Non - Brexit

kirsikka and SDD

You seem to have queried my FACT regarding comparative populations which I posted about an hour ago. try these.....
Wikipedia.org/wiki/list of European Union Member States by population.
Worldometers .com
Statista.com.....drill down for quantities
World population review.com.world-cities/London-population/
....and several others.

I don’t post unsubstantiated statistics.........
 
paulfrank said:
kirsikka and SDD

You seem to have queried my FACT regarding comparative populations which I posted about an hour ago. try these.....
Wikipedia.org/wiki/list of European Union Member States by population.
Worldometers .com
Statista.com.....drill down for quantities
World population review.com.world-cities/London-population/
....and several others.

I don’t post unsubstantiated statistics.........
Click to expand...

27 out of 28 countries have smaller populations than London Paul?
 
paulfrank said:
kirsikka and SDD

You seem to have queried my FACT regarding comparative populations which I posted about an hour ago. try these.....
Wikipedia.org/wiki/list of European Union Member States by population.
Worldometers .com
Statista.com.....drill down for quantities
World population review.com.world-cities/London-population/
....and several others.

I don’t post unsubstantiated statistics.........
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Greater London has a population larger than France which, according to your Wikipedia link, has a population of 66,992,000? You're also saying that Greater London has population larger than the UK? We're getting into Inception territory here...
 
kirsikka said:
So you're saying that Greater London has a population larger than France which, according to your Wikipedia link, has a population of 66,992,000? You're also saying that Greater London has population larger than the UK? We're getting into Inception territory here...
Click to expand...
 
Humble apologies, I typed incorrectly. My fault, rubbish day, but that’s no excuse for me.

I should have typed 14..... but the sentiments are the same.

Apologies again.
 
kirsikka said:
So you're saying that Greater London has a population larger than France which, according to your Wikipedia link, has a population of 66,992,000? You're also saying that Greater London has population larger than the UK? We're getting into Inception territory here...
Click to expand...

Obviously he's got his numbers wrong but I don't really understand what it proves anyway. A Glaswegian could say that Glasgow has a larger population that 300 odd English districts yet they get to have a say in how Glasgow is governed. What point is being made?
 
rgb said:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_archive/searchable_archive/1951_WESS_Full.pdf

Sorry kirsikka old boy, US exports were 230, UK exports were 263.

Edited to add:
1951 was the year the UK was the world's largest exporter AND The Midland Bank was the world's largest bank.
Click to expand...

Ok, I was falling asleep at the keyboard last night so couldn't think straight. I've just done a search in that report for 230 and 263 and can't seem to find the table you must have been referencing. Any pointers?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Obviously he's got his numbers wrong but I don't really understand what it proves anyway. A Glaswegian could say that Glasgow has a larger population that 300 odd English districts yet they get to have a say in how Glasgow is governed. What point is being made?
Click to expand...

The point probably is that some insignificant nation like Slovenia could technically shaft us...
 
red_house said:
The point probably is that some insignificant nation like Slovenia could technically shaft us...
Click to expand...

Fair enough but it's an odd way of making the point, why compare places with London?

Anyway I would suggest that Germany being larger is more of a problem than being shafted by the minnows, they've got similar power to a 51% shareholder.
 
That's a pretty arrogant standpoint. Why should Slovenia accept a deal detrimental to itself to the betterment of the UK?

The UK was the one that pushed for the EU to expand eastwards more than anyone so to now complain that those sovereign nations who signed up to the terms insisted upon by the EU now have a voice in the EU is a actually pretty unpleasant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drd
I picked Slovenia out of a hat, it could have been any one of a number of other insignificant eu nations. I don't recall having a say in becoming best chums with this lot and to be fair I doubt they would have turned down joining the big boys club and benefiting from UK taxpayer funding.
 
'insignificant eu nations'... sums up the arrogant attitude in one sentence.

You had a say in them joining at general elections when the policies of the country were decided. Unfortunately, with the UK system that essentially meant a choice between two but that's when you got to have your say.
 
kirsikka said:
'insignificant eu nations'... sums up the arrogant attitude in one sentence.

You had a say in them joining at general elections when the policies of the country were decided. Unfortunately, with the UK system that essentially meant a choice between two but that's when you got to have your say.
Click to expand...

Please point me towards a Tory party manifesto that said we would invite Slovenia to join the EU ?

If there is one then silly me I missed it.

Back to the point in question. I would argue its in the interests of Slovenia and any other EU country for the UK to extend the dateline to sort this mess out.
 
No idea if it was specifically mentioned in their manifesto but it was a pretty well known policy goal, even to someone not so well versed in politics as me. A quick Google threw this up:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/tories-conservatives-eu-enlargement-bulgaria

In 2002, Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who went on to defect to Ukip, put it like this: "Tory policy on enlargement is clear. We are in favour of it, for three reasons. First, we owe a moral debt to the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were allowed to fall under the pall of communism after the second world war. Second, by entrenching democracy and the rule of law in eastern Europe, we ensure stability and security for the future. Third, an extra hundred million people in our single market may be a short-term liability, but long term will contribute to growth and prosperity."

A little more digging would, I expect, show pretty clearly for a long time the Tories were in favour of the expansion but I think the point is made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drd
That's pretty sketchy to me and certainly wasn't something high in any Tory manifesto that I ever read or was made public at the time . I certainly agreed with the idea of it encouraging stability between the East and West but even the article itself states Major was using weaker nations to prevent Franco German/ Benelux ambitions for a closer union. Back then many people were struggling with the admission of smaller nations yet that decision to let ten nations in is probably the reason we are where we are now.
 
It's out there if you look for it. The Tories were mostly in favour of expanding but the eurosceptics among them were always causing problems over it. Then Blair's government was very much in favour of it.
 
kirsikka said:
No idea if it was specifically mentioned in their manifesto but it was a pretty well known policy goal, even to someone not so well versed in politics as me. A quick Google threw this up:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/tories-conservatives-eu-enlargement-bulgaria

In 2002, Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who went on to defect to Ukip, put it like this: "Tory policy on enlargement is clear. We are in favour of it, for three reasons. First, we owe a moral debt to the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were allowed to fall under the pall of communism after the second world war. Second, by entrenching democracy and the rule of law in eastern Europe, we ensure stability and security for the future. Third, an extra hundred million people in our single market may be a short-term liability, but long term will contribute to growth and prosperity."

A little more digging would, I expect, show pretty clearly for a long time the Tories were in favour of the expansion but I think the point is made.
Click to expand...

All well and good but these policies are buried deep enough to be pushed through on the sly. No European policy has ever made a significant difference in a UK general election - other than than the indirect impact UKIP had - and therein lies the problem.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
All well and good but these policies are buried deep enough to be pushed through on the sly. No European policy has ever made a significant difference in a UK general election - other than than the indirect impact UKIP had - and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

That's an issue with the UK electoral system rather than anything else. In a PR system UKIP's power would have been far greater and other viewpoints could have made their voice heard as well. However, the UK FPTP system means it's Hobson's choice between two.
 
kirsikka said:
That's an issue with the UK electoral system rather than anything else. In a PR system UKIP's power would have been far greater and other viewpoints could have made their voice heard as well. However, the UK FPTP system means it's Hobson's choice between two.
Click to expand...
And it’s only worth voting in marginal seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;