Within any community there will be separate groups with distinct needs which leads to conflicts of interest, because what is beneficial for one group could potentially be detrimental to another. For example, allocating funds will always require a careful balancing up of the interests of the groups involved and the funds will be spent in the way that benefits the most people. MEPs are under pressure from countless community and ethnic groups within their constituencies to promote their interests within the European Parliament. The MEP will have to weigh up the beneficial effects of promoting the interests of any of those groups against the possible detriment faced by others. By far the largest ethnic group in this country is white Britons, so MEPs have a duty to promote their interests as it will have the greatest beneficial effect. This is not racist, it is utilitarian.

Although the state tries to do the best for the most people, it does not do this at the expense of the rights of minorities. Minority rights form a base level, above which utilitarian principles can be enacted but never at the cost of denying someone else their basic rights. Representation by an elected official is one of these basic rights. The assumption should never be made that all white Britons have the same interests, or that all minorities will have opposing ones. The divide between races is an imaginary one. All people must be considered equally, some are not more equal than others.

MEPs do not just represent their constituents, they represent their country and its interests in Europe. Sometimes the values and interests of minority groups are in conflict with the values and interests of the country as a whole. In these cases the MEP must stand up for the country as a whole and the interests of the majority which are more likely to protect our long-term interests within Europe.

A healthy and cohesive society is in the long-term interest of the country, and this will not be achieved by promoting one racial group above another.

White British citizens are feeling isolated. The perception that immigrants and ethic minorities have more rights than the “indigenous” population is becoming widespread and is leading to record levels of resentment and conflict. The people who have been members of this society the longest feel like they are being usurped by newcomers to the country. This perception needs to be countered and the way to do this is to show the majority that their interests are once again being promoted by elected officials.

While the majority may feel aggrieved, it is in fact minority groups who have reason to. They are disproportionately likely to be poor, in low paid jobs and victims of crime. Sending the message that their views and interests are less important than those of their white peers strengthens the already prevalent perception that the state does not care about them.

The alleged perception of the majority is a misconception: it is factually inaccurate. The misconception is promoted by explicit racists believing in white superiority, and several tabloid newspapers who seem to take the view that to be able to wave the flag, needs a belief in Little Britain; finally it may be a thoughtless appendage to the poor arguments advanced for a full withdrawal from the EU.

I think the indigenous population of all countries should be prioritised and protected. I feel tremendously sorry for those native peoples who are overridden and ostracised by invaders, especially the Fijians, who are biologically distinct from everyone else and the Australoids, who, although a subdivision of the Caucasoid race (like White Australians) are treated worse than wild animals. We have genetic tests to show who represent the oldest ethnic groups in Europe but these should not be necessary. It's pretty obvious who belongs here and who doesn't.

Many 'white Britons' are hardly Britons at all. How do you define indigenous? I certainly wouldn't be considered British if indigenous was to mean more than couple of generations despite the fact I was born here, educated here and speak English as my native language. Where do you suppose you might end up if Britain was reserved or the indigenous population? While I agree that the treatment of native peoples aound the world have been treated abysmally and this is wrong, surely the aim should now be equality rather than proritising any one set of people.

White Britons have played a greater role in the development of our society over the course of history and as such have the right to expect that their interests be prioritised above those who have not contributed in the same way.

MEPs should represent the interests of all of their constituents regardless of race. Anyone who has the right to vote has the right to expect representation because they are contributing members of the society that MEPs are elected to serve. When someone becomes a member of a society, whether through birth or immigration, they consent to give up certain freedoms in exchange for rights such as political representation. Everyone gives up the same things, and can therefore expect to be represented in the same way. The role of an MEP is to campaign for the interests of their constituents in the European parliament, because those are the people who consent to be governed by them. When they start to differentiate between their constituents and say that some are more deserving of representation than others then they are not fulfilling this duty.

Anti racist legislation has created a society in which white Britons are afraid to stand up for their rights. This is just redressing the balance.

The British government does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race in any situation, and has legislated extensively to prevent it. This, combined with changes in public opinion, has contributed to society becoming far more tolerant over the last few decades. This is beneficial both for ethic minorities, in terms of better opportunity and integration, and whites because it has created a more peaceful Britain. If the government were to suddenly start promoting the interests of one racial group it would undermine their strict anti-racism policy and potentially re-establish old divisions because it would be sending a message of division not harmony.

everyone still has a vote and therefore a democratic voice. But in some difficult situations when the interests of several groups clash an MEP must do what is best for the most people and that will often be the majority ethnic group.

The state giving someone the right to vote is a symbol that that person is an integral part of society who has and deserves to have a say in how that society is run. This is very important for minorities because the knowledge that one is contributing to society gives that person a stake in that society prospering. They are therefore more likely to integrate, because they have a reason to be involved. A policy of ignoring the interests of some enfranchised members of society fundamentally undermines this message. It says that some votes are worth less than others, so people are less likely to integrate because society has said that they are not important stakeholders.