Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Factual comments on Brexiter posts on Otto English’s Daniel Barenboim BBC Prom video.

The comments by nearly all the anti-EU people on this video illustrate all that was wrong with the EU referendum, what failed during the referendum and what failed since. There are exceptions – there are some more informed and well argued comments but most are textbook of the worst lies, fakes, myths and anti-EU propaganda that has been rammed down the throats of people in Britain by the tabloid press, right wing and far left wing politicians / Trades Unions, and the billionaire backers of Brexit. That is what is so utterly shameful about the referendum.

This wonderful principled life affirming passionate plea by the World famous international conductor Daniel Barenboim, at the BBC Proms, has been followed on a You Tube post by a torrent of incorrect and untrue statements about the EU. Argument, much of it by myself, has come to dominate in the thread after the video the humanitarian points made by Mr. Barenboim. The comments and ‘likes’ by many do answer the stereotype of ‘the Proms’ being an English/British nationalist event when I found myself – through the family I married into – that the Proms is for lovers of classical music and culture. As I’ve taken up much time myself on the YouTube thread I’ve put answers to the main factually untrue statements here on my website.

The main anti-EU ‘myths’ or lies put forward in these threads.
1. Bendy or straight bananas. Nonsense.
2. Laws are made in Brussels. Greatly exaggerated.
3. Imperial martyrs or metric martyrs. As daft as the Duke of Essex.
4. Auditors have signed off the EU accounts for many years.
5. “Only the unelected commissioners can propose laws”. True. But Commissioners are civil servants proposed by the member countries and voted in by the democratically elected EU Parliament. Civil servants are not usually elected in any country. Improvement and reform are, as pro- and anti-EU critics agree, greatly needed.

4 untrue. 1 true. So 1 out of 5 to the anti-EU commentators.

For detail see:

Detail. For sources, see below.
1. Bendy bananas. Anyone can sell straight bananas. The EU regulations are a trade system of classifying bananas. Your supermarket can sell them if it wants to.

2. Our laws are made in the UK and most do not originate from European Union regulations.
“An estimated 13% of Acts and Statutory Instruments have an EU influence, whereas that rises to 62% when EU regulations are included in addition to Acts and Statutory Instruments.”
“13% is likely to be too low, in reality, but 62% is much too high”
In Criminal Law – what many people think of as the most serious law – my own field, EU influence is minimal (much of what there is due to environmental, consumer protection and UK agreed fight against terrorism and serious crime measures).

3. Goods can be sold in imperial measures but they have to have metric on. No one is stopping any trader quantifying goods in Imperial – there is no metric martyr just a publicity hungry metric phobe. The UK signed up to metric before joining the EU & it’s why we have systems of weights and measures – why feet and ounces etc. were introduced originally – to facilitate fair trade. No one is stopping me buying my pint of 556ml of beer.

4. Auditors have signed off the EU accounts for nearly ten years and before that highlighted discrepancies that were mostly down to lack of proper accounting for spending in members states – by the public authorities and those given grants in our own countries. “auditors have not signed off the accounts since 1994” This statement has been factually corrected numerous times.

5. “Only the unelected commissioners can propose laws”. True. But Commissioners are civil servants proposed by the member countries and voted in by the democratically elected EU Parliament. MEPs can make proposals to go to the Commission for consideration, just as in reality British MPs can only really make suggestions for policy as the Government decides what the policies are. For more on the Commission see the next article, by former MEP Chris Davies (Liberal Democrat, NW England) on the roles of the Commission and Parliament.

So MEPs can suggest new laws – in reality the same as UK MPs – and have equal power to make law in most areas. This is an intra-country system, not a country’s Parliament. However, I agree that the democratically elected Parliament should have more powers. The EU Commission is more open to scrutiny and transparent than the UK ministries & civil service but I still agree with many critics, and with President Macron, that the EU is too bureaucratic and expensive and needs reform. The failure of British Tory and Labour Prime Ministers and MPs to achieve this is one of the biggest failures of British political leadership over the last decades. I’ve argued this for many years – our representatives have failed to do so.

Sources (there are many more for each one)
1. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html Of course if you don’t trust the EU (who like any public body provide masses of factual information) you can check one of many other sources.
Banana lie shown false more than a decade ago.

2. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm

4. “The ECA [European Court of Auditors] signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable, as it has for every set of figures since 2007. But it did find that payments were materially affected by errors.” Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Last updated: 10 Nov 2015
https://fullfact.org/economy/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

5. Apart from the Chris Davies article I reproduce there are good pieces by other British Members of the European Parliament who use their position to explain what really happens in Brussels. Including: Labour Yorkshire & Humber Linda McAvan: http://www.lindamcavanmep.org.uk/how-the-eu-works.php and Green for the South West Molly Scott Cato: http://mollymep.org.uk/european-parliament/how-laws-are-made/
Labour MEP Richard Corbett’s refreshingly clear more political Mythbuster can be found here: http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/category/mythbusters/

Cover note.

The comments by nearly all the anti-EU people on this video illustrate all that was wrong with the EU referendum, what failed during the referendum and what failed since. There are exceptions – there are some more informed and well argued comments (some from ‘Creme Creme’, although he or she repeats the ‘parity of lies’ nonsense; some from ‘caesarott’ and some from Julian Morgan). Nearly every comment by ‘chrish12345’ is an absolute textbook of the worst lies, fakes, myths and anti-EU propaganda that has been rammed down the throats of people in Britain by the tabloid press, right wing and far left wing politicians / Trades Unions, and the billionaire backers of Brexit. That is what is so utterly shameful about the referendum. The majority of our political leaders – Labour, Conservative and most Liberal Democrat for many years – failed to tell the truth about the EU to people, to explain what the EU does and the BBC gave lies and myths equal coverage to actual facts. During the referendum this continued unabated and in the year since it has been an end to truth. The people who don’t like truth just don’t believe it.

The EU has overseen the longest period of peace between European nations in modern history. The European Community was specifically founded to ensure peace between France and Germany & that other countries are not caught up in a wider European war as happened for centuries. You may not like a quote from the New European newspaper but it sums it up perfectly “The politician who created the European Union did so because they had witnessed war and they had felt its devastation personally. They never wanted it to happen again.” Ian Walker obituary of Helmut Kohl, 23 June.

Really want to see what happens in reality ‘in Brussels’? Go and visit the wonderful Belgium capital which happens to host the EU headquarters and go and see the EU Parliament and Commission for yourself. In reality not in internet and tabloid myth and lies.

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

An excess of flats planned for Liverpool river side Festival Gardens site.

Festival Gardens site Liverpool 2007 & 2017

How Liverpool City Council repeats the mistakes of ten years ago in its plans for the former Garden Festival site, a prime River Mersey side location three miles south of the iconic Pier Head. An excess of flats are planned for the Liverpool river side Festival Gardens site by the Labour Mayor & Council and its development partners, the same mistake that the Council was proposing in 2007 under Liberal Democrat control. The site is a brownfield former landfill site that was famous as the location of the Liverpool International Garden Festival in 1984, one of the initiatives supported by Conservative Minister, Michael Heseltine, that started to stop the decline in the Liverpool City Region. In fact Mayor Anderson and the Council are wanting to cram even more properties onto the site – 2500 as reported by Your Move magazine instead of the 1400 nearly all flats I object to in 2007. My objection in 2007 is set out in the attached submission to the City Council’s then ‘Executive Board’ (Cabinet) and article / report which detailed my reasons for objecting. The reasons are the same now as then – Liverpool needs a variety of housing stock to encourage a varied population, and that must include houses rather than just cramming in apartments in nearly every available space. Houses should be family sized houses as well, not just one or two bed town houses. This will help ensure there is space for growing families as well as a growing population.

My objection to flats is linked to the student housing bubble. In Liverpool, and every town and city with any University, no matter how new, the apartments complexes of purpose built student complexes have been thrown up over the last ten to fifteen years at an ever increasing rate. In Liverpool new apartment developments seem to be mostly student complexes. I also believe that the student numbers boom is a bubble that will burst at some point, and therefore many student apartments will be left empty. Re-purposing of those will be needed, as well as investment to help areas thrive and support families moving into vacated student houses. Though after more than ten years of making the prediction that the student numbers bubble in the UK (and everywhere else in the world) must burst it hasn’t looked at all like happening yet. Specifically as to Festival Gardens. More apartments will not necessarily help sustainability of the city’s housing but will help keep prices artificially high because of investors and speculators. Whatever happens with the site, I am sure that the former Garden Festival site, now Festival Gardens, will be a wonderful new city district in the future, and all those who have helped look after the site over the last thirty years will deserve some of the credit.

Liverpool City Council’s Festival Park masterplan can be found on the City Council website.
My background information for this post has included articles in Your Move magazine online, the City Region’s premier property and lifestyle magazine, and reports from the St. Michael’s ward Green Party councillors, who represent the effected area and have raised objections to the scale of the plans and implications.

gardenfest-art

gardenfest-object

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Lessons from John Buchan for today.

Thanks to David Weekes PhD student at St Andrews University for letting me know that this document had also disappeared from my migrated website. Originally written in 2010 and posted on the website in about 2013.
In a later comment I made clear the similarity between inspirational young trade union leader Joe Utlaw and Nick Clegg in 2010 (doing what they think is right in the public interest and being rejected by the public).
I use many of the same John Buchan references and some of the commentary in this post from 2011 /2011/09/04/two-caveats-on-the-financial-crisis-peoples-irresponsible-borrowing-and-the-finance-sector-cashing-in-out-of-the-economic-crisis-fair-blame-and-fairer-shares/

Lessons from John Buchan for today

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Spineless MPs betray the country and all Europe on Article 50.

Theresa May’s Article 50 trigger letter starts with a lie & contains lies throughout – that’s pro-Brexit all along. The Tories & vast majority of Labour MPs have shamefully been captured by the lying, dishonest fraudulent agenda of the Anti-EU extremists.
Read the third to last paragraph of May’s letter and see how damaging Brexit is. Typical Tory though that financial services merit pride of place and no mention of the environment (or actual production of things magically appearing again in the new UK). No mention of Gibraltar either. The Conservative Prime Minister seems determined to take Britain back to the 1980s at least. Investing in nuclear weapons & trading with brutal Middle Eastern dictators & wannabes is a perverse way to make Britain great out from peace loving EU. In a comment on 15 March I called the MPs who backed an earlier vote to trigger Article 50 traitors. “335 MPs voting Art. 50 power to unelected Prime Minister of minority party with no restraint. Traitors damaging peace of post War Europe”. It is treacherous to put personal position and ambition above the duty of an MP to stand for the best interests of the country. And the principle that countries have worked for fifty years to guard peace in Europe is one British Members of Parliament should have taken a stand for against the lies, populism and ignorance.
It is especially disappointing that on Merseyside only three Labour MPs (and the one Lib Dem) had the courage to vote against Article 50, despite how much our Liverpool city region has benefited from European Union investment and from European Union tourists, students and immigrants.
The Harry Potter shop at Heathrow Airport is more realistic than the Government’s Brexit plan. And Harry Potter has done far more for the British economy and World reputation than Brexit. Potter believes in truth and justice – anathema to the lying fraudulent anti-EU Brextremists. But it is fiction just like the Tory UKIP and fellow traveller lies

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar could remain in the EU as continuing parts of the UK.

Ian Campbell debunked the official UK Government legal analysis that said an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU. Now in a 2016 article he’s convincingly put a case that “the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland could continue as a member of the EU without England & Wales.”

Writing in the Scottish Solicitors’ Journal online: ‘The author argues that in light of the position it took ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, the UK Government in effect made a covenant to advance the cause of Scotland remaining within the EU’.
“just as the UK Government was willing to assert in 2013-14 that the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland could continue as a member of the EU without Scotland, so it is open to it to adopt the standpoint in forthcoming negotiations with the EU that the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland could continue as a member of the EU without England & Wales.”
‘2014 revisited: championing Scotland in the EU’, 18 July 2016, by Ian Campbell

“2014 revisited: championing Scotland in the EU” Journal Online of the Law Society of Scotland, July 2016.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/61-7/1021968.aspx

This is really a tour de force. A first rate article. I recommend it generally, but specifically to friends in Gibraltar and Scotland interested in law and politics, in addition to being useful for students of constitutional law.

The only thing I think it misses is directly setting out any quote or specific reference to a UK Government / pro-Union promise on the EU. Of course it was clearly implicit in the explicit official legal analysis that said an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU.

This is exactly the article that I thought was needed; including cross referencing Campbell’s earlier work. His references on the EU and Scotland debate are in the notes, including several articles for the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, and evidence to the Parliamentary enquiries.

Ian Campbell, selected publications:

Publications on Scotland, the 1707 Union and the EU
a) “From the ‘Personal Union’ between England and Scotland in 1603 to the European Communities Act 1972 and Beyond – Enduring Legal Problems from an Historical Viewpoint”, Jackson and McGoldrick (eds.) Legal Visions of the New Europe (London: Graham and Trotman, 1993) pp. 37-104.
b) “The “State”, the “Crown” and the Union of Scotland and England: Reflections on what might become the Sovereign’s “New Clothes””, Juridical Review (2014)
pp. 165-176.
c) ““The Union and the Law” revisited”, Journal Online of the Law Society of Scotland, July 2014
d) “Dissolving the Union”, Journal Online of the Law Society of Scotland, July 2014
e) “Balancing the Right to Decide” Journal Online of the Law Society of Scotland, December 2014
f) “2014 revisited: championing Scotland in the EU” Journal Online of the Law Society of Scotland, July 2016.
Ian Campbell’s relevant body of work is set out at the end, with occasional explanation from Ian and summaries pulled by me from the publications themselves and our correspondence. A shorter version of this piece, ending immediately above, is published on my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scotland-northern-ireland-gibraltar-could-remain-eu-continuing-reid

My political comments are next.

There is no principle constitutionally to prevent parts of the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union, while England and Wales leave. The official UK Government case against a breakaway by Scotland included that an independent Scotland would have to apply again to join the EU. Only by staying in the United Kingdom could EU membership be guaranteed. Now it is argued that a majority of English and Welsh voters must drag Scotland out of the European Union. [And Northern Ireland too]. During the Scottish independence referendum I wrote “Some of the arguments of the No campaign are negative and scaremongering. Others appear only to appeal to financial arguments. And their constitutional law arguments about EU membership have been thoroughly tested if not completely discredited by my good friend former judge and constitutional law expert Ian Campbell.” On re-reading Ian’s work I concluded that the UK Government official case on Scotland and EU membership was wrong. A newly re-independent Scotland would be at least as much a successor to the UK in the European Union as the remainder England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Now similar lazy constitutional law arguments are being rolled out by Brexiteers, including a few of those educated in constitutional law who should know better. It would take ingenuity, nimble diplomacy and real audacious political thinking – in the UK and mainland Europe’s capitals, but the parts of the UK who, with Gibraltar, voted to remain could be accommodated as continuing members of the EU while the English (and, unfortunately also, Welsh) ‘nations’ left the EU.

I disagree with Scottish independence, I find no good reason for breaking up the union of all people in Great Britain, and certainly not based on invented romantic nationalism and economic rainbow theory. Nationalism and breaking up countries I am convinced by my experience in the Balkans and former Soviet Union is no good way to deal with social, political and international problems, as well as seeing the disaster in South Sudan despite the warnings from similar trajectory in many newly independent states. Twenty six years ago I took a different – almost automatically in favour – view on independence for small countries. As an ex-naive Irish nationalist, still a supporter of self-determination and cultural flourishing, I find it ironic that nationalists and populists in UK have through their hate of the EU pushed the United Kingdom nearer breaking up.

Ian Campbell’s recent body of work on constitutional law, Scotland, independence and membership of the European Union.

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/59-7/1014185.aspx
“The Union and the law” revisited
14 JULY 14
Referring to the article of this title by the late Professor Walker, this essay argues that the “rUK continuator” analysis of Scottish independence by Professors Crawford and Boyle is legally and historically unsound
by Ian Campbell

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Referendum/1014265.aspx
Dissolving the Union
22 JUL 14
Comment on “Scotland’s Constitutional Future 2” and Scotland’s status
by Ian Campbell

Campbell submitted evidence to Parliamentary committees in both Westminster and Edinburgh.

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/01_I_B_Campbell.pdf
To the European and External Relations Committee, Scottish Parliament, January 2014.
Campbell disputes the opinion of Professors James Crawford SC and Alan Boyle in a paper for HM Government, 2013 Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/Scottish%20independence/Scottish-Independence-evidence-volume-24-April.pdf [see evidence at pp. 37 – 42 – out of 150 pg document of all the evidence], submitted February 2014
‘Scottish Independence: constitutional implications of the referendum’ House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Inquiry into Scottish Independence: Constitutional Implications for the rest of the UK. Oral and written evidence, published April 2014.

These two sets of written evidence formed the basis for Campbell’s Juridical Review article (2014 pp 165-176) which I encouraged him to write.

The Juridical Review 2014 (3), 165-176 “The ‘State’, the ‘Crown’ and the Union of Scotland and England: Reflections on what might become the Sovereign’s ‘new clothes’”.

This is Scotland’s leading law journal – you may be able to find it in a University library.

In October 2016 Ian Campbell submitted a detailed paper – on the theme of his latest Journal article – to the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament.
http://www.parliament.scot/General%20Documents/Professor_Ian_Campbell.pdf
European and External Relations Committee ‘The EU referendum and its implications for Scotland’, 8 pg.

Previously, his third article for the Scottish Solicitors on-line journal was concerned with the power to hold referenda:
‘Balancing the right to decide’ 15 December 2014
The case that equality within the Union requires Scotland to have a permanent power to hold a legally binding independence referendum
by Ian Campbell
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/59-12/1016739.aspx

which formed the basis for the following written evidence (5 pg):

http://www.parliament.scot/Ian_Campbell.pdf

Scotland Bill
Ian Campbell, Honorary Visiting Professor, School Of Law,
University Of Liverpool
Re: Paragraph 18 of the Smith Commission Report
Introduction
This paper focuses on Paragraph 18 of the Smith Commission Report which is
contained in the Introduction to Chapter 2 of that Report under the heading “Heads
of Agreement: Introduction”. Paragraph 18 reads: “It is agreed that nothing in this
report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the
people of Scotland so choose.”

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

If you want to slag off politicians in general, find out what work they do

Overheard on the Northern Line train, the usual nonsense “they [politicians / MPs]’re all in for themselves, for how much they can make”, agreement from other passenger. EVERYONE who ever finds themselves saying that should spend a couple of hours actually looking at what most MPs, local councillors, MEPs and working members of the House of Lords do. Many are well paid, but I don’t think many make much money from being politicians, and most work very hard on behalf of their residents, their district, and the country as whole. Attend actual Council committees (or shadow a councillor doing their job), read or watch Parliamentary committees or debates or House of Lords Committees or debates or go and visit, and do of course go to Brussels and see what real MEPs (as opposed to plastic UKIP ones do) and you’ll find that a huge amount of good public spirited work is done. I agree many public representatives are useless, especially in safe seats – and the public put them there. But for crying out loud stop the nonsense of sloganising when you know nothing about the work people do.
For Londoners, Northern line = Liverpool suburbs – Southport to Hunts Cross train.

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Did Theresa May campaign to remain in the EU?

Or did our unelected Conservative Prime Minister of the UK let down those who believe in a modern, inclusive, tolerant society?

I complained to the BBC that they were completely misleading in describing Theresa May as a remain campaigner. The new unelected Prime Minister of the UK stood on the sidelines and let her Conservative Party civil war largely destabilise the whole of Europe and let propaganda win a vote for Britain to turn its back on pluralism and an open society.

I commented on social media “Tim Farron is entirely right on this.” (Facebook) and “I’ve complained to the BBC over them describing Theresa May as a Remain campaigner. Highly misleading. She did not campaign.”

Lib Dem Leader Tim Farron also slated Theresa May in the Guardian for her lack of campaigning to remain in the EU. “Tim Farron: Theresa May did nothing to prevent Brexit.”
http://www.theguardian.com/ politics/2016/jul/26/tim-farron-theresa-may-did-nothing-to-prevent-brexit

I attach my original and renewed complaint to the BBC for its inaccuracy in describing Theresa May as a Remain ‘campaigner’ and there response. Their response to my renewed complaint I agree justifies them in rejecting my complaint. They give several specific examples of Theresa May making statements in support of remaining in the EU. So, not much, little campaigning, but some.

“Notwithstanding the debate about the tone and vigour of her campaigning, we hope the examples above demonstrate why we have no issues in referring to how she “campaigned to remain in the European Union”. ”.

The standard wording attached to the BBC’s reply about complaints says “We realise you will be disappointed to hear this but hope this explains why we are not able to take your complaint further.”

Actually I am not disappointed because in this second response the BBC News website team have given me the evidence to show that they are right and I was, in fact if not political substance, wrong. Before that, my Conservative friend Mark Cotterell had commented “You must have missed TM’s 5 photo ops with Remain placards & her white rosette on Ref Day. But I agree the BBC didn’t cover all but one of those – so maybe that should be your complaint.” (1 August) and I acknowledged “You are right that I have missed those Mark. It’s still not much, but if the BBC had given me that answer then I would begrudgingly have accepted it and wrapped my complaint up.” So our new Prime Minister – as unelected as a Brussels bureaucrat – let down a generation by a lack of leadership or conviction, but it did get her the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Prime Ministership of a very disunited Kingdom.

Theresa May BBC news website complaint

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Stronger In bores on economics rather than fights on principles

4 June 2016.

My reply to Stronger In’s latest fundraising email based on comments by Michael Gove ( the Leave Campaign “can’t guarantee every person currently in work in their current job will keep their job.”). I could have written the same reply also to nearly any of the emails from Will Straw and others.

Re. latest fundraising email.

Dear Lucy,

The more Stronger In send me tedious repetitive emails about economics – speculation about economics at that, like Leave but more credible – the more I despair and am less likely to make any small donation I can afford to a one trick pony campaign that is scaremongering rather than idealistic (though nothing like as badly or outrageously as Leave).

As I just said in comment to a former (Labour) MEP friend.

“How do you think the Referendum campaign is going? I’m worried of course. I think – still after eight months – that IN have failed to sufficiently learn lessons from the Scottish referendum. I’m absolutely fed up with and angry at the almost constant negative campaigning and nearly all focus on the economy instead of anything about principles. Still Leave’s near constant lies are shocking. I think Labour have done well in the last couple of weeks.”

I should have added that the IN campaign’s lack of talking about principles is compounded by its failure to talk about reform. It may be standard campaigning that it has to be good v bad, right v wrong, but the failure to recognise flaws of the EU and to talk about the need for more reform than David Cameron has secured so far, hardly makes it look as if those of us who passionately want to stay in also want to make the EU work better. Some concerns of antis are genuine and realistic and yet we are doing nothing to engage with them. We may not win any of those people over but we’re not even trying.

Yours sincerely,

Kiron Reid

Kiron ReidLeave a comment

Chris Evans, BBC Breakfast Show Radio 2 talks sense on need for modern voter registration system.

Chris Evans, BBC Breakfast Show Radio 2 talks sense on need for modern voter registration system. In Ukraine a voter can register five days before election day. In Macedonia you can check the electoral register online (which you can’t do here)
Chris Evans Breakfast Show BBC Radio 2 08:52 (on iPlayer at 01:23:20, 1 min)

Here’s a thing, what day is it today, is it June the what is it what’s the date is it again, June the eighth, June the 7th
So You have the European Referendum on June 23. Yet You have to register by midnight tonight in order to vote. [chatter chatter] {to actually vote} [chatter] No
Tonight you have to register by midnight to vote.
But, how Why? What It’s only June 23. Why do you have to register two weeks before. You can apparently
My wife says buy a house online and have a brand new house delivered to your door within an hour.
So Why do we have to register to vote in the most important referendum since the Second World War two weeks ahead of time? Surely you can register on the day if you have to. What’s that about. Just asking.