Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Eu: In or out?

  • View Poll Results: Should be stay a member or leave?
    Stay
    58.06%
    Leave
    41.94%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    How many times has the UK successfully voted down or vetoed legislation that would hurt it?
    Just thought of a really good one for you! The EU was attempting to introduce legislation to reduce the number of deaths due to air pollution. Our glorious government single-handedly blocked it!

    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...hs-uk-lobbying
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pmh1)
    My apologies, I didn't know the population of the EU so I quickly googled it and instead it told me that its was 742.5 million (which is all of Europe and I wasn't really paying attention) which meant I got the percentages wrong when I worked them out.

    However we have about 12.6% of the population and we have about 10% of the seats, however I suspect this is because they only want 751 seats exactly (or they only have so many seats?) and so the smaller countries with low population would end up with no seats at all so larger countries (UK, France, Germany) lose out on seats to give smaller nations a little more power so that they aren't completely marginalised and ignored. a 10% share of the seats is still fairly influential we can't just be ignored and it would be difficult for a bill to be passed if every British MEP opposed it as that bill would likely be opposed by other MEP's from other countries that think/act similarly to us.
    The reason it's so disproportionate is not so the smaller countries themselves get more say and aren't drowned out, it's because each country vote for their own parties rather than Europe wide parties.

    751 is the capacity of the parliament

    And we got just a couple of months ago the Ports Services Regulation passed. 451 voted in favour, 243 against, include all 73 of our MEPs and a lot of our allies who have been arguing for an amendment to exempt British ports ever since it was first put to the parliament. This is also a regulation that will be highly damaging the industry in Britain

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pmh1)
    So your issue with the EU is that we don't have more influence/representation even though its proportional to our population and it would be unfair to other countries if we had more? Also its not like when a country joins the Eurozone they immediately agree with them in the EU parliament each. Each country in the Eurozone will still disagree with the others from time to time even Germany and France disagree. Just because the system is fair giving each country the number of MEPs based on its population. Also Denmark has an opt out like us on the Euro.

    These problems with us being marginalised arise because we are simply unwilling to get more involved with the EU which is on us to sort out. It would be unfair and undemocratic for the EU to give us half the MEPs when we only have about 8.6% of the total population of the EU and as such we should have about 8-9% of the MEPs but we have 9.7% so we're actually overrepresented and have more influence/power than we should have.
    No, my objection is to changing from self government to being governed within a megastate!

    Of course I don't want to get more involved with the EU, being in the EEC was easily far enough. There are too many cultural and commercial differences: they dont have Common Law, many EU states don't have Juries, they dont have the tradition of fairness that Common Law and Juries have engendered, many states have family structures that lead to corruption and nepotism, their police are routinely armed, few countries have the attachment of the British to the landscape, they dont have a long term tradition of trading across the world, they have financial regulations that are not suited to a country that is the centre of world finance to name a few... Of course you can take each one in turn and deride it or minimise its importance but the UK has a decent culture and should preserve it (I like the differences and would happily wax lyrical about French culture in the same way).

    The cultural and commercial differences pale into insignificance compared with the absurdity of believing that Croatians, Spaniards and Poles really understand what is good for Londoners or Cornish people. The sensible way for sovereign states to interact is like the EEC, with all states having a veto. The EU, government from Brussels, is a nightmare.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Three is easy enough: ports services
    UK government neither opposed nor supported

    Common fisheries policy
    UK government claims it took the lead to achieve this CFP reform


    Tobacco Products Directive
    The British government's concern was to ensure the the Directive did not prevent it from introducing more stringent restrictions on the sale of tobacco. The other EU members addressed British concerns and the rules on plain packaging in the UK are now more stringent than required by the Directive.

    Rather than the British government considering that these policies hurt British interests, it had no view on one, and enthusiastically supported the other other two.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    UK government neither opposed nor supported
    Which is why I have heard in person from government MEPs that the official position is to oppose and why every single British MEP voted against it? Or perhaps why the opposition is well documented?


    UK government claims it took the lead to achieve this CFP reform

    The British government's concern was to ensure the the Directive did not prevent it from introducing more stringent restrictions on the sale of tobacco. The other EU members addressed British concerns and the rules on plain packaging in the UK are now more stringent than required by the Directive.

    Rather than the British government considering that these policies hurt British interests, it had no view on one, and enthusiastically supported the other other two.
    You also seem to imply that if the government does not oppose something then it cannot be bad.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The reason it's so disproportionate is not so the smaller countries themselves get more say and aren't drowned out, it's because each country vote for their own parties rather than Europe wide parties.

    751 is the capacity of the parliament

    And we got just a couple of months ago the Ports Services Regulation passed. 451 voted in favour, 243 against, include all 73 of our MEPs and a lot of our allies who have been arguing for an amendment to exempt British ports ever since it was first put to the parliament. This is also a regulation that will be highly damaging the industry in Britain

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Firstly Europe wide parties are national parties the Europe wide parties are made up of the national parties for example Labour is part of the European party Socialist and Democrats (S&D) therefore its irrelevant if you vote for a national party or not as each national party is affiliated to a European one. Even UKIP is a part of the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe (ADDE). So people voting for national parties has nothing do to with that parliament being slightly disproportionate. Instead I think that It is actually to prevent smaller states being irrelevant (as some countries don't have enough of a population to even get 1 MEP (if my numbers were right then malta should get about 0.5 or 0.6)) and you could just ignore the smaller states. Also upon reading the wiki for "apportionment in european parliament" it mentions this:
    "... the smaller states (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) were concerned about being underrepresented and hence they were granted more seats than their population would have allowed."
    The system is meant to give less MEPs to larger countries and more to smaller as the seats are distributed "degressively proportional" and it mentions this in the Treaties.

    As for the ports services regulation, I checked how our MEPS voted using this site: (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-mar...on-vote-2.html) and 1 of our MEPS voted in favour and 7 were absent or chose not to vote. However out MEPs did vote overwhelmingly to reject it so I took a look at how other countries voted in total, (Also who are our allies exactly?) the only ones to reject the proposal other than us were: Poland and spain (with cyprus being 50/50). Our usual allies I suspect are the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. They voted as such: (For:Against) 17:7 9:1 14:2 10:1 respectively. So the EU parliament did as it should pass bills that it sees as the best for the common good of the EU as a whole and not a particular nation. Looking into this regulation I found that the reason it's is believed that it will have a negative impact on our ports and not continental ports is due to the fact that many of our own ports a privately owned whereas continental ports tend to be state/council owned. So even if this will have a negative impact (I couldn't find anything telling me that it would be highly damaging (I couldn't find any figures and got bored while researching this)) we're just gonna have to deal with it if it's going to have a positive impact on the rest of the EU. Plus one bill that we vote overwhelmingly against will happen from time to time but it is quite rare I believe we can't just have every thing that we like about the EU and reject every negative. (was gonna type some more but I reckon my post is long enough)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In in the event of a Brexit there would soon be a vote of no confidence in the conservative party to where David Cameron would be removed as party head and there would be a election in the party to decide on the new leader most likely to be one of the following Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. Then the party may call for a new general election or the new head will stand as PM for the rest of David Cameron's remaining term.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Three is easy enough: ports services regulation
    Common fisheries policy
    Tobacco Products Directive
    I can't comment on Ports Services Regulation because I know nothing about it. The Common Fisheries Policy is a convenient scapegoat. Fish populations were steadily declining for more than half a century before the EU existed. At the very worst, the CFP brought forward the inevitable by a few years. I'd say they more than made up for it with the environmental protections implemented. The CFP is the sole reason that fish populations are going to be able to recover. I don't understand what people would prefer - scrap the quotas and fish them all into extinction, like we were on course to do before the CFP was implemented? That'd do wonders for our fishing industry...

    The Tobacco Products Directive I can agree on.

    Tory that have harmed the UK:
    Psychoactive Substances Act - expensive, unenforceable, already tried in Ireland and made the problem it set out to solve significantly worse.
    Investigatory Powers Bill - expensive, unworkable, experts believe it won't help solve the problem it sets out to solve, but it will compromise our right to privacy and our online security.
    Trades Union Bill - severely restricts workers' rights to strike, an attack on the most vulnerable.
    Human Rights Act - currently trying to repeal our Human Rights Act and replace it with their own. The precedent that that sets - we can alter human rights willy-nilly whenever it seems convenient - is terrifying, and the prospect of a Tory government controlling our human rights even more so.
    Boundary Review - I don't think I need to explain why gerrymandering is bad.
    Education Reforms - what an absolute mess. Cut funding to rebuild the schools that are falling to bits, and instead spent billions on reforming our education system. Only, instead of an evidence-based approach, the reforms were based entirely on the whims of Michael Gove, and directly contrary to what we can see working in the real world.
    Anti-Lobbying Research Clause - they've added a clause into the contracts governing government-funded research, so that researchers are no longer allowed to lobby for policy change based on their work. They are literally censoring scientific discourse to make it easier to push their anti-science policies.
    Repeal of animal welfare legislation - to bring in an "industry-led" approach to animal welfare. Could they possibly make it sound any more sinister?
    Bedroom Tax - steal from the poorest and most vulnerable in the country, and give to the rich elite. Suicide rates shot up during IDS's reign of terror, and that very same man is now telling us we need to leave the EU to protect the poor. What an absolute joke.
    Disability Welfare Reforms - taking the decisions of who needs disability benefits out of the hands of doctors (you know, people actually qualified to assess that...) and into the hands of bureaucrats with checklists. Thousands of disabled people who are just not capable of working have been denied money that they need to survive. People with debilitating, even terminal diseases are forced to attend regular assessments to keep receiving their benefits. We have to regularly check that the people with terminal cancer still have terminal cancer, and aren't just stealing our hard earned taxes...
    Privatisation of Public Services - the NHS and the education system are slowly being sold off. Not only are they causing irreversible damage by doing this, they're also deliberately underfunding public services to justify it.
    Legalisation of fox hunting - cruel, barbaric, disgusting, and serves no purpose other than entertainment for the elite. We might as well go back to living in caves.
    Infrastructure Act 2015 - in spite of significant evidence that fracking in harmful to the local environment and even a danger to people living nearby, and increasing pressure from the rest of the world to combat climate change, the Conservatives made it legal to engage in fracking under homes without the homeowners' consent.
    Climate Change Legislation - the Tories are vehemently anti-science, and are willing to throw the entire world under the bus to make a short-term profit. A recent example: they single-handedly blocked an EU proposal which would aim to half the rate of deaths due to air pollution. They're literally willing to kill us to save some money. They've also halted subsidies for solar, wind and biomass energy.
    Scrapped targets to reduce child poverty - I think this speaks for itself, really.
    Increase in tuition fees - whether you support increased tuition fees or not isn't really relevant here because, in an incredible display of incompetence, the government managed to triple tuition fees while bringing in the same amount of revenue as when they were capped at £3k.
    Review of the Freedom of Information Act - the piece of legislation designed specifically to allow us to see what our own government is doing, so we can actually make informed decisions, is being "reviewed". Their review will probably conclude that it'd be easier to engage in their gerrymandering and gagging of researchers if the FOIA didn't exist...

    I said I'd only give 6, but it was hard to pick just 6 out of the mountains of **** that this government is leaving in its wake.

    As a bonus, some EU legislation that's benefited the UK!

    Climate change package - a set of legislation aiming to significantly reduce climate change.
    Banned sow stalls for pigs and barren cages for battery hens - leading the way in animal rights once again. It was also the EU that banned animal testing of cosmetics.
    Consumer protection and safety - we have the best set of consumer rights in the world, and the safest products, due to a comprehensive set of regulations put in place by the EU.
    Online rights - while our own government is spending billions trying (and failing) to spy on us, the EU has given us some of the best online privacy legislation in the world, protecting our personal data from large corporations.
    Working Time Directive - just one example of EU legislation to give workers rights and protections. The WTD guarantees us maximum working hours, rest breaks, and annual leave among other things.
    Equal Pay - the EU introduced legislation to prevent discrimination in pay decades ago, and has more recently given more rights to part-time workers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pmh1)
    Firstly Europe wide parties are national parties the Europe wide parties are made up of the national parties for example Labour is part of the European party Socialist and Democrats (S&D) therefore its irrelevant if you vote for a national party or not as each national party is affiliated to a European one. Even UKIP is a part of the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe (ADDE). So people voting for national parties has nothing do to with that parliament being slightly disproportionate. Instead I think that It is actually to prevent smaller states being irrelevant (as some countries don't have enough of a population to even get 1 MEP (if my numbers were right then malta should get about 0.5 or 0.6)) and you could just ignore the smaller states. Also upon reading the wiki for "apportionment in european parliament" it mentions this:
    "... the smaller states (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) were concerned about being underrepresented and hence they were granted more seats than their population would have allowed."
    The system is meant to give less MEPs to larger countries and more to smaller as the seats are distributed "degressively proportional" and it mentions this in the Treaties.

    As for the ports services regulation, I checked how our MEPS voted using this site: (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-mar...on-vote-2.html) and 1 of our MEPS voted in favour and 7 were absent or chose not to vote. However out MEPs did vote overwhelmingly to reject it so I took a look at how other countries voted in total, (Also who are our allies exactly?) the only ones to reject the proposal other than us were: Poland and spain (with cyprus being 50/50). Our usual allies I suspect are the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. They voted as such: (For:Against) 17:7 9:1 14:2 10:1 respectively. So the EU parliament did as it should pass bills that it sees as the best for the common good of the EU as a whole and not a particular nation. Looking into this regulation I found that the reason it's is believed that it will have a negative impact on our ports and not continental ports is due to the fact that many of our own ports a privately owned whereas continental ports tend to be state/council owned. So even if this will have a negative impact (I couldn't find anything telling me that it would be highly damaging (I couldn't find any figures and got bored while researching this)) we're just gonna have to deal with it if it's going to have a positive impact on the rest of the EU. Plus one bill that we vote overwhelmingly against will happen from time to time but it is quite rare I believe we can't just have every thing that we like about the EU and reject every negative. (was gonna type some more but I reckon my post is long enough)
    "Yeah dude it's okay if the bullies take that kid's lunch money, it's for the best. This way, everyone has a little extra money. Never mind the poor kid."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The Common Fisheries Policy is a convenient scapegoat. Fish populations were steadily declining for more than half a century before the EU existed. At the very worst, the CFP brought forward the inevitable by a few years. I'd say they more than made up for it with the environmental protections implemented. The CFP is the sole reason that fish populations are going to be able to recover. I don't understand what people would prefer - scrap the quotas and fish them all into extinction, like we were on course to do before the CFP was implemented? That'd do wonders for our fishing industry....
    holy

    ****

    okay, I've had enough of ****ing remainers not understand exactly how the CFP ****ed the UK fishing industry.

    we're going to explain this with ****ing crayons because you need something you're familiar with

    Here's the total fish resources in the UK's waters.



    Now, we can't fish all of those, otherwise they'd die out. So we only fish this many.



    If this was all the CFP was, we wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, it grants THE REST OF THE EU access to these fish stocks, and limits how many of OUR fish we're allowed to take for ourselves. So the EU nations take the top part, we get left with the bottom.



    This is what has ruined the fishing industry.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, my objection is to changing from self government to being governed within a megastate!

    Of course I don't want to get more involved with the EU, being in the EEC was easily far enough. There are too many cultural and commercial differences: they dont have Common Law, many EU states don't have Juries, they dont have the tradition of fairness that Common Law and Juries have engendered, many states have family structures that lead to corruption and nepotism, their police are routinely armed, few countries have the attachment of the British to the landscape, they dont have a long term tradition of trading across the world, they have financial regulations that are not suited to a country that is the centre of world finance to name a few... Of course you can take each one in turn and deride it or minimise its importance but the UK has a decent culture and should preserve it (I like the differences and would happily wax lyrical about French culture in the same way).

    The cultural and commercial differences pale into insignificance compared with the absurdity of believing that Croatians, Spaniards and Poles really understand what is good for Londoners or Cornish people. The sensible way for sovereign states to interact is like the EEC, with all states having a veto. The EU, government from Brussels, is a nightmare.
    Eu states don't have juries? what? I know France has Juries not sure on other countries.

    Common law vs civil law don't know the difference so can't argue here.

    For corruption I don't know which countries you refer to when you talk about family structures so I'll just copy and paste from this website "http://www.diploweb.com/Corruption-remains-a-challenge-for.html"

    First there are the 13 most corrupt countries in the EU : Greece, Bulgaria and Romania (3.8 out of 10) ; Italy (4.3) ; Latvia and Slovakia (4.5) ; Lithuania and the Czech Republic (4.9) ; Poland (5, the same as the global average) ; Hungary (5.1) ; Malta (5.2) ; Portugal (5.8) ; Spain (6.1).
    Note that this group of 13 countries that have a rather poor score with respect to corruption has 9 new member states (NMS). In other words, the influence of their situation prior to membership of the Union remains significant.
    Also note that Greece, which entered the European Community 29 years ago on January 1st 1981 and entered the Eurozone 9 years ago in 2001, shows a level of corruption as high as Bulgaria and Romania who entered the EU in 2007.The following are the 14 EU-27 member states who are the least corrupt : Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus (6.6 out of 10) ; France (6.9) ; Belgium (7.1) ; United Kingdom (7.7) ; Austria (7.9) ; Germany and Ireland (8) ; Luxembourg (8.2) ; Finland and the Netherlands (8.9) ; Sweden (9.2) and Denmark (9.3).This group of least corrupt EU countries includes 3 of the 12 new member states of which 2 are former communist states. Estonia and Slovenia prove that there is no inevitable link between post-communism and corruption.

    Police are armed in what way? With Guns? and what do you mean attachment to the landscape? if this is referring to pollution then until we joined the EU we had terrible pollution laws and and had a heavily polluted environment compared to today.

    Long term tradition of trading across the world? while many countries don't the biggest and most influential European countries do (France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands to a lesser extend Germany and Italy).

    "they have financial regulations that are not suited to a country that is the centre of world finance" I agree

    If all states had a veto then Little could be done as most of the time at least one country will disagree and will veto.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    "Yeah dude it's okay if the bullies take that kid's lunch money, it's for the best. This way, everyone has a little extra money. Never mind the poor kid."
    Firstly, I put forward a few arguments on different topics so if you're gonna quote me please remove the bits that aren't relevant.

    Secondly, In no way are we being bullied. In the parliament our MEP's have been in the minority about 12% of the time (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ope-study-MEPs) since 2009 and since 2004 we have agreed with them 71% of the time so while yes we are most likely country to be outvoted, most of the time we're on the winning side.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pmh1)
    Firstly, I put forward a few arguments on different topics so if you're gonna quote me please remove the bits that aren't relevant.

    Secondly, In no way are we being bullied. In the parliament our MEP's have been in the minority about 12% of the time (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ope-study-MEPs) since 2009 and since 2004 we have agreed with them 71% of the time so while yes we are most likely country to be outvoted, most of the time we're on the winning side.
    It isn't about the stuff we do like passing, because we could pass that stuff ourselves, outside of the EU.
    It's the stuff we don't like passing that is important.

    "Who cares if you have to eat cyanide every 10 meals, don't you enjoy the meals in between?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    It isn't about the stuff we do like passing, because we could pass that stuff ourselves, outside of the EU.
    It's the stuff we don't like passing that is important.

    "Who cares if you have to eat cyanide every 10 meals, don't you enjoy the meals in between?"
    You're right we can pass things ourselves. The Issue is our government is not fairly elected (37% of the vote equals a majority government) and so they end up passing laws that the british people don't want either. Just because the EU sometimes passes stuff we don't want isn't that good a reason to just leave otherwise I'll use the arguement that the North of England should declare independence because the British government sometimes passes laws we don't want.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    holy

    ****

    okay, I've had enough of ****ing remainers not understand exactly how the CFP ****ed the UK fishing industry.

    we're going to explain this with ****ing crayons because you need something you're familiar with

    Here's the total fish resources in the UK's waters.



    Now, we can't fish all of those, otherwise they'd die out. So we only fish this many.



    If this was all the CFP was, we wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, it grants THE REST OF THE EU access to these fish stocks, and limits how many of OUR fish we're allowed to take for ourselves. So the EU nations take the top part, we get left with the bottom.



    This is what has ruined the fishing industry.
    But the UK gets by far the largest proportion of haddock, cod, lemon sole, and mackerel.

    No, the effects of quotas by country are VERY, VERY exaggerated. We could leave the EU today and take 100% of the fish in our waters, but you'd find that we're still getting no fish, because fish stocks are depleted. Fish populations have been in decline for the last 120 years, it just so happened that the British fishing industry started to feel the effects around the time CFP was introduced. It's more coincidence than anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pmh1)
    You're right we can pass things ourselves. The Issue is our government is not fairly elected (37% of the vote equals a majority government) and so they end up passing laws that the british people don't want either. Just because the EU sometimes passes stuff we don't want isn't that good a reason to just leave otherwise I'll use the arguement that the North of England should declare independence because the British government sometimes passes laws we don't want.
    Leave the EU, demand a referendum on PR, we'll either get it before the next GE or we'll get it as a result of the next GE as every party promises it in order to win votes.
    This is how democracy works.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    But the UK gets by far the largest proportion of haddock, cod, lemon sole, and mackerel.

    No, the effects of quotas by country are VERY, VERY exaggerated. We could leave the EU today and take 100% of the fish in our waters, but you'd find that we're still getting no fish, because fish stocks are depleted. Fish populations have been in decline for the last 120 years, it just so happened that the British fishing industry started to feel the effects around the time CFP was introduced. It's more coincidence than anything.
    If we pulled out of the EU, would we gain access to 100% of our sustainable catch? Yes or no?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Leave the EU, demand a referendum on PR, we'll either get it before the next GE or we'll get it as a result of the next GE as every party promises it in order to win votes.
    This is how democracy works.



    If we pulled out of the EU, would we gain access to 100% of our sustainable catch? Yes or no?
    Yes.

    But 100% of a very small number is still a very small number. Fish stocks have declined 94% in the last 100 years. The fishing industry is ****ed until the populations recover.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yes.

    But 100% of a very small number is still a very small number. Fish stocks have declined 94% in the last 100 years. The fishing industry is ****ed until the populations recover.
    So lets catch what we can of it or alternatively maintain our current catch rate and stop the rest of the EU from taking the rest, letting the population recover faster.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Can't think of a single argument for remaining. The handling of the migrant crisis, immigration, Ukraine, ISIL security, multinational corporations, manufacturing and the euro in general should be enough to convince any sane person that we shouldn't be governed by an elite in Brussels...
    preach
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.