Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 notprop wrote:
There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.



Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.

UKIP's concerns aren't legitimate, they are ignorant bollocks based on xenophobia and racism emerging under the strain of discontent whipped up by the press and chancer politicians.

The evidence is clear that the EU and immigration are positive things for the country. But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.

Complete misrepresentation.

Continue to get needlessly angry though.

How to win the political arguments for the progressive left.

1. As soon as someone tries an opinion not in complete agreement with the progressive left accuse them of bigotry.
2. If they try and challenge your remark, call them bigots louder.
3. Repeat the accusation of bigotry from that moment onwards using every opportunity to label the opponent a bigot and therefore unable to hold a morally acceptable political argument. After all they must be 'evil' and by exposing them we are 'good'.
4. Do not under any circumstances allow them to gain platform enough to defend their point of view, they might successfully convince others they are not actually bigots, and we cant have that.
5. Now you can continue with the smug satisfaction that in our democratic society with free speech rights there is no room for intolerant bigots, excepting those on the progressive left.

If anyone wants me I'll be over here in the corner with a drink and a smirk.

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Exalted Kronk!

Although the first thing that came to mind was the Jack Johnson vs John Jackson election campaign from Futurama.

Also do we all have filthy immigrant wives; I thought I was in a minority?!

That came out wrong...

 Jadenim wrote:

That came out wrong...

Nah... who doesn't want their wife filthy... in bed!!!

Kudos for kodos.

Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.

I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.

There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.

 Jadenim wrote:

Also do we all have filthy immigrant wives; I thought I was in a minority?!

That came out wrong...

Hahahahaha!

 Da Boss wrote:
I was pretty shocked by the result. I guess England is a lot more right wing than even I gave it credit for. Fair enough.

Frankly, I'm more convinced people just didn't like Ed, and his vapid lack of a strategy/economic policy, more than they liked Cameron. I know that was why I voted Tory.

Hope you guys vote to stay in the EU, I gotta say. Not optimistic though.

We'll see I guess. Britain leaving would be a substantial blow to the project though. Prestige aside, we contribute over 15 million pounds a day to the EU, and without that, they'll have difficulty paying the legions of eurocrats.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's a myth that left-wingers bankrupt a country and right-wingers restore economic stability.
In my lifetime I've seen the Tories in charge when the Black Wednesday disaster happened, and I've seen them cause recessions left right and centre with their property bubbles.

The crashes in 1992 and 2008 were both caused by wider factors. The former a dip in Europe the latter the global economy.

The John Major government recovered quickly and the UK economy was handled well in the aftermath of Black Wednesday, it is also known in economic circles off hand as 'White Wednesday' as it saved the UK from a depression spell later in the decade. Soros sold short against the pound and made money, and his name, but that was as bad as it actually got.

The 2008 stock market disaster happened while another disaster, Gordon Brown, was in charge. He fethed up the recovery plan so thoroughly we still havent recovered while most of the western world has.

I would far rather trust the Tories in a financial crisis on track record.

 Koppo wrote:
Bleeding hell, another 5 years of the Tories.

Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)

This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK. Even if Scotland had returned all 59 MPs with Labour rosettes stuck on 'em, the Tories would still have a majority, and there still wouldn't have been the numbers to form an anti-Tory coalition. The Tories won this election by holding their seats against Labour challenges, and taking more of the collapsing Lib Dem vote than Labour did. It's always been that way, and under anything other than a system of full federalism with proportional representation it always will, it's purely a matter of demographics; you have 80%+ of the population.

The only thing to blame for Labour's woes is Labour; you can't out-Tory the Tories, they've had more practice, yet Labour keep trying. They saw themselves being beaten by the Tories, and Blair convinced the party that wasn't because Labour were failing to articulate their position, it was because left-wing politics were dead and they needed to haul hard-right to win again. And that lasted until the swing voters captured by that strategy realised that if they were going to vote Tory, they might as well vote for proper ones. Miliband came along and insisted Labour's problems weren't Old Labour's fault, and they weren't New Labour's fault, and they definitely weren't down to Labour failing to create or articulate a coherent alternative to the Tories, they were just victims of circumstance. They ignored the plummeting voter turnout figures in their heartlands. They ignored the steady rise of the SNP in Scotland on a slightly-left-of-centre social democratic platform. They ignored those Scottish Labour voters who wanted a positive, hopeful, inspiring case for the UK to continue and threw in with Better Together. Labour have become bitter weathervanes; Tories doing well? Labour are tough on deficits too! UKIP rising? Time to deploy the "Controls On Immigration" novelty mugs! Traditional Labour voters going SNP? ESSENPEE BAAAAAAD! RELEASE THE GORDO!

Now once again they've failed to set out a clear, enthusing alternative and they've failed to counter Tory propagandising and persuade the electorate to vote for them; what do we see? Is there a hint, a smidge, the slightest wee soupçon of self-reflection? Of contrition? Nowp. They lost in Scotland because we're all mad up here, all deluded, all tricked; Labour would have won, but the SNP stole Labour's voters away! The dastardly rogues! They lost in England because of the SNP as well. Even if it's true that Scotland going totally Red wouldn't have stopped Cameron, it's still the SNP's fault, you know, because they exist and the Tories stirred up some resentment about them possibly having some influence. Sure, sure, a Labour party with even a shred of principle, competence, and public trust could have forcefully countered that narrative and won the argument in England, but dagnabbit they shouldn't have to, it's the Scottos' job to send down a nice batch of Labour lads who'll take the party whip without complaint and then keep their bloody voices down so as not to frighten off "Middle England" with our odd accents and funny foods.

Labour are bankrupt. Financially, emotionally, intellectually, and ideologically. Until they acknowledge that, until they figure out what they stand for and how to persuade voters to trust both their convictions and their policies, they're going to keep losing. And they'll continue to have nobody to blame but themselves.

EDIT: Also, Douglas Alexander, Labour's chief election strategist and Shadow Foreign Secretary, lost his seat to a 20 year old working class girl, a politics student who's still to finish her degree, to which the only possible response is; LULZ

Here here. Social Democracy is struggling across Europe, struggling to come up with some sort of articulation that capitalism is not in fact all bad, but requires regulation and careful scrutiny.

Instead we have pandering to easy to communicate but actually pretty unimportant concerns like immigration (try emigration on for size and see which is the bigger problem guys) and debt (your debt is not a problem because no one is actually currently demanding that you pay it back and rates are historically low and likely to remain low).

I'd have to say as well, that as a lefty, I would never vote for Labour on principle due to their disastrous warmongering in the middle east which has helped to contribute to today's migrant crisis and untold amounts of human suffering. Tony Blair is a war criminal and too many of that old guard of the party are still there for me to consider them anything other than total scum. Say what you like about the Outlaw Party, but Cameron hasn't gotten ye into any decade long expensive quagmires.

He is completely in thrall to the City though.

Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.

 notprop wrote:
Kudos for kodos.

Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.

I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.

There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.

The point is wrong but I do accept it resonates with 13% of the electorate -- a lot of these people are victims of false consciousness -- and that is one reason why I think some PR is needed to allow those concerns to be aired.

It must also be said that the established parties have often pandered to the UKIP rhetoric, rather than confront it for the nonsense it is, and this has exacerbated the problem.

 whembly wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

That came out wrong...

Nah... who doesn't want their wife filthy... in bed!!!

There's an American on this thread! Fetch me some redcoats

You're more than welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Kudos for kodos.

Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.

I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.

There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.

The point is wrong but I do accept it resonates with 13% of the electorate -- a lot of these people are victims of false consciousness -- and that is one reason why I think some PR is needed to allow those concerns to be aired.

It must also be said that the established parties have often pandered to the UKIP rhetoric, rather than confront it for the nonsense it is, and this has exacerbated the problem.

From what commentators are saying, the UKIP vote would have been higher in not for the SNP, which drove UKIP towards the Tories to lock out a Miliband/Sturgeon alliance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I was pretty shocked by the result. I guess England is a lot more right wing than even I gave it credit for. Fair enough.

Frankly, I'm more convinced people just didn't like Ed, and his vapid lack of a strategy/economic policy, more than they liked Cameron. I know that was why I voted Tory.

Hope you guys vote to stay in the EU, I gotta say. Not optimistic though.

We'll see I guess. Britain leaving would be a substantial blow to the project though. Prestige aside, we contribute over 15 million pounds a day to the EU, and without that, they'll have difficulty paying the legions of eurocrats.

You may be happy with a Tory victory (you were spot on about UKIP) but as I've said, I've no desire to re-live the John Major years, and this Conservative government could easily go that way. If Tory rebels don't get their way over Europe, Cameron will be pulling knives out of his back for the next five years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
Kudos for kodos.

Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.

I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.

There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.

But the flip side is that an EU exit would mess things up regarding all those ex-pat Brits living in Spain, for example. UKIP seems to forget it's a two way street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Here here. Social Democracy is struggling across Europe, struggling to come up with some sort of articulation that capitalism is not in fact all bad, but requires regulation and careful scrutiny.

Instead we have pandering to easy to communicate but actually pretty unimportant concerns like immigration (try emigration on for size and see which is the bigger problem guys) and debt (your debt is not a problem because no one is actually currently demanding that you pay it back and rates are historically low and likely to remain low).

I'd have to say as well, that as a lefty, I would never vote for Labour on principle due to their disastrous warmongering in the middle east which has helped to contribute to today's migrant crisis and untold amounts of human suffering. Tony Blair is a war criminal and too many of that old guard of the party are still there for me to consider them anything other than total scum. Say what you like about the Outlaw Party, but Cameron hasn't gotten ye into any decade long expensive quagmires.

He is completely in thrall to the City though.

Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.

The Left really hasn't recovered since the fall of the wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Koppo wrote:
Bleeding hell, another 5 years of the Tories.

Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)

This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK. Even if Scotland had returned all 59 MPs with Labour rosettes stuck on 'em, the Tories would still have a majority, and there still wouldn't have been the numbers to form an anti-Tory coalition. The Tories won this election by holding their seats against Labour challenges, and taking more of the collapsing Lib Dem vote than Labour did. It's always been that way, and under anything other than a system of full federalism with proportional representation it always will, it's purely a matter of demographics; you have 80%+ of the population.

The only thing to blame for Labour's woes is Labour; you can't out-Tory the Tories, they've had more practice, yet Labour keep trying. They saw themselves being beaten by the Tories, and Blair convinced the party that wasn't because Labour were failing to articulate their position, it was because left-wing politics were dead and they needed to haul hard-right to win again. And that lasted until the swing voters captured by that strategy realised that if they were going to vote Tory, they might as well vote for proper ones. Miliband came along and insisted Labour's problems weren't Old Labour's fault, and they weren't New Labour's fault, and they definitely weren't down to Labour failing to create or articulate a coherent alternative to the Tories, they were just victims of circumstance. They ignored the plummeting voter turnout figures in their heartlands. They ignored the steady rise of the SNP in Scotland on a slightly-left-of-centre social democratic platform. They ignored those Scottish Labour voters who wanted a positive, hopeful, inspiring case for the UK to continue and threw in with Better Together. Labour have become bitter weathervanes; Tories doing well? Labour are tough on deficits too! UKIP rising? Time to deploy the "Controls On Immigration" novelty mugs! Traditional Labour voters going SNP? ESSENPEE BAAAAAAD! RELEASE THE GORDO!

Now once again they've failed to set out a clear, enthusing alternative and they've failed to counter Tory propagandising and persuade the electorate to vote for them; what do we see? Is there a hint, a smidge, the slightest wee soupçon of self-reflection? Of contrition? Nowp. They lost in Scotland because we're all mad up here, all deluded, all tricked; Labour would have won, but the SNP stole Labour's voters away! The dastardly rogues! They lost in England because of the SNP as well. Even if it's true that Scotland going totally Red wouldn't have stopped Cameron, it's still the SNP's fault, you know, because they exist and the Tories stirred up some resentment about them possibly having some influence. Sure, sure, a Labour party with even a shred of principle, competence, and public trust could have forcefully countered that narrative and won the argument in England, but dagnabbit they shouldn't have to, it's the Scottos' job to send down a nice batch of Labour lads who'll take the party whip without complaint and then keep their bloody voices down so as not to frighten off "Middle England" with our odd accents and funny foods.

Labour are bankrupt. Financially, emotionally, intellectually, and ideologically. Until they acknowledge that, until they figure out what they stand for and how to persuade voters to trust both their convictions and their policies, they're going to keep losing. And they'll continue to have nobody to blame but themselves.

EDIT: Also, Douglas Alexander, Labour's chief election strategist and Shadow Foreign Secretary, lost his seat to a 20 year old working class girl, a politics student who's still to finish her degree, to which the only possible response is; LULZ

I for one will not miss Scottish Labour. They dug their own grave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The point is wrong

Why is it wrong? I'll be honest, it logically follows that when you have large numbers of people moving into a country, it places pressure on schools and hospitals. Even if the money spent is made up in taxation a year or two later, the infrastructure is simply not there originally, placing what is there under increased stress and pressure as it tries to cater to a larger number of people than planned. If this occurs continuously over a decade, the result is a quite simply swamped state system.

I would be interested to know if you have facts to prove this wrong.

 Da Boss wrote:

Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.

You say that, but we provide a large chunk of the EU's working finance at the moment, somewhere in the region of 15 billion pounds a year, or roughly eleven percent. That's a lot of money to lose from one member state out of twenty eight pulling out, considering nobody from Eastern Europe actually contributes anything.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/

With regards to the institutions and the ideas, Juncker won't shut up about EU armies, intelligence agencies, and police forces at the moment. Those don't come cheap, and I'm really not entirely sure we want any part of that. If we leave, it will place a serious knock on the idea of the European superstate, and I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing.

For one thing the UK population was falling until immigration started to replenish the population. Proper planning over a decade can easily cope with immigration or other anticipated changes.

Without immigration, the Richmond-on-Thames local schools suffered a major swamping in 2008-9 because of the number of bankers who got made redundant and had to take their children out of expensive private schools and try to put them into the small local state schools.

Another point is that immigrants tend to be young adults and do not need extensive medial care or education, so they import lots of free skills and experience. In the case of foreign students - a category that has been falling recently due to recent restrictions on immigration -- they import a lot of money.

I don't want to keep updating but the fact is that despite the common sense points about overloading infrastructure, etc, the empirical evidence is that immigration on the scale the UK has generally enjoyed since WW2 has been positive and this is due to sound economic reasons.

With regards to the international student part of that, with reduced government funding for universities they are needing increasing numbers of foreign students to fund programmes, especially expensive ones such as the sciences.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For one thing the UK population was falling until immigration started to replenish the population. Proper planning over a decade can easily cope with immigration or other anticipated changes.

But surely that was the issue, historically speaking? Every time a new Eastern European country has entered the EU, we've tended to be flooded with immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands in the space of a year or two. So instead of being a steady figure that can be planned for, it has tended to come in reasonably intense spikes and fluctuations over the past decade and a half.

Another point is that immigrants tend to be young adults and do not need extensive medial care or education, so they import lots of free skills and experience. In the case of foreign students - a category that has been falling recently due to recent restrictions on immigration -- they import a lot of money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-immigration per se. I fully recognise that most immigrants usually pay back for what they take out within a few years in tax receipts. I'm simply substantiating why people can legitimately feel it can be a problem at the moment, and from the infrastructure angle, it would seem to be accurate.



Assuming this is even remotely correct (I just double checked some of the figures elsewhere, and they seemed accurate), I think it accurately portrays the sheer spike in immigration into the UK since Labour first came into power back in 1997. Looking elsewhere, it dropped in 2012 down to about 175,000 people, but then spiked right back up to over 250,000 last year.That's quite simply not the sort of stress that you can plan or account for. You can't plan for service provision for an additional 80,000 people increase out of nowhere, let alone budget for it.

Having said all that, I have a feeling it will drop again now, because these things are cyclical, and there are no new countries about to join the EU. So it would be plausible to say that the worst is now over, we can begin to make long term plans again, and new immigration controls would hurt more than help us. I'd be inclined to think so at this stage of the game.

What is apparent to me though, is that mass immigration was allowed to rage for far too long, but the tiger has now fled the cage, eaten someone, and then been shot. Trying to lock the cage after it's dead and buried is somewhat pointless. But many, many people simply aren't aware that this is the case, fully expect the past trend to continue, and are pressing for legislation under that assumption. I don't think it makes them stupid, and I don't think it means their concern isn't rooted in fact, I just think they haven't considered thing in the short-long term future, and are simply going on the empirical experience of the last two decades.

We tried to do it differently before, and people didn't want that system.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
We tried to do it differently before, and people didn't want that system.

No, a party traded in all its pre-election promises to push through a referendum on a stupid voting system with no popular support and no real explanation to the public over what it was and how it would make things better and suffered an understandable backlash from its own supporters and the rest of the public.

Also:

PR =/= AV.

Ketara: Sure, we'd have less money, which would mean less money for infastructure projects and research projects and other pan European initiatives.

But at the end of the day, even losing half the funding wouldn't cause the EU as a political institution to collapse. Each state runs it's own finances, the EU funding is not really required for it to function beyond the admin costs, which though they are too high, are still minuscule compared to the money going in. That graph also points out that the UK is the fourth biggest contributor, after Germany (with nearly double the contribution) France, with one and a half times, and Italy, with just slightly more. I've often seen British people claim to be the "second biggest contributors" and accepted it as fact, but it looks like you guys are sandwiched between Italy and Spain on that graph. Interesting.

Don't get me wrong, financially Britain leaving would be a hard blow for the Union, but it wouldn't be the death of it. In much the same way as Scotland leaving the other Union wouldn't have destroyed England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I look forward to the "Better Together" campaign getting together for a Project Fear campaign to keep you guys in the Union though, so you can see what it was like for the Scots

I mean the arguments are all pretty similar bar the currency one, right?

On Junker, yeah, good point. I almost hope you guys do leave so that mug doesn't get money for his right wing plans. Plus, Britain leaving would get rid of a fairly strong right-wing Neo-Liberal influence on the EU. But then again, I'm conflicted. Gah. Wish he hadn't gotten the Presidency. But his "plans" will come to nothing without agreement at the other European bodies.

I'm a believer in a Federal Europe though, despite all the problems with the EU as it stands (and there are many, especially with the ECB in my view). I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)

Eh? In my experience the media narrative has been "SNP bad, UKIP racist bad."

I don't what on earth makes you think the political/media establishment looks favourably on UKIP as opposed to the SNP.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ketara: Sure, we'd have less money, which would mean less money for infastructure projects and research projects and other pan European initiatives.

But at the end of the day, even losing half the funding wouldn't cause the EU as a political institution to collapse. Each state runs it's own finances, the EU funding is not really required for it to function beyond the admin costs, which though they are too high, are still minuscule compared to the money going in. That graph also points out that the UK is the fourth biggest contributor, after Germany (with nearly double the contribution) France, with one and a half times, and Italy, with just slightly more. I've often seen British people claim to be the "second biggest contributors" and accepted it as fact, but it looks like you guys are sandwiched between Italy and Spain on that graph. Interesting.

Don't get me wrong, financially Britain leaving would be a hard blow for the Union, but it wouldn't be the death of it. In much the same way as Scotland leaving the other Union wouldn't have destroyed England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Oh, I completely agree, the financial aspect wouldn't kill the EU. Far from it. But it would make the various eurocrats have to look at their spending. Or, more likely, demand everyone else make up the shortfall, plus an extra 5% on top.

With regards to contribution, that's the amount that gets put in directly, we all get something back that isn't measured on the chart. It's possible (I wouldn't know without looking, but it would make sense) that Italy and France get more money back from the EU then us, taking us into the position of second highest overall contributor.

I look forward to the "Better Together" campaign getting together for a Project Fear campaign to keep you guys in the Union though, so you can see what it was like for the Scots

I mean the arguments are all pretty similar bar the currency one, right?

I'm not so sure it is. Scottish MP's are directly elected to the lawmaking process and are directly accountable to the electorate, whereas European MP's (the British ones included) seem to more or less do whatever they like without even having to publish their expenses. Brussels has just turned into this gaping financial maw with very little actually published on what it does with the money, and why it needs more. What's more, Scotland is already part of Britain, whereas the EU is busy trying to morph into a superstate. I think there are definitely similarities, but enough differences to make it a separate sort of issue.

On Junker, yeah, good point. I almost hope you guys do leave so that mug doesn't get money for his right wing plans. Plus, Britain leaving would get rid of a fairly strong right-wing Neo-Liberal influence on the EU. But then again, I'm conflicted. Gah. Wish he hadn't gotten the Presidency. But his "plans" will come to nothing without agreement at the other European bodies.

I'm a believer in a Federal Europe though, despite all the problems with the EU as it stands (and there are many, especially with the ECB in my view). I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)

I'm 80% okay with the EU as it stands. I'd like the ability to limit immigration from new memberships extended (we had a one year restriction on Romania, I believe, that could work as a starting point), I'd like our overall financial contribution cut by about a third, and I'd like us to be a little less susceptible to European whims of law. I also want the European superstate idea killed, and more financial accountability put in place. In those things, I suspect I'm similar to most people. The problem is that those desires run exactly counter to what Juncker and co are aiming at.

If I got told we had a choice between the status quo and leaving altogether, I'd pick to stay. If I get a choice between leaving, and a burgeoning EU superstate, I'd elect to bail. The question is, which will the EU end up becoming? I don't know which way I will vote yet, but I need the EU to tell me their plans before I make my choice. The very fact though, that they seem to not WANT me to be able to make a choice, makes me uneasy.

The entire purpose of the "European project" is to become a Superstate.

The Proportional representation argument surfaces just after Conservative Majority governments get into power. Funny that it doesn't surface with anything like the same intensity after Labour Majority governments get into power.

PR misses out the main feature of the British system. PR just takes a national tally, its rather soulless. Our system allows local people to generate their local representative.
The people in my home town elect their MP, they don't have another one fostered on them by force because another party scored a higher % in another region.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)

This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK.

Eventually, I would like to see a federal European state. But I think further integration is mostly a requirement for the Eurozone countries, who need common financial regulations and oversight to prevent another Euro crisis.

I agree that spending is too high and MEP expenses and so on are a problem, but I hardly think the UK has much of a leg to stand on when it consistently pays no attention to EU politics or political structures, or the role it's own government plays in negotiating some things which are very unpopular in the UK. (For example the UK government was heavily involved in lobbying FOR an eastward expansion, something that is not very popular in the UK but gets blamed on "the EU" as a whole as if the UK was never part of it).
Sending Kippers to Europe where they have disgraceful attendance and are purely obstructionist and then complaining about your concerns not being represented is wrongheaded. I would love it if the UK became a champion for transparency and reform in the EU, but I don't think it will, and I don't think it ever has been. It's a major champion of the Transatlantic Trade agreement for example. On that front, I honestly believe the EU would be better off without the UK political establishment as it stands.

All of that said, while I agree that MEPs get paid too much, get ridiculous benefits and have ridiculous expenses, that doesn't really bother me as much as the lack of transparency on EU decisions. I think we really need to work on THAT above all else. I think all of us as EU citizens need to get more interested in the EU as more than a vague bogeyman but as OUR institution, and I think we desperately need a European media, rather than multiple national media all filtering EU issues through a narrow, local focus.

I, and many other Europeans, am worried about the UK and it's relationship with the rest of us. But I want the UK to stay in. I just hope the debate can be reasonable and informative, because I feel like there is a lot of ignorance in the UK about the EU and the UK's place in it - conflation of the ECHR and the EU is common for example.

That said, of course you guys should be entitled to a referendum. I just worry that the Murdoch controlled media has been feeding a very poisonous narrative for decades now and the UK political establishment has not challenged it sufficiently. But however ye vote, we'll all experience the consequences.

Shadow Captain: I never mentioned UKIP. There's plenty of british nationalism without the BNP or UKIP.

Orlanth: You're kinda misrepresenting PR there. It's possible to have PR without a list system (though actually I believe list systems have their benefits). Ireland for example has PR, but people still vote for their local representatives. They can just vote for more than one, in order of preference. When one gets elected, the second preference votes are allocated to the others in the constituency, as we have more than one representative per constituency. This would require a re-working of consituencies in the UK of course- the current set up is one consituency, one representative. But that creates a bit of a problem for people in "safe seats". In a PR system they could both be represented, and smaller parties get a greater share of the vote, allowing them to influence policy a bit more. I guess both systems have their downsides - PR lets the extremists have a voice on all sides, whereas FPTP makes people feel like their vote is worthless if it doesn't match the view of their constituency.

I actually like the German system best, having experienced it since moving here.If I were german, I would get to vote on multiple levels of democracy- at a local level, at a federal level, and at a European level. I can vote one way locally and then another way federally and and another way at the EU level. The list system is combined with local representatives in a fairly fair way to ensure that you have some politicians who pursue the interests of their local constituency but others who can work on issues of national importance without getting bogged down in local concerns.

Germany has also had coalition governments consistently for decades, and it has done their economy and society little harm.

All of that said, while I agree that MEPs get paid too much, get ridiculous benefits and have ridiculous expenses, that doesn't really bother me as much as the lack of transparency on EU decisions. I think we really need to work on THAT above all else. I think all of us as EU citizens need to get more interested in the EU as more than a vague bogeyman but as OUR institution, and I think we desperately need a European media, rather than multiple national media all filtering EU issues through a narrow, local focus.

I think BOTH of these elements are hugely important but the ruling political class seem to have no interest in it -apart from their own vested interest in keeping it as is.
There is apparently nothing that can be done about the scandel of the dual EU parilement buildings and the cost of this to us all every year.

That said, of course you guys should be entitled to a referendum.

I worry that like previous EU refernedum's this may well be a farce - the previous ones held in Eurpoean countries were shockingly dodgy where Refendums were held repeatedly until the "right" result was gained and only then was the matter dropped - the opposite of decmocracy...

Mr Morden: Actually, in the Irish case, the Irish electorate rejected the referendum based on some concerns. Then the EU bodies altered the treaties to address these concerns, and the Irish voted again on a new treaty with altered wording, and voted yes the second time. We actually benefited greatly from having the referenda because it allowed us to steer the process in a way that benefited us as a small country.

The narrative that we were made to vote until we got it right needs to be challenged because it is NOT what happened. But it is what gets reported and stated constantly.

I won't get into how dirty those referendum campaigns were on the No side though. The claims they made (EU mandated minimum wage of 1.89 was my favourite) never came to pass, but they have never been challenged on it and are allowed to keep shouting about the EU as if they had credibility.

 Da Boss wrote:
Mr Morden: Actually, in the Irish case, the Irish electorate rejected the referendum based on some concerns. Then the EU bodies altered the treaties to address these concerns, and the Irish voted again on a new treaty with altered wording, and voted yes the second time. We actually benefited greatly from having the referenda because it allowed us to steer the process in a way that benefited us as a small country.

The narrative that we were made to vote until we got it right needs to be challenged because it is NOT what happened. But it is what gets reported and stated constantly.

I won't get into how dirty those referendum campaigns were on the No side though. The claims they made (EU mandated minimum wage of 1.89 was my favourite) never came to pass, but they have never been challenged on it and are allowed to keep shouting about the EU as if they had credibility.

tbh Ireland wasn't in my thoughts to be honest - thinking about France and Dutch No results which were in effect ignored in the end......

Fair enough- I will have to look into those examples because I don't know as much about them!