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.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because the people are supposed to decide on these things and not some pen pusher in Brussels.

But they already do? The EU doesn't force people to vote for a party that is against the EU.
Guess I just find it funny (and slightly sad) how people who are against the EU start to cry "unfair" when the EU doesn't give them money so they can more easily get out of the EU.
What's next, neo-nazis filing a formal complaint to the UN when they are barred entry from Israel?

Who will you vote for if you don't like the direction the EU is taking but all the eurosceptic parties were pushed out?

You can't hobble the opposition so that only like minded parties are financially viable, and then claim to be a democracy when the result is that only you and your allies get all the seats.

I'm not saying that's how it will be, but having a government decide that only parties favourable to them should get any funding is rather dubious democratically..

This ties in with another issue behind the eu. They won't allow people to deviate from "the European consensus". Who gets to decide what this consensus is? A tiny little cabal of euro fanatics at the very top of the organisation. They could decide that anyone who is against any further intergration is an "extremist" and then block their funding. Don't want to join the euro? Trying to fight us on it? We'll block your funding. That's a bad road to be going down. Luckily we won't be.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Who will you vote for if you don't like the direction the EU is taking but all the eurosceptic parties were pushed out?

If all the anti-EU parties have gone extinct because they didn't get money from the EU, those parties have (or rather, had) bigger problems than the actual EU.
If anti-EU parties are dependent on money from the EU for their own survival, then doesn't this mean that they are essentially pushing for their own elimination by trying to leave the EU, and that the only reason they can exist in the first place is because of the EU?

Luckily, anti-EU parties aren't dependent on money from the EU, so the above scenario won't happen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.

Don't project your own views into the wider European voter base. Countries other than the UK decided some time ago that further integration was the best way to preserve the European values, economy and way of life. Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric (which may give short-term votes among the discontent, but often hides worse things under a very thin crust).

It's been a bumpy ride, with plenty of mistakes and missed oportunities but if anything Brexit has told EU27 that you don't throw the baby with the bathwater.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.

And I thank you for the bottom of my heart. No, I truly do. Without Brexit none of this would have been possible.

With just one single move, you guys not only managed to show mainland europe the danger of following populist parties,
you also effectively removed the single biggest roadblock to a stronger and better integrated EU, by voting to leave the union.

I could kiss you for that, but that would properly be a bit weird.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?

It's really quite simple. In a civilised, democratic nation, the method of running for government has to be fair and above board. In order to contest an election, money is required. There's usually a submission fee involved in running for a position, people have to be paid to work full time in devising strategies, workable policies, and so on, and then there's the need to advertise yourself on top. All this costs a fair chunk of moolah.

Now once upon a time, the state wouldn't fund this end of things. Everything had to be done out of your own pocket. The problem with such a policy is that it favours the rich disproportionately. They can spend vast sums of money prepping their candidates and drowning out the opposition, whereas your local smaller party candidate cannot. In other more dictatorial nations, funds are distributed, but only to the dominant/ruling power, so as to ensure that elections are heavily biased towards that party and their political ideology.

Consequently, most democratic states today issue state funds to all competing parties to a greater or lesser degree. This is internationally recognised as a way of maintaining a fairer political playing field, and ensuring that it isn't just rich boys, dictators, and their favoured political stooges who get to to play on it.The EU, as a Western legislative body which holds democratic elections for Parliamentary positions, has always adhered to this. Hopefully, they will continue to do so. Should they not, it will be an item of concern. A democratic organisation's infrastructure should never be biased towards a specific party, race, political creed, or class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Le Pen win the largest number of seats in the last French EU election? And didn't her party successfully retain their percentage of the general vote in the election earlier this year, and then send their candidate on to scrap with another outsider for the Presidentship whilst the two established parties were knocked out? Making their political success unparalleled in their past to date?

Aren't there also substantial rumblings of discontent from the main political parties of the Visegrad group over attempts by the EU to centrally impose immigration actions?

I think trying to paint a rosy picture of how everyone unhappy with European integration has seen the error of their ways is more than a little disingenuous, eh wot? With regards to Juncker's speech, I am not surprised. The man has a dream, and follows it. If the EU leaves things as they are, discontent will likely gradually ebb, but if they keep up their previous rate of momentum in trying to force a United States of Europe, the opposite will hold true (if previous trends are maintained).

As I have said before, I hope that the EU gets their house in order and goes on to a successful and happy future, of whatever variety. Trying to deny that there are and have been problems though, is only likely to be an impediment to that.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:
Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Le Pen win the largest number of seats in the last French EU election? And didn't her party successfully retain their percentage of the general vote in the election earlier this year, and then send their candidate on to scrap with another outsider for the Presidentship whilst the two established parties were knocked out? Making their political success unparalleled in their past to date?

Aren't there also substantial rumblings of discontent from the main political parties of the Visegrad group over attempts by the EU to centrally impose immigration actions?

The Front National has won their biggest results ever by backtracking on their Frexit fantasies and trying to be part of the establishment. She has backtracked in pulling France out of the EU, in pulling France out of the euro, in abolishing French dual nationality (presumably linked to a skin colour grade), from trying to get further controls on imported produce, etc.

The Visegrad group can complain all they want about getting a few refugees, but once there's a serious threat about closing euro funds you can bet they'll all relent and swallow the pill.

...okay, so you're taking what she said to try and win votes in the last stretch of the Presidential runup seriously. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Juncker has taken an important step it would appear, in laying out the five 'paths' that the EU can take from this point. I look forward with great interest to seeing how he intends to choose which one is to be taken.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.

Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.

Hmm well, I'm going to bring some more sense than this nonsense to the conversation. So I'll take each apart bit by bit. The argument here is that the EU isn't listening, yet I think they have seen loud and clear what misinformation can achieve if left unchecked and are driving for a more open EU. So onwards:-

The President of the EU parliament and the EU commission merged into one

The proposal is to have democratically elected president. One argument that Leavers put forward was that the President was not democratically elected and just chosen which the populace had no say in. Well the proposal is to change that and have an elected President, it is proposed the populace have a say.

EU army expansion.

This is a null point as you are getting the same whether we leave or not. The UK has already indicated that it will provide the EU will continued military support and allow the central EU command to control their direction. Nothing is proposed to be changed here. We are still going to be part of much (and bizarrely) maligned EU defence force.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/12/uk-to-offer-eu-deals-on-foreign-policy-and-joint-military-operations

A pan-European EU finance minister.

Not an unreasonable idea. Someone that is directly responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the money the EU spends. Part of the Leave argument was that we just sent the EU money and that there was no audits (though that's not correct), however correctly there wasn't someone that was directly responsible for any expenditure. Now there will be someone who is accountable and elected. So hence an increased democratic process.

No funding of parties that don't support the EU. It won't just be the extremists affected by this.

This largely determined how it is undertaken. I can understand the concerns that it could stifle debate. However at the same time MEPs are elected to undertake a job. If we take the idiot Farage and his UKIP cohorts, they deliberately tried to disrupt the EU and its processes, didn't turn up to work for commissions and actively acted to undermine the EU (noting the significant difference in disagreeing but debating an issue). He then took the money and put it into UKIPs coffers to actively lie about the EU. He was elected as an MEP to represent the country in the EU not deliberately sabotage it. Ask yourself if you went to your job, spent the day undermining the boss in everything and then took the pay packet to actively undermine the business/public body how likely is that you would continue to be employed? Is it reasonable to continue funding someone who is both misusing that money and not doing the job that the electorate employed you to do.

So now I'm going to discuss the individual points that Juncker highlighted:-

General views:-

(a) The first point was to continue with the issues set out last year (so not much to say on this). It will also focus heavily on Brexit.

(b) Secondly was to set a path for the future noting that the desire to

Now is the time to build a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe for 2025.

. Hence again the recognition that populace should have a greater say in the EU (again noting that this was what some Leavers continue to whine about).


More specific items:-

1) More free trade deals. That the Canadian one is about to start and opening new discussions with New Zealand and Australia. They have an agreement in place with Japan and upcoming ones with Mexico/South America. He also noted that others were queuing up at the door. This is not particularly good news for the Wrexit free trade supporters as any sign that we might get an edge on these things is diminishing. Additionally they believe that by doing so exports the EU standards ("Trade is about exporting our standards, be they social or environmental standards, data protection or food safety requirements") which is not a bad thing if that then improves the world as a whole (and overall the EU standards are probably close to being the highest). Again it also means that the UK will have to continue to meet those standards as the majority of the exports will go to the EU; the only difference is the 'red tape' and cost at the ports to prove it.

Additionally trade deals will now have to be approved by the EU parliament rather than the commission. This increases the democratic oversight as all members are democratically elected (a complaint by Leavers). The draft mandates will be made public so the process is more transparent to the public. Of course this is probably not what May wants to hear as that means we all get to see what she is trying to push under the carpet. This could also mean that trade deals could be rejected by votes and there is less argument Germany and France are dominating things; the advantage is that a simple majority is likely to see things pass whereas as before one country could block the proposals.

Finally there is proposed an EU framework investment screening. In effect the principles is that any sale of any high value assets (e.g. a Harbour) would need to be scrutinised by an open commission. Again I could imagine May would be opposed to this being in the EU as most sales of these kind are done behind closed doors (anyone remember the embarrassing sale of the chip manufacturer in Cambridge). In effect this protects the EU from foreign investment/countries buying out infrastructure, something many here have said is a bad thing (and bitterly complained about). The EU is about to implement some protection for this; I can't imagine the UK will follow.

2) A new Industrial Strategy. It largely references car makers because of the emission scandal. Although light on details it appears standards will be made tighter (and probably larger fines for breaching them). Nothing really wrong with this

3) Become a world leader in fighting climate change. (Again nothing wrong with this and perfectly sensible given it is a global problem).

4) A new cybercrime agency. Not really a surprise given current hacks and spyware and ransomware. Pooling resources here seems sensible (and I think the UK wants in on this too).

5) Migration. Some on migration, reductions from Turkey (though I'd question whether that given there is no major towns in the Syria conflict zone this is partially the reason). Statement on funding international development (a good thing) to try and help people not have to think that a potentially suicide risk is better than staying where they are.

Additionally a blue card system for skilled migrants. I'm fairly certain there will be plenty of skilled UK workers that will be happy to hear this (even if they would have preferred open borders).

Social Issues:-

1) All of the populace should have access to the same medical treatments and they want to avoid deaths from things like measles (an improvement and for those with immigration 'concerns' a driver to reduce the need for what some perceive as burdens on health care)

2) Equal pay for the same work across the EU. Again a good thing as it distributes fairly to all. Again for those with immigration sensitivities see my above point.

3) Equal products across the EU (i.e. that some countries get a worst deal for the good they buy). Again see above comments. These are all positive steps to equalise qualities across the EU.

Union Issues:-

1) Free Movement to be extended to Bulgaria and Romania (not that in any way effects the UK as it already provided it). Croatia when it meets the criteria

2) Countries to be offered to join the Euro will be given technical and financial assistance.

3) Allow more western Balkans if they wish to join

4) Turkey not to be offered membership any time soon (where's the Leavers that promoted that one?)

5) Tax changes now to be voted on and fall under a parliamentary majority system (Fair enough that is what we have).

6) A Europeans intelligence unit to fight terrorism (Fair enough, at least they are not spying on everyone like the UK does).

7) Encouraging greater debate and discussion at the local level such as through more citizens dialogues and democratic conventions. I think this is a good thing for the EU. Too many people blamed the EU for anything from a leaking sink to the weather and I would agree that they rarely engaged very well with the electorate despite putting £billions into the European economies. Hence allowing them to become more face - to - face with the people can only be a good thing.

---------------------------------

So this is a summary, the whole thing can be read here:-

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm

But I ask those so opposed to the EU, what here is something that you are so opposed to. That shows the EU is carrying on regardless. One of the arguments that the EU isn't democratic (which it is) is being tackled head on etc.

Finally on the point about the pan-EU MEPs being created after the UK leaves has some strategy I believe. When the UK rejoins it will be a lot easier to merge these back to the UK without upsetting the balance across the EU. This makes sense if you expect the UK to come back after it's burnt it's fingers, toes and sensitive bits.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Ask yourself if you went to your job, spent the day undermining the boss in everything and then took the pay packet to actively undermine the business/public body how likely is that you would continue to be employed? Is it reasonable to continue funding someone who is both misusing that money and not doing the job that the electorate employed you to do.

I can't say I entirely agree with this analogy, as indeed, the people who vote for Farage are his boss. Not the EU. At the end of the day, if people want to vote for someone who runs on an election pledge of using public money to swill himself into insensibility upon the finest bourbon whilst suspended over a pair of ivory tiger cubs in a giant jelly mould, they can do just that. It's not the EU's job to tell people who they can and cannot vote for. The minute a legislative body starts trying to influence precisely who is voted for by throttling off equal support based upon their own principles (be it race, gender, political, etc), it's generally a bad thing.

Consequently, whilst you might say 'it depends on how it is undertaken', I would contend it is bad to undertake it in any shape or form.

 Ketara wrote:
...okay, so you're taking what she said to try and win votes in the last stretch of the Presidential runup seriously. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

I don't take anything that comes out of Mrs. Le Pen's mouth seriously, but luckily I'm not a French citizen, just like I don't believe former remainer May is a hardcore Brexiteer at heart. At times you just have to ride with the times. Le Pen started the backpedal from hard Frexit to OK, we need the EU but it needs some repairs right after the Brexit vote, and that's what counts.

Even a populist can see that it's one thing to score a few votes among the discontent and another thing to deliver on your promises.

There was this nice piece on the Washington Post a few days back (since I'm stateside for a few days).

All the worst lies about Brexit are about to be revealed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/all-the-worst-lies-about-brexit-are-about-to-be-revealed/2017/09/08/4bf9d43a-9410-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.211908ab4a31

It is a rare opportunity. Seldom does the voting public have the chance to watch their elected politicians confront very specific false promises in real time. Usually campaign promises are either too vague to be contrasted with reality (“Make America Great Again”) or too long term. By the time that “guaranteed growth” either arrives or doesn’t, the person who said it would happen is long out of office.

But in Britain right now, something different is unfolding. During the referendum last year, politicians advocating their country’s departure from the European Union gave some specific assurances. Some derived from ignorance; as it turned out, few of them really understood how the E.U. works. Others were lies, which they knew to be lies at the time.

Because they didn’t expect to win that campaign, they didn’t expect either their ignorance or their dishonesty to be revealed. But then they won — and now it’s happening.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?

Because in a genuine Democracy you don't play favourites. Either all parties get a fair share of public funding, or none of them do. Discriminating against parties and denying them public funding for Wrong Think is a double standard and not in keeping with the Democratic principles that the EU is supposedly founded on.

@whirlwind

Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply.

To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.

On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:

1. Can anybody run?

2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?

We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government

BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.

If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.

That is the potential danger with this proposal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?

Because in a genuine Democracy you don't play favourites. Either all parties get a fair share of public funding, or none of them do. Discriminating against parties and denying them public funding for Wrong Think is a double standard and not in keeping with the Democratic principles that the EU is supposedly founded on.

So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then? What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them? Extreme but that is the approach you espousing. Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group. I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind

Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply.

To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.

On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:

1. Can anybody run?

2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?

We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government

BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.

If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.

That is the potential danger with this proposal.

I don't think the details have been fleshed out but it appears at the moment the proposals are that if you have been elected to the EU parliament then you can put your name in the hat (let's say Farage for example). So it's not completely open to anyone directly, but strictly speaking anyone can potentially be voted into the EU parliament if you get enough votes so the answer is 'sort of'.

 Whirlwind wrote:

So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then? What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them? Extreme but that is the approach you espousing. Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group. I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.

As someone who believes in democracy, I am happy with even neo-nazi groups getting the same funding as everyone else. Why? Because the law extends to everyone, equally, and the minute you begin to stop someone from running peacefully for power, you in effect force them into violent means to be heard.If they turned out to be funnelling that state political subsidy into violent activities, they'd be shut down in reasonably short order. Political parties do have to submit accounts, after all, it would be reasonably easy to see where the money was going.

And if they were funnelling money from somewhere else into it? Then they'd be doing that regardless of political funding. Not to mention the fact our if hypothetical group turned out to be sponsoring terrorism, they'd be shut down as a terrorist group committing violence whether they got state funding or not. The police wouldn't call it a day and leave an extremist group alone just because a bomb was paid for with state money, you know? So no, not really picking silly arguments. If the MEP's did vote it through, it would be a sad indictment on their system, and the first serious step on the path to tyranny.

That being said, the EU hasn't done it yet, and this is all purely hypothetical. For all we know, this is just a handful of autocratic crackpots sitting in the EUP saying things to needle Farage. So I wouldn't really regard it as particularly indicative of anything. We (and every other democracy) have fairly daft stuff bandied about the chamber every few months. It's part of the system. I certainly wouldn't jump to condemn the entire EU (a very large organisation) purely off some chatter amongst their backbenches or rush to draw trends out of it. That would be silly.

 Whirlwind wrote:
So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then?

Yes. Because thats how a Democracy works.

Would you be happy if a Communist group were funded? Black Lives Matter? Antifa?

Who exactly gets to decide which groups are permitted access to public funding, and which groups are not? Who will this self appointed arbiter of Right Think be?

What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them?

What if they don't?

Extreme but that is the approach you espousing.

Better than your apporach: "Parties I agree with get the right to access public funding. Parties that I deem to be extremist should be denied access."

Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group.

I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.

I bet you consider UKIP to be extremist, don't you?

I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.

My problem is who gets to decide where the line is drawn? It smacks of partisan politics to me. You're effectively arguing that a Gatekeeper should be put in place to selectively filter Democracy to keep out people and parties who Think Wrong...which strikes me as being very anti-Democratic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like Free Speech, Democracy has to be UNIVERSAL, or its not true Democracy.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.

I would think that would be unlikely seeing as the right of center alliance is the biggest bloc in the EU parliament

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.

I would think that would be unlikely seeing as the right of center alliance is the biggest bloc in the EU parliament

It's my favourite criticism of the EU. The capitalism-driven bloc with a majority of rightist members representing nations with almost universally rightist governments who nominate rightist commissioners that then nominate a rightist president is the lefty thought police.

Yeah, it's a mistake to think that the eu is a left wing institution. It's really more of a corporate racket. Cheap labour, standardised regulations, protective tariffs and so on.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind
To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.

On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:

1. Can anybody run?

2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?

We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government

BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.

If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.

That is the potential danger with this proposal.

And why would you think a group of democratic countries like the EU members would do a China? As with everything EU, it will be extensively drafted, discussed, massaged and a few years down the line it will end up into something more or less acceptable to everyone.

In any case, if anyone reads what Juncker actually said was to replace two positions (president of the Commission and president of the council, both positions indirectly elected) with a single super-president. No idea how did we reach the debate on that position should be filled.

Just like the whole defund antiEU parties. I don't think any party should be excluded from EU funded solely on their views (as long as they're not openly Nazi/racist/whatever) but I would definitely agree that Euro MEPs should be subject to a participation minimum. If you don't show up in your committees then you don't get paid. Again, this will be thoroughly discussed so it's too early to talk about specifics.

Here's the full speech for anyone with a few minutes to spare. It's not a long read.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm

Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist...Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.

His lack of self awareness is staggering.

If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. Never forget that Cameron went to them asking for nothing but got even less. They said it would require treaty change. But it's funny how they can bypass treaty change when it suits them.

And he says you should have the freedom to voice your opinion whilst also threatening to deny funding to those who won't toe the euro line. It's laughable.

Any government that will pay money to those who follow its will compared to those who oppose it is a bad government.

You're literally awarding money for being a yes man, and it will bias a bucket load of views.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist...Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.

His lack of self awareness is staggering.

If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. Never forget that Cameron went to them asking for nothing but got even less. They said it would require treaty change. But it's funny how they can bypass treaty change when it suits them.

What you mean by compromise is actually appeasement. Cut us a special deal or we walk.

That's not a healthy relationship. Compromise is everyone chips in and goes with the result, even if that's not what you first set out to get.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This ties in with another issue behind the eu. They won't allow people to deviate from "the European consensus". Who gets to decide what this consensus is? A tiny little cabal of euro fanatics at the very top of the organisation. They could decide that anyone who is against any further intergration is an "extremist" and then block their funding. Don't want to join the euro? Trying to fight us on it? We'll block your funding. That's a bad road to be going down. Luckily we won't be.

I agree. We should veto it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Any government that will pay money to those who follow its will compared to those who oppose it is a bad government.

You're literally awarding money for being a yes man, and it will bias a bucket load of views.

Isn't that exactly what the Tories have been doing?
The DUP; only offering contracts to pro brexit companies, etc.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. .

If only they'd be reasonable and , say, give us a rebate of the money we contribute or allowed some way to opt out of the working time directive or etc etc etc

Eu has bent itself through innumerable compromises with the UK

hell look at what Cameron got with his "failed" EU reform deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105



You appear to be confusing compromise with " doing exactly what we want".

Again.

His lack of self awareness is staggering.

Yes. Because thats how a Democracy works.

No it isn't, and it has never been the case.

That's why we have things like electoral deposits.

That's why not every single person standing for Parliament gets a TV broadcast either.

Political parties do have to submit accounts, after all, it would be reasonably easy to see where the money was going.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/21/ukip-led-pan-european-party-misspent-over-half-million-euro

A Ukip-dominated group in the European parliament has been found to have misspent more than half a million euros (£427,000) of taxpayers’ money following an investigation by European parliament officials.

The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-controlled group, was asked to return €172,655 by a committee of senior MEPs on Monday night, after officials found the party had breached EU rules by pouring money into the UK 2015 general election and the EU referendum.

The group will also be denied €248,345 in grants it could have secured if it had followed the rules, a damaging blow to the cash-strapped party. Once misspending by Dutch and Belgian parties was taken into account, the ADDE and an affiliated foundation were found to have misused €500,615 of EU grants.

Senior MEPs endorsed the report of the parliament’s finance team, a document seen by the Guardian last week, which concluded the ADDE had funnelled cash into Nigel Farage’s failed attempt to win a seat at Thanet South, as well as opinion polls to test the public mood in the run-up the EU referendum campaign.

EU rules ban parties from spending European grants on national elections or referendums.

of course this is isn't unique to Farage , the right or indeed politicians of this country of course.

There was something of a to do with regards to Tory -- and to a lesser extent Labour too IIRC -- election expenses , but, handily, that all appears to have been forgotten or swept away to be dealt with when there's a quiet moment.

Not exactly a lot of MPs were punished with regards for their expenses claims either were they really ?

Hell disgraced minister Liam Fox paid Adam bloody Werrity out of tax payer funds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/8817168/Liam-Fox-used-expenses-to-pay-his-best-man-Adam-Werritty.html

and he seems to have done alright out of it eh ?

And of course the varying and at times..... interesting... financial shenanigans involving the EU, MEPs, accounts and so forth are all pretty much well known ( to lesser and greater degrees of accuracy and fact but regardless of where one stands I don't think one would hold, say, the EU expense claims system as the golden standard to be aspired to by all institutions across the globe.)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Yes. Because thats how a Democracy works.

You are confusing what democracy is against how it is funded. To point out the definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (Form the Oxford Dictionary). No where does it state how that should be funded or supported. No where in this argument is it stating that the population will be denied choosing their representative to be part of parliament. It is however trying to stop people using EU money (which I note many have argued is not well spent) is then spent on things that actively try and disrupt the EU parliament. Individuals are voted in to represent them, in this case, in the EU. That's the electoral mandate to represent them in the EU parliament. It is not a mandate to try and disrupt proceedings, the funding is not there to be spent on trying to leave, or cast bigoted posters or plain lie as that is not representing the people in EU parliament and what their mandate is. If they want to leave then that is a national issues and should pull those funds from national sponsors. Using, in this example EU money, is not spending that money in a manner that they were mandated to spend it in. Just inn the same way that UK funds should not be supported to help lobby one private company buying another due to personal interests because that is not what the mandate that the person was elected on was.

The EU is not going to turn round and stop funding those parties, whoever they are, that engage and remain in the remit of the MEP position they were voted in to do. I am supportive of measures where people are deliberately trying to be disruptive and 'breakdown' the process because that is not the remit of the position that they were elected into. Despite what is thought getting elected doesn't mean you then have carte blanche. How might be a different question - you could for example require minimum attendance (and positive contribution) before you get paid any funds. If they fail to do this the individual gets kicked out and a 'by-election' is run to find a replacement (noting that the same party can put forward another candidate). In addition the EU could provide a summary to the individual countries of exactly what there MEPs have done (and compared to others) so that it is quite clear that those that are turning up just for the money are clearly pointed out.

What really surprises is me is the hypocritical nature of the conversation. We hear no condemnation of the UK banning National Action (now Scottish Action apparently) which is the same effect, it's barring a voice to a point of view. Yet there are howls of condemnation when the EU propose the same thing. Personally I don't think the EU could ever win with people that are so anti-EU they want to see it fail; if they funded neo-Nazi's they'd be criticised (and we'd probably be told here is evidence they are trying to create the 4th Reich) and by trying to prevent them gain a platform where they can promote a racist and bigoted view with simple messages (that if Wrexit is anything to go buy a lot of people still seem to accept and not question) they are criticised.

So the question is that if you are so supportive of all people being given a voice have you written to Government supporting National Actions 'unbanning'?

Better than your apporach: "Parties I agree with get the right to access public funding. Parties that I deem to be extremist should be denied access."

Can I ask that you don't deliberately put something in quotes I didn't say? Making up arguments for the other side is not reasoned or rational debate. If this is your view of what was said then say it, but *DON'T* quote other people as saying it.

I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.

I bet you consider UKIP to be extremist, don't you?

I see the irrational side is coming out again. I could easily counter that you want the EU to fail to prove a point and that you fear that those that actively try and disrupt and dismantle it will have to do that outside the EU parliament at a national level (which is where the debate should be had) but that which the funding they receive is will now have to be found at national level (which it should). When you say manipulative language I assume you just mean through better arguments? I have no issue with someone arguing against European integration in the correct theatre, I do think it is inappropriate to use funds that are meant to be spent on EU issues and the mandate they awarded on being used for purposes that they weren't there to support. I do not support the funding of those determined to be extremists and not come to the table and have a rational debate. I do oppose funding those that actively advertise their appreciation of the murder of an MP or that because they have a different view they are the "enemy of the state". Funding such groups legitimises their appeal, allows them to broadcast a wider more bigoted hate filled message. How many MPs get abused because of certain stance they took rather on a certain issue (especially women MPs). That leads to fear to stand up and be part of the democratic process leading to 'only' people of a certain argument putting their names forward. That leads to a dark place.

My problem is who gets to decide where the line is drawn? It smacks of partisan politics to me. You're effectively arguing that a Gatekeeper should be put in place to selectively filter Democracy to keep out people and parties who Think Wrong...which strikes me as being very anti-Democratic.

Perhaps, but a line does have to be drawn, not everyone will play by the rules and some will actively and physically exploit it to change the world to one where they are in control. If you wanted complete freedom of speech and expression then you would have to accept that you should also be funding ISIS supporters and any other violent groups. If we could trust that every human could have a rational and sensible debate then you wouldn't need a gate keeper. The human race has not got to that position...at least with a gate keeper we do get a staypuft marshmallow man

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-41232991

Brexit: Airships could patrol Irish border, says think tank

A think tank has suggested that drones or airships could be used to monitor the Irish border after Brexit.

The idea is raised in a paper from the Legatum Institute, examining how the UK and EU could resolve the border issue.

It states that "persistent surveillance of the border region" could be achieved through patrols by unmanned aerial vehicles or deployment of aerostats.

But it concedes "that these solutions are subject to a number of limitations, not least weather and cost".

The Legatum Institute is considered to be influential with some government ministers.

Its paper largely echoes the view of Brexit Secretary David Davis that a so-called hard Irish border can be avoided through a combination of technology and a comprehensive trade deal.

'Tightened or relaxed'

It also suggests that the Special EU Programmes Body, which manages cross-border EU funding, should be repurposed after Brexit to deal with cross-border trade.

It says it could "be used to monitor the border, conducting risk assessments and advising when border security should be tightened or relaxed."

It is also supportive of the idea that Northern Ireland and the Irish border counties should become a "special economic zone" (SEZ).

An SEZ is usually an area of a country where business, trade or taxation laws differ from rest of the country, with the aim of boosting growth.

The leader of the Republic of Ireland's main opposition party has made a similar suggestion.

The UK government made some suggestions about customs and the border in a position paper published last month.

However, it appears to have been rejected by the EU, with its chief negotiator Michel Barnier saying: "Creativity and flexibility can't be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and customs union."

But it concedes "that these solutions are subject to a number of limitations, not least weather and cost".

..... Blue Sky thinking indeed eh ?

http://instantrimshot.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4883306/Diane-Abbott-says-n-b-live-GMB.html

Can Dianne Abbot even have one interview that not hit the papers for all the wrong reasons?

I know she a favorite target because she has a bad run already but she a regular live tv disaster it seems.

Can someone please take her aside and maybe give her abit of coaching and such so this stops happening?

 jhe90 wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4883306/Diane-Abbott-says-n-b-live-GMB.html

Can Dianne Abbot even have one interview that not hit the papers for all the wrong reasons?

I know she a favorite target because she has a bad run already but she a regular live tv disaster it seems.

Can someone please take her aside and maybe give her abit of coaching and such so this stops happening?

Not giving the Mail clicks - I take it's her, a woman who receives so much abuse that academic studies remove her from figures because she skews everything so drastically, was quoting abuse she received during the GE campaign? There's nothing wrong with that, though I accept lots of people will take exception when it's before the watershed, even in a news context.

I presume the Mail have disabled Comments do it isn't just a stream of people saying 'well that's what she is!'.

She wasn't using the language pejoratively but was quoting. I don't have a problem with that, no one was being abused. Who exactly are all these 'distressed' people watching? They already know what the words mean, if hearing them in the context of a discussion quoting abuse is so upsetting they need a thicker skin.

If we can't have a frank adult discussion about the abuse and threats celebrities and people in the public eye because we're too timid to even repeat saying words we all already know, I think there's problems with facing issues in society.

For example, the 'shock' aspect tone of this reported story isn't that she received this abuse in the first place, but that she had the audacity to repeat it publicly. Is that right? Would these disgusting threats towards her even have been reported in newspapers had she refused to repeat them or mumbled their actual content?