.

For example, if you drive a Mercedes Benz or Daimler, there's a good chance
the gearbox was made in Romania. That EU funding is going to improvements in
the Romanian rail network (dramatically improved passenger journey times on
some routes,) but by and large it's going on routes that are also criticial
freight routes - routes that help Daimler Group get their gearboxes from their
plants in Romania to their German final assembly factories. And that's before
you even consider quite how much Germany and other European states have been
grateful for alternative routes for oil and grain via the port of Constanta in
recent months...

It's the misguided notion that the world is a zero-sum game - that anything
that is good for someone else must automatically be bad for me - that is the
real root of Brexiteer thinking. Which is of course why by the same token they
take such joy in anything that makes someone else's life miserable; they
believe if they have made a life worse somewhere in the world then their own
pitiful existence must by some unidentified mechanism have been improved.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:32:34 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>
>>What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>
>Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>western Indian Ocean?
>
Reunion is part of the Republic of France and the EU.
Plenty of "EU taxes" have been spent on stuff in the UK.

>A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
>when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...

On 28.02.23 20:48, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:32:34 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>>
>>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>>
>> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>> western Indian Ocean?
>>
> Reunion is part of the Republic of France and the EU.
> Plenty of "EU taxes" have been spent on stuff in the UK.

There is a whole set of sort of but not quite bits of EU member states,
arising either from remnants of overseas empire, or for odd other
historical reasons that have partial status in some regards. For the
case of places like non-Metropolitan France, from an EU perspective
there are two types of this kind of place: Outermost Regions (OMR) and
Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT). OMRs are generally regarded as
"part of the EU" but with certain derogations from things like Schengen
and VAT rules, while OCTs are generally not part of the Single Market or
generally covered by EU regulations.

Generally non-Metropolitan French territories are either overseas
regions and departments, which are politically identical to Metropolitan
France, just a bit far away, while the Overseas Collectivities are a bit
more self governing.

From an EU perspective, all the Overseas Regions and Departments aer
OMRs, in addition to Saint Martin, which is an Overseas Collectivity,
while the remainder of the Overseas Collectivities are OCTs.

There is also the collection of oddities that are not geographically
distant from Europe, are parts of EU member states, but are not fully
EU. Places like Büsingen and Campione d'Italia, which are inside
Switzerland and have a relationship with CH that is not entirely
compatible with the EU, and odd bits and pieces like Åland, Faroe,
Heligoland and a handful of others that are just special for historical
reasons.

Pre-Brexit, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Akrotiri
and Dhekelia were some of these geographically European but special
places, while the other British Overseas Territories all had OCT status.

Robin

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:48:07 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:32:34 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>>
>>>What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>>unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>>
>>Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>>western Indian Ocean?
>>
>Reunion is part of the Republic of France and the EU.
>Plenty of "EU taxes" have been spent on stuff in the UK.

And plenty of prickly Brits who don't like to be kidded while visiting
such a distant EU outpost, which as Bob points out is an Overseas
Department (and indeed an Overseas Region) of the French Republic.

Common usage though is simply to refer to all five such entities as
départements d'outre-mer.

The same cruise had called at Mamoudzou on Mayotte three days before.

On 28/02/2023 18:37, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 14:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <7P-dnd4pCbUxbGH-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 18:08:44 on Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>> remarked:
>>> On 26/02/2023 14:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis
>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes:
>>>>>>> anti-immigration,  £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and
>>>>>>> opposing "ever greater  federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with
>>>>>>> a golden future making  independent trade deals and  getting to
>>>>>>> keep more of our own fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a
>>>>>> joke,  but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries"
>>>>>> was a real  thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>
>>>>  Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what
>>>> attraction  that would have had.
>>>
>>> It (was belived that it) would have stopped Corbyn (re)nationalising
>>> all the things.
>>
>> Why would Brexit have stopped Corbyn?
>
> There was a belief that remaining in the EU would prevent the
> (re)creation of a more-or-less national verticaly integrated monopoly
> state railway, as there would be an EU requirement to tender operating
> contracts.

That doesn't answer the question, in fact it encourages people who are
worried about that possibility to vote remain. Fails to explain why the
far right then voted leave.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/02/2023 19:48, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:32:34 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>>
>>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>>
>> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>> western Indian Ocean?
>>
> Reunion is part of the Republic of France and the EU.
> Plenty of "EU taxes" have been spent on stuff in the UK.

As the Cornish discovered too late!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/02/2023 14:59, Roland Perry wrote:

> The problem with "the young" is they don't understand where the money
> has come from to featherbed them most of their life so far.

Other way round surely: it's the old gits convinced they are entitled to
unlimited free stuff, and young people don't need education, jobs or
houses, can just knock on office doors with print-outs of their CVs, be
more racist and stop eating avocados.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 28/02/2023 21:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 18:37, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> On 28/02/2023 14:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <7P-dnd4pCbUxbGH-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:08:44 on Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 26/02/2023 14:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis
>>>>>> <afiggis@example.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes:
>>>>>>>> anti-immigration,  £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and
>>>>>>>> opposing "ever greater  federalism"; as well  as stuff to do
>>>>>>>> with a golden future making  independent trade deals and
>>>>>>>> getting to keep more of our own fish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a
>>>>>>> joke,  but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries"
>>>>>>> was a real  thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>>
>>>>>  Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what
>>>>> attraction  that would have had.
>>>>
>>>> It (was belived that it) would have stopped Corbyn (re)nationalising
>>>> all the things.
>>>
>>> Why would Brexit have stopped Corbyn?
>>
>> There was a belief that remaining in the EU would prevent the
>> (re)creation of a more-or-less national verticaly integrated monopoly
>> state railway, as there would be an EU requirement to tender operating
>> contracts.
>
> That doesn't answer the question,

"Why would Brexit have stopped Corbyn?" doesn't make much sense in the
context of lexit types thinking remaining in the EU would stop Corbyn
nationalising things.

in fact it encourages people who are
> worried about that possibility to vote remain. Fails to explain why the
> far right then voted leave.

Horseshoe theory in action; the far right and far left agreeing.

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <5uOcnXcbLLua12P-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:37:59 on Tue, 28 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 28/02/2023 14:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <7P-dnd4pCbUxbGH-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>18:08:44 on Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>remarked:
>>> On 26/02/2023 14:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>>11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis
>>>>><afiggis@example.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>>>issue vote. There were at least four major themes:
>>>>>>>anti-immigration,  £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and
>>>>>>>opposing "ever greater  federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with
>>>>>>>a golden future making  independent trade deals and  getting to keep more of our own fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a
>>>>>>joke,  but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries"
>>>>>>was a real  thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>
>>>>  Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what
>>>>attraction  that would have had.
>>>
>>> It (was belived that it) would have stopped Corbyn (re)nationalising
>>>all the things.

>> Why would Brexit have stopped Corbyn?
>
>There was a belief that remaining in the EU would prevent the
>(re)creation of a more-or-less national verticaly integrated monopoly
>state railway, as there would be an EU requirement to tender operating
>contracts.

OK, so Brexit would not have stopped Corbyn, a LACK OF BREXIT might have
done.

>See Spain - and even France - opening up the rail market.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <2kasvhdbkcls2ffl2rtp8s34llf2pc3g6j@4ax.com>, at 08:32:34 on
Tue, 28 Feb 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>
>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>
>>What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen? What
>>unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>
>Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>western Indian Ocean?

That's really scraping the barrel. Our *entire* contribution to the EU
was just 1% of GDP, and a tiny fraction of that would be used on some of
the more exotic projects (mindful that some of the things the EU spent
money on in the UK might be though by some Continentals to be exotic
too).

>A couple of Brits on a cruise-ship shore tour got quite huffy with me
>when I pointed out their hard-earned pounds being put to work...

Next time you meet them, remember to point out that rather than 1% of
GDP being sent to the EU, we've now got 5% less GDP to go around in our
glorious isolation, as a result of Brexit.

Mr and Mrs 4%, are they?
--
Roland Perry

On 28/02/2023 18:53, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Do we know why she resigned? Do you know a reason apart from what she
> said?

All we know is that the Scottish media reported that various senior
members of the SNP were interviewed by the Fraud Squad a few days before
the surprise resignation.

Could be coincidence of course.

We are not likely to learn much until a new regime takes over or perhaps
until after an election.

Am 28.02.2023 um 21:26 schrieb Bob:
> On 28.02.23 20:48, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:32:34 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/02/2023 19:25, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really objected to being made an EU citizen without my consent.
>>>>
>>>> What downsides did you notice from becoming a reluctant EU citizen?
>>>> What
>>>> unwanted obligations were thrust upon you?
>>>
>>> Taxes used to fund an elevated autoroute/motorway on La Réunion in the
>>> western Indian Ocean?
>>>
>> Reunion is part of the Republic of France and the EU.
>> Plenty of "EU taxes" have been spent on stuff in the UK.
>
> There is a whole set of sort of but not quite bits of EU member states,
> arising either from remnants of overseas empire, or for odd other
> historical reasons that have partial status in some regards.  For the
> case of places like non-Metropolitan France, from an EU perspective
> there are two types of this kind of place: Outermost Regions (OMR) and
> Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT). OMRs are generally regarded as
> "part of the EU" but with certain derogations from things like Schengen
> and VAT rules, while OCTs are generally not part of the Single Market or
> generally covered by EU regulations.
>
> Generally non-Metropolitan French territories are either overseas
> regions and departments, which are politically identical to Metropolitan
> France, just a bit far away, while the Overseas Collectivities are a bit
> more self governing.
>
> From an EU perspective, all the Overseas Regions and Departments aer
> OMRs, in addition to Saint Martin, which is an Overseas Collectivity,
> while the remainder of the Overseas Collectivities are OCTs.

I can report from own expierience that some lucky German teachers are
quite happy to book training courses paid for in full by ERASMUS+ on
Madeira (Portugal), Tenerife (Spain) or Guadeloupe (France).

Rolf

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:28:06 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:46:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>There is no perfect election system when there are > 2 parties standing.
>>You either have FPTP or coalitions based on voting proportions or a
>combination
>>of the two. All have their pros and cons. If you can think of a better system
>>then I'm sure there'd be plenty of willing listeners.
>>
>You tend to have a toss-up between a points system in the form of STV
>or a system that attempts to match the result to overall party
>preference (which only works where independents are a minor feature).
>
>The d'Hondt system used for the Scottish Parliament is intended to do
>the latter. The first vote is for a person in the immediate
>constituency who is not inevitably your preferred choice rather than
>the one seen as least worst or most likely to block a candidate if you
>are voting tactically. The second vote is for a party over a
>multi-constituency area and is used to determine the overall
>proportion of party representation in the Parliament by adding
>appropriate list members to the persons chosen by FPTP on the first
>ballot. Unfortunately, too many people think they are first and second
>choices and the media greatly encourages that misunderstanding.

And yet you still end up with a party the majority didn't vote for being in
power for 15 years. So the scottish system doesn't work any better either.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 18:53, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Do we know why she resigned? Do you know a reason apart from what she
>> said?
>
>
> All we know is that the Scottish media reported that various senior
> members of the SNP were interviewed by the Fraud Squad a few days before
> the surprise resignation.
>
> Could be coincidence of course.
>
>
> We are not likely to learn much until a new regime takes over or perhaps
> until after an election.

So much like the only rational reason for leaving the EU then.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:28:06 +0000
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:46:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>> There is no perfect election system when there are > 2 parties standing.
>>> You either have FPTP or coalitions based on voting proportions or a
>> combination
>>> of the two. All have their pros and cons. If you can think of a better system
>>> then I'm sure there'd be plenty of willing listeners.
>>>
>> You tend to have a toss-up between a points system in the form of STV
>> or a system that attempts to match the result to overall party
>> preference (which only works where independents are a minor feature).
>>
>> The d'Hondt system used for the Scottish Parliament is intended to do
>> the latter. The first vote is for a person in the immediate
>> constituency who is not inevitably your preferred choice rather than
>> the one seen as least worst or most likely to block a candidate if you
>> are voting tactically. The second vote is for a party over a
>> multi-constituency area and is used to determine the overall
>> proportion of party representation in the Parliament by adding
>> appropriate list members to the persons chosen by FPTP on the first
>> ballot. Unfortunately, too many people think they are first and second
>> choices and the media greatly encourages that misunderstanding.
>
> And yet you still end up with a party the majority didn't vote for being in
> power for 15 years. So the scottish system doesn't work any better either.

Since there are more than two parties with significant levels of support
the chance of any one receiving the majority of the vote is pretty slim.
There is no perfect system of democracy since there are lots of competing
aims.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 01/03/2023 12:35, Sam Wilson wrote:

> There is no perfect system of democracy

One person, one vote. Me.

--
Arthur Figgis

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/03/2023 12:35, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
>> There is no perfect system of democracy
>
>
> One person, one vote. Me.

I take it you’re allowed to vote for yourself?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:48:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:28:06 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:46:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>There is no perfect election system when there are > 2 parties standing.
>>>You either have FPTP or coalitions based on voting proportions or a
>>combination
>>>of the two. All have their pros and cons. If you can think of a better system
>>>then I'm sure there'd be plenty of willing listeners.
>>>
>>You tend to have a toss-up between a points system in the form of STV
>>or a system that attempts to match the result to overall party
>>preference (which only works where independents are a minor feature).
>>
>>The d'Hondt system used for the Scottish Parliament is intended to do
>>the latter. The first vote is for a person in the immediate
>>constituency who is not inevitably your preferred choice rather than
>>the one seen as least worst or most likely to block a candidate if you
>>are voting tactically. The second vote is for a party over a
>>multi-constituency area and is used to determine the overall
>>proportion of party representation in the Parliament by adding
>>appropriate list members to the persons chosen by FPTP on the first
>>ballot. Unfortunately, too many people think they are first and second
>>choices and the media greatly encourages that misunderstanding.
>
>And yet you still end up with a party the majority didn't vote for being in
>power for 15 years. So the scottish system doesn't work any better either.
>
It does. Parties generally work by consensus; at present there is a
slim majority of pro-independence parties as a result of the
proprtional nature of the vote allocation. Meanwhile, Westminster is
ruled by a party with 55% of the seats but whose candidates only
gained 43.6% of the vote.