Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

UKIP and the EU Elections

63 posts in this topic

 

Either expand on that or we'll just assume it's another piece of your spittle inflected mouth frothing.

 

You mean that you don't know for what you stand and how you miserably fail to meet it?

 

 

People need to ask themselves what are the reasons these sort of parties gained popularity in the EU elections rather than just complaining that they're a bunch of xenophobic zealots.

 

For many of the posters here, is it simply much easier to show their bigotry and hatred against anyone who has a different opinion rather than truly seek to understand a situation, or indeed another person.

 

 

Have only just seen this. Just unbelievable. They seem to have no limits.

 

While we can certainly put up many stupid UKIP quotes, we should remember than all polticians are susceptible to foot in mouth disease

 

Labour, Hague: Michael McCann said William Hague had referred to Labour's Cathy Jamieson as a “stupid woman”.

 

Labour, Ian Davidson: A Scottish Labour MP has caused anger after comparing the independence debate to war and suggesting "wounded" independence supporters should be bayoneted.

 

Good Ole Boris: "I can hardly condemn UKIP as a bunch of boss-eyed, foam-flecked Euro hysterics, when I have been sometimes not far short of boss-eyed, foam-flecked hysteria myself." OR "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."

 

Labour: Labour MP Austin Mitchell has dismissed calls from Tory MPs to resign after branding US drug giant Pfizer "rapists" on Twitter.

 

Labour: Britain's first male Muslim peer has been suspended by the Labour party and faces losing other positions in public life after allegedly blaming a Jewish conspiracy for his imprisonment for dangerous driving.

 

So, you were saying about UKIP??

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I think the negative perception of the EU in the UK is more down to the actual application of EU laws in the UK, and not the actual laws. Maybe something to do with common law (UK) vs. Napoleonic (some of EU).

 

That´s an interesting point. Could you give a few down-to-earth, real life examples of how that may piss of British voters?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people actually know what the EU does and doesn't do and what they specifically object to, or do they just buy the argument that all bad policy decisions should be blamed on the EU?

 

This EU public opinion poll from March 2014 shows the results of various questions about how people perceive the EU. The results for general questions on what people think about the EU (e.g. on pages T26 and T28) show that UK opinion on the EU is the third lowest in the 28 EU member states. But the results for some more specific questions about the EU, e.g. on pages T38 and T39, show that the UK's results are not overwhelmingly negative but pretty average.

 

So looking at that, I think they're more likely to be buying the general anti-EU propaganda, rather than objecting to specific things, and are just accepting that the bad things in life are the fault of the EU.

 

I seem to remember that during the recent floods in England, there were attempts being made to blame it on the EU, because the EU had recommended that the member states take flood prevention measures. But it was up to them to decide how to do it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real life example:

 

UK: Until January this year, EU citizens could come to UK and immediately claim benefits (after the normal bureaucracy). This was changed in January 2014 so that EU citizens must support themselves (not necessarily working) for 3 months before claiming benefits, but there were several statements from EU that the change was illegal.

 

Germany: You have to contribute for 12 months before getting unemployment benefit. Also, Hartz4 is not an entitlement, for EU citizens arriving in Germany (as the Hartz4 thread shows).

 

Of course the reality is the number of EU citizens moving to the UK just for benefits was very small, and the number of British 'abusing' benefits is much greater, but the open offer of benefits is widely reported in the media and blamed on the EU. Regardless of the scale of the issue, it goes against the sense of fairness that most people (i.e. exclusing those with fringe political believes) have.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Real life example:

 

UK: Until January this year, EU citizens could come to UK and immediately claim benefits (after the normal bureaucracy). This was changed in January 2014 so that EU citizens must support themselves (not necessarily working) for 3 months before claiming benefits, but there were several statements from EU that the change was illegal.

 

Germany: You have to contribute for 12 months before getting unemployment benefit. Also, Hartz4 is not an entitlement, for EU citizens arriving in Germany (as the Hartz4 thread shows).

 

Wasn´t it explicitely stated by some EU officials that Germany has the right to change their laws in such a way that EU citizens who aren´t able to support themselves without social benefits will not be entitled to freedom of movement? I suppose the same is truie for the UK. Apart from that, these are not conflicts between common law and napoleonic law systems. I was referring to that difference when I asked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I think we can find crazy bigoted views from any individual in a party and that Farage taking advantge of the same tax loopholes as most others who can is again avoiding the issue.

 

So back on topic, I personally like the idea of the EU but believe it needs a reset. I think like a fair amount of people I have become resigned to a poltical class full of sentiment but no real action/plans. Whether right or wrong I feel the EU is too often there to grease the palms of those working there and missing little problems of how to prevent Countries like Greece ever getting the situation it did.

 

My personal hope would have been that the anti-eu parties would cause a such a reset but they probably won't. I used to think it crazy for Scotland to go its own way but I read something along the lines that many Scottish politians would like to freashen up the rules & laws, rather than accepting what they see as the entrenched historical system presented by Westminster. Nice sentiment but again can we trust anything a politician says, and there is maybe the crux of the problem...

 

Andy

Ps. My german teacher used to work as a translator in the Eu parliment, the stories of what a gravy train it is, can make you easily lose faith and was the reason she finally quit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Personally, I think the negative perception of the EU in the UK is more down to the actual application of EU laws in the UK, and not the actual laws. Maybe something to do with common law (UK) vs. Napoleonic (some of EU).

 

True, Britons have never really identified themselves as 'Europeans', holidays to France were seen as adventerous for a lot of us until the late 70s, pasta only became a staple food in Britain in the early 90s. In fact, Britain was a very insular country until those 'cultural milestones' came to pass.

Rupert Murdoch's rags, along with the Daily Heil and other choice tabloids like he Express have done a very effective job of convincing the ignoramuses in our country that one EU directive to remove a certain type of chemical from household cleaning products is one short step from the whole of the UK being annexed by Belgium.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever crackdown the UK makes on benefits for immigrants will not affect immigrants at all (as there is no real problem), however they are guaranteed to affect returning expats (e.g. marriage to non-EU national, entitlement to job seekers allowance as not habitually resident etc)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok but does that mean if only 34% have voted and of those 27% voted UKIP, 9% of voters believe the Daily hate mail or such and the real winner goes to political abstainers?!? What would happen if not voting meant the seats would be left empty...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(e.g. marriage to non-EU national

 

Believe me, that's been restricted to the point of almost being impossible for some time now.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Believe me, that's been restricted to the point of almost being impossible for some time now.

 

Quite, but I thought the restriction was initially brought in to stop indians/pakistanis/bengalis bringing in wives/husbands from their homelands. AFAIUI, this restriction has not affected them at all, but it does affect expats

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quite, but I thought the restriction was initially brought in to stop indians/pakistanis/bengalis bringing in wives/husbands from their homelands. AFAIUI, this restriction has not affected them at all, but it does affect expats

 

I don't know about the history of the restriction, but I do know that right now it would be very difficult for my wife (US citizen) to remain in the UK if I ever wanted to go back there, because of that same legislation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So looking at that, I think they're more likely to be buying the general anti-EU propaganda, rather than objecting to specific things, and are just accepting that the bad things in life are the fault of the EU.

 

All the member states of the EU are (nominally at least) democracies. That means that citizens are supposed to have an influence, howsoever diluted it be, on the actions taken by the power that governs them.

 

The EU, originally represented as a free trade zone, has been steadily morphing into something rather state-like. Every major milestone in this evolution has been accomplished without being subjected, except in very few instances, to an electoral litmus test.

 

A vast bureaucratic apparatus has been built and empowered in Brussels, without popular consent.

 

The transfer of huge amounts of money to the periphery, strengthening manifestly corrupt regimes, has been effected, without popular consent.

 

Trade wars (i.e. Bananas and other troublesome fruit) have been carried out against non-EU countries, without popular consent.

 

A currency union yoking together different economies, with different structural profiles and differing business cycles, has been implemented without popular consent.

 

Various restraints of trade and special interest rents (too numerous to mention) have been legalized, without popular consent.

 

It isn't enough to say that citizens vote in their national elections, and then nationally elected parliaments agree to intensification of the EU, because every major party in Europe, in every election from before Maastricht until very recently has had EU-policies that are clones of each other (with the exception of the UK). In Germany, you either had to vote for the EU, or vote superhard left (SAP or Spartakus, even die Linke were pro-EU) or Right-brown (NDP or Republikaner). So either you vote for EU integration, or you get in bed with some very vile people. That is a choice only in a technical sense.

 

Now, most Europeans want choice, but given that democracy in Europe has only been a going thing since 1946 or so for the center (with coups and interruptions in France) and from the late 1970s for the periphery (don't forget that Spain and Portugal were literally fascist until the mid 1970s) most Europeans are rather more used to being on the receiving end of government diktat. My relatives in Portugal view the government much in the way that the classical Greeks viewed the gods- remote, powerful, inscrutable, generally hostile, and best dealth with by not drawing attention to yourself. Because anyone the gods notice invariably ends up being destroyed. Nasty as it is, it is what they expect, so it is in some sense legitimate.

 

The UK, on the other hand, has a parliamentary tradition that goes back hundreds of years. Autocracy is not at all legitimate in Britain, not since they cut off Charles' head. I think that has more to do with the fact that the British are more hostile to the EU than, say, the Portuguese. Not because they are worse educated (believe me, they aren't) or oafish.

 

To put it more vulgarly, people on the continent are used to eating government shit. In the UK, it is a taste they are less accustomed to. Long may it be so.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except we don't actually have a democracy.

 

Yes, England is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system.

 

Can you vote the Queen out? No? Not a democracy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All the member states of the EU are (nominally at least) democracies. That means that citizens are supposed to have an influence, howsoever diluted it be, on the actions taken by the power that governs them.

 

The EU, originally represented as a free trade zone, has been steadily morphing into something rather state-like. Every major milestone in this evolution has been accomplished without being subjected, except in very few instances, to an electoral litmus test.

 

Actually, there have been a number of referendums in Ireland about the EU, in fact possibly even more than about abortion

 

 

 

A vast bureaucratic apparatus has been built and empowered in Brussels, without popular consent.

 

The transfer of huge amounts of money to the periphery, strengthening manifestly corrupt regimes, has been effected, without popular consent.

 

Funnily enough Ireland is on the periphery and has been the beneficiary of huge amounts of money.

 

 

 

Trade wars (i.e. Bananas and other troublesome fruit) have been carried out against non-EU countries, without popular consent.

 

Funnily enough, Ireland is one of the largest banana exporting countries in the world :cool:

 

 

 

A currency union yoking together different economies, with different structural profiles and differing business cycles, has been implemented without popular consent.

 

True, basically anywhere that had a referendum rejected it, but at the time it seemed like a good idea.

 

 

 

Various restraints of trade and special interest rents (too numerous to mention) have been legalized, without popular consent.

 

It isn't enough to say that citizens vote in their national elections, and then nationally elected parliaments agree to intensification of the EU, because every major party in Europe, in every election from before Maastricht until very recently has had EU-policies that are clones of each other (with the exception of the UK). In Germany, you either had to vote for the EU, or vote superhard left (SAP or Spartakus, even die Linke were pro-EU) or Right-brown (NDP or Republikaner). So either you vote for EU integration, or you get in bed with some very vile people. That is a choice only in a technical sense.

 

Now, most Europeans want choice, but given that democracy in Europe has only been a going thing since 1946 or so for the center (with coups and interruptions in France) and from the late 1970s for the periphery (don't forget that Spain and Portugal were literally fascist until the mid 1970s) most Europeans are rather more used to being on the receiving end of government diktat. My relatives in Portugal view the government much in the way that the classical Greeks viewed the gods- remote, powerful, inscrutable, generally hostile, and best dealth with by not drawing attention to yourself. Because anyone the gods notice invariably ends up being destroyed. Nasty as it is, it is what they expect, so it is in some sense legitimate.

 

The UK, on the other hand, has a parliamentary tradition that goes back hundreds of years. Autocracy is not at all legitimate in Britain, not since they cut off Charles' head. I think that has more to do with the fact that the British are more hostile to the EU than, say, the Portuguese. Not because they are worse educated (believe me, they aren't) or oafish.

 

To put it more vulgarly, people on the continent are used to eating government shit. In the UK, it is a taste they are less accustomed to. Long may it be so.

 

This is probably true but you can't expect the European parliament to be a larger version of the House of Commons as every country has its own sort of view of democracy. Some of the northern European countries might have an even longer tradition than Britain.

 

As someone once said, when a Frenchman thinks of Europe, he thinks of France; when an Englishman thinks of Europe, he thinks of France, and that might explain some of the hostility.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK is a democracy as opposed to the Continent? Haha.

 

There is a country which has both a king and democracy, but that's not the UK. That country is located in Continental Europe.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's actually more than one of those. By my count at least 5 that are in the EU (ok, for one of those the king is a woman). There is also one that is a parliamentary democracy and has a grand duck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can you vote the Queen out? No? Not a democracy.

 

And on that basis, I'm assuming you'd claim that Germany is also 'not a democracy', as the Bundespräsident is not voted in by the general population.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on that basis, I'm assuming you'd claim that Germany is also 'not a democracy', as the Bundespräsident is not voted in by the general population.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

 

 

 

 

-I'm your king! - I didn't vote for you.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on that basis, I'm assuming you'd claim that Germany is also 'not a democracy', as the Bundespräsident is not voted in by the general population.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

 

But MikeMelga was talking about voting out, not voting in.

*reductio ad hitlerum on*

You know, Hitler was also voted in.

*reduction ad hitlerum off*

 

Representative democracies are not under full control of people, so normally people cannot fire anyone from the office. But people can not to extend "befristete Vertrag", so a representative democracy is anyway a democracy.

 

In monarchies and dictatorships you are stuck with unbefristete Vertrag.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0