[Closed] Europe...

molgrips - Member
As for self government - two issues here:
1) our political/democratic system is buggered and

The political/democratic system is Not buggered but they people who are leading are. In certain generation you get real leader but most of the time you get wannabes. It is choosing the right leader that is the problem because most, if not all, are zombie maggots.

2) the electorate aren't very bright and are easily led by people with money.

You will be surprised how bright they can be when their livelihood is being disrupted. Alternatively, the argument can also be said of the failure of the leaders who aren't that bright to lead or to make the people understand. Shouldn't it be easier for a bright person to lead/explain to those that can't understand since they are that bright?

Money? That is temporary effect and sooner or later they will be caught.

So I'm not sure about self government tbh. It's a bit like having primary school kids hire and fire teachers.

The problem is not about self govt but the inability to find a true leader that can lead with honesty and integrity. Most of the leaders "inherited" their status to lead.

No, they are not like kids hiring or firing teachers. That is reserved for higher education level where students are treated as customers. 😆

@aa you can have a group of nations co-operating on targeted legislation or trade initiatives without unresicted freedom of movement and without an implied liability for the debts of the other countries. The EU began as the "common market" it was a trade grouping. It has morphed into something else altogether.

morphed?

or a handful of treaties, requiring unanimous agreement and ratification?

Schengen agreement to ratified Amsterdam Treaty had several UK general elections. UK electorate returned governments that negotiated opt-out, and ratified (with at least one change in power).

Maastricht Treaty had a general election right in the middle between signing and ratification. Also with opt outs. And Blair was clear that he would ratify one of those opt outs. UK voted for a Blair landslide.

Morphing is a bad choice of word. Progression, with unanimous ratification by member states, some with referendum, some with general election, others with "who cares, we'll let the elected government sort it".

it hasn't imo

At no stage have the British people been asked to ratify membership of the EU, which is a very different organisation to what the EEC was.

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that.

The UK were given a General Election in 1992.

The UK electorate voted for a Eurosceptic Conservative government that intended to ratify the Maastricht Treaty with negotiated UK opt-outs.

They were given a voice. They spoke.

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that.

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully enough. I made no such claim. This is what I wrote :

[i]It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.[/i]

This is a concept which has fairly universal recognition.

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification

All the others [ 9]were on devolution or similar issue

I agree they should be but they are not

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

It is not generally accepted hence why they are so incredibly rare

It is indeed generally accepted, the reason they are rare is because important proposed constitutional changes with far reaching consequences are rare.

But most countries allow for a separate vote/referendum on important constitutional issues. Scotland is having one on an important constitutional issue this September.

And if a referendum was justified over the constitutional issue of EEC membership then one is also justified over the issue of EU membership, which has even more far reaching constitutional consequences.

I can understand why some people might not want a referendum though - for them democracy is only a wonderful thing when it guarantees to give the results which they approve of.

I am not disagreeing that we should have them nor that we should on this issue. I am only arguing against it being universally accepted. If it was universally accepted we would have had one by now and we would not have UKIP campaigning for 20 years [ and others before]
The will of the people is being forced on the political masers IMHO

My only concern is that most folk know **** all about what the EU really does and get drip fed a distorted view by the media- hence the massive media coverage UKIP get that the greens dont.... saying this plays into your weak left attack 😀

chewkw - Member
My prediction is this in GE: Hang Parliament with UKIP as King/Queen maker for now

but let's hope UKIP will get enough seats in future elections to get us out totally without being in a coalition govt.

@aa you can have a group of nations co-operating on targeted legislation or trade initiatives without unresicted freedom of movement and without an implied liability for the debts of the other countries. The EU began as the "common market" it was a trade grouping. It has morphed into something else altogether.

I never said you couldnt I just suggested two examples where agreement as a group could well have been easier than lots of lone states trying to agree.

r4 reported the latest "in out" YouGov poll gives the in camp a 5 point lead 42 to 37

I like straight Banana's, can we keep them if we cut loose?

you like straight banana's what?

A straight banana's shape is more pleasurable.

I had a straight banana for my breakfast today, rumours of their demise are great exaggerated.

@andy - 1992, a long long time ago, pre the significant expansion of the EU, pre the euro crises and the abuse of the EU and its tax system by international business. The sceptic back then spoke of the potential issues the new treaties could bring and they have been proven right. Those laws wouldn't pass today. Sarkozy said that admitting Greece to the euro had been a mistake. Just because a decision was made in the past and voted on doesn't make it correct.

The Tories may be sceptic but they are not anti-EU, they have pushed a referendum off till 2017 (date not confirmed) as they know it's quite likely a vote today would be "out". UKIP is popular as it's very clearly "out"

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.

The reason this wasn't done IMO is that it was too important a decision to risk people saying no. People would have voted along spurous nationalistic lines instead of economic ones; then bitterly complained about their economic situation later.

I do believe in self government (ie democracy) but that confers a responsibility on the electorate. You have to actually learn about and consider the issues. I don't know what the solution is.. Maybe some kind of license to vote 🙂

Seriously though there is no alternative that isn't abhorrent, so we once again return to the bottom line, education.

@molgrips - 1 pound, 1 vote - average your last 5 income tax returns. I heard, a deliberately controversial, viewpoint recently that too many people had a vote who don't contribute anything to the tax system on a net basis. This was set at those who paid less in tax than the benefits they obtained from Education, NHS etc. It was a switch in the common phrase to "no representation without taxation"

Clearly this is not democratic and is never going to happen but the numerical truth is that those who take more than they give have a disproportionately large influence on elections.

So it seems that democracy isn't very popular with some people, what with the molgrips's claim that the electorate are too stupid to be trusted and jambalaya's claim that they don't pay enough in taxes.

And it's said as a serious comment not in jest, although I'm sure there'll be a little bit of backtracking.

You're both Tory voters aren't you ? I ask because it explains a lot.

Admitting Greece.....how many economies actually satisfied the Maastricht criteria????

The follies of a fixed exchange rate (and the lies behind it) are coming home to roost now. Not a pretty site but inevitable.

@Jambalaya

You are a buffoon. Net tax is not the somethingionof an individuals worth, is it?

@andy - 1992, a long long time ago, pre the significant expansion of the EU, pre the euro crises and the abuse of the EU and its tax system by international business. The sceptic back then spoke of the potential issues the new treaties could bring and they have been proven right. Those laws wouldn't pass today. Sarkozy said that admitting Greece to the euro had been a mistake. Just because a decision was made in the past and voted on doesn't make it correct

those who take more than they give have a disproportionately large influence on elections.

those who take more than they give have a disproportionately large influence on elections.

Clearly this is not democratic and is never going to happen but the numerical truth is that those who take more than they give have a disproportionately large influence on elections.

If the choice of low or no tax-contributing voters is (under fptp that is) between two cheeks of the same arse, whose policies are massively influenced by the biggest party donors then you can have that one, yes. However has it not been long understood if not accepted that the voice of big business, the super-rich, the old boys establishments and until recently the trade unions extends far beyond what choice you have on election day?

Remember that people who pay no income, council, inheritance tax, stamp duty etc still pay tax. Not on scale of someone on a six figure salary but even my eight year old contributes to the nation's overall tax take when he spends his pocket money.

...even my eight year old contributes to the nation's overall tax take when he spends his pocket money.

I hope he's paying the full 20% rate......no knocking off the VAT for cash.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully enough. I made no such claim.

Your right, you didn't, which is why I asked if there was a specific law that could back you up on this, rather than some dreamy claim by yourself modelled to fit in with your anti-EU bias.

The reason this wasn't done IMO is that it was too important a decision to risk people saying no.

In this country, the media bias means there can be no sensible debate.

So it seems that democracy isn't very popular with some people

In its current form, which isn't democracy, no it isn't.

@Junkyard - this is a discussion forum, I am expressing an opinion, people here would be bored to tears with a long list of examples. As you ask;

Sarkozy, it was a quote from a French tv interview. Immigration has become a major issue in the EU post it's material expansion Eastwards, the evidence is everywhere, to suggest that the press has somehow formed public opinion is nonsense, most people don't read a paper, their circulation and influence is tiny. International business use low tax jurisdictions like Ireland to shelter many billions in profits from tax which would otherwise be levied in the countries where they really do their business. They can do this via an abuse of EU treaties. That's why politicians can do nothing despite public opinion and their rhetoric.

@thestabilizer - read what I posted. It was a deliberately controversial speech designed to foster a debate.

Regarding the use of the word disproportionate it was used in the speech in the context of the influence someone could have via voting who didn't contribute on a net basis.

Political influence via donations/party funding.

For those that believe our democracy is controlled by a few rich individuals what do you say about the unions funding the Labour party ? As I understand it the union donations come from central funds not the members (who really have no say in this). Is that so bad ? If funding by individual donations was so destructive why didn't the Labour party change the law during their 10 years ?

rather than some dreamy claim by yourself modelled to fit in with your anti-EU bias.

Oh dear, the claim that it is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification is just a "dreamy claim" is it ?

Your denial of an obvious fact is undoubtedly modelled to fit in with your pro-EU bias.

And to be clear when I use the term "democracies" I fully recognise the shortcomings and failures of bourgeois parliamentary democracies, they are still however a form of democracy, whether that offends your terribly left-wing views or not.

Still not right though is it?

Low paid people might take from the tax system but they generate wealth for the wealthy by making business profitable. Your bin man empties the bins for your business, if he was on 150k to do it, along with the cleaners and the bloke who mends the photocopier your overheads would start looking pretty prohibitive. Put them in different jobs that generate more income and guess what, you still need your bins emptying. Oh and at the weekend he's a parish councillor and volunteer greensman at the local sports club.......... Your numerical 'truth' is bollox. Debate ended.

Even Hattersley, who so sharply condemned Heath’s double-dealing, has offered his own mea culpa: What we did throughout all those years, all the Europeans, was say, [b]let’s not risk trying to make fundamental changes by telling the whole truth, [/b]let’s do it through public relations rather than real proselytising… [b]spin the argument rather than expose the argument.[/b] Not only was it wrong for us to deal superficially with what Europe involved, but we’ve paid the price for it ever since… Joining the European Community did involve significant loss of sovereignty but by telling the British people that was not involved, I think the rest of the argument was prejudiced for the next twenty or thirty years.24 At best the pro-Europeans were coy about sovereignty and at worst they were downright deceptive. [b]It would come back to haunt them by contributing to public mistrust and, eventually, outright hostility to further European integration, even where logic suggested that European countries were better off cooperating.[/b]

The chickens finally come home to roost since

One of the worst outcomes of Europe’s malaise is that populations and governments no longer feel in control of their own destiny

Partly because

Monetary unions tend eventually to collapse unless they are embedded in a coherent political framework that allows for effective collective action and burden-sharing, for instance [b]through joint fiscal policy[/b].

Hopefully people will remember before 18 September. Don't swallow spin, the aftertaste is very unpleasant.

this is a discussion forum, I am expressing an opinion, people here would be bored to tears with a long list of examples. As you ask;

Your denial of an obvious fact i

It should be accepted but it is not

Hopefully people will remember before 18 September. Don't swallow spin, the aftertaste is very unpleasant.

can you at least just keep it to the relevant thread?

Still not right though is it?

Whoosh

So you've tabled it, we've establsihed it's wrong. Job done?

When we pull out of That Europe will I still be able to buy French Wine and Cheese?

I'm getting worried, no straight Banana's and now it looks like no Wine nor Cheese..

This is something that's just occured to me, I may change my vote should I get one.

bikebouy - Member

When we pull out of That Europe will I still be able to buy French Wine and Cheese?

I don't drink wine but I do buy German cheese though. 😆

slowoldman - Member

So you've tabled it, we've established it's wrong. Job done?

@thestabliser - what about the Unions ? They actually have their own political party in Labour (historically certainly and still very influential). Are they powerful as they represent large numbers of people (votes, sounds democratic) or collectively because they made a large donation (money, sounds less democratic) ? same same or same different as my Asian friends and colleagues would say ?

So the argument might go cut out the middle man (the donor/organisation) and just have your vote weighted by the amount of tax you pay. Its transparent.

The unions and labour movement were established for the specific purpose of establishing influence over the deomcaratic process because the wealthy and establishment 'owned' parliament. Their donations enable the work of thr labour party which is to represent the interests of the working class by pursuing a socialist agenda (at least that's how it used to work). The idea being (as it was with democracy in the first place) one man one vote. You've got tax and entitlement to a say in society very confused. How you get from your second paragraph to the statement at the end of your post is unclear. There is no proportional relationship and if you're a net giver then good for you, you get to see the societal benefit of your 'largesse' through the fact that the serfs aren't eating each others babies.

From my view :

1. The media massively overhypes UKIP
2. Labour needs to pull its finger out
3. Lib dems are finished
4. The Tories are crumbling away and no one seems to have noticed in all the fuss

I don't think this was an anti immigration vote ( the uk isn't massively anti immigration, certain elements if the press are, but most regular folk aren't) I think it was a 'not the same old suit and tie' vote

@nickc

1) media tried to ignore / mock UKIP, now they are first in polls they have to take note.
2) yes, they are lost currently
3) very badly damaged, recent by elections persuaded then that he coalition hadn't hurt them but it has IMO
4) don't agree, they are currently a bit lost as per Labour

I do think this was a vote against uncontrolled immigration and the EU post the euro crises and all the bailouts. Rescuing banks is one thing but rescuing other countries who borrowed too much ? It's been a financial and PR disaster for the EU.

1. True and does not scrutinise sufficiently
2. Still in the lead just, but policy messages (MK III) eroded by events. Need a MK IV but currently in pole position despite weak leader. Stalking horses keeping their heads down wisely at the moment.
3. Still a possible joker come the GE. Hard to see it now but may still hold some balance of power come 2015
4. Doing better in polls and closing gap with labour despite only partial policy successes. How can they be crumbling away when they are closing the gaps and largely similar in votes recently? Plus the long predicted (on here) joker of the economy confounding expectations on the upside may still work in their favour.

Europe cannot survive without either (1) partial or complete abandonment of the € and/or (2) much closer integration including fiscal integration,

The popular vote seems anti (2) therefore (1) has to happen it's only a matter off time. So the whole EU debate in the UK is likely to be completely redundant as the status quo cannot by definition exist in its current format. Ca, c'est evident.

To me it is much more obvious but much harder for the main political parties to admit it is the UK political system that is broken. The Scotland issue being the main pointer as that is as much about lack of representation as nationalism but the Scots have something to hang it on. I think that would be the thing I would offer as an alternative to the yes vote but the main political parties are too stuck in their existing ways and the voters are convinced that any politics is about gravy trains and bureaucracy not changing things for the better.

The conservatives seem to be quite happily getting on with changing things but I am not sure anybody voted for the privatisation max they are carrying out or like it.

Privatisation max - I must have missed that.

I agree that there are problems with the political system but they merely mirror wider problems. We/most of us have been the generations that have grown up on the illusion of debt - bring forward consumption today but delay payment into the never-never. Plus we had outcomes that largely exceeded expectations throughout our lifetimes. Now it's pay back time and literally (this time) payment has to be bought forward and consumption delayed plus outcomes will be below falsely high expectations for the current younger generation.

You have to be a bloody smart politician to square that circle. But let's hope that they teach you something in PPE otherwise dangerous forces are being unleashed that will not have a happy ending.

THM re my point 4

20 years since they won a majority, 9 years of Cameron leadership and 4 years since they failed to win an election against one of the most unpopular labour govt in years. Labour trounced them in London and UKIP trounced them in the shires, and they continue to not grow any support amongst young and minority voters

If milliband has got an uphill struggle next GE, Cameron's position is arguably worse

Cue Boris?

if Nigel's lot do win (unlikely imo, but you never know) in Newark then i expect Boris might be making a move.

The UK and Europe are lurching to the nationalistic right in large numbers.

What, at root, is driving this?

What would make huge swathes of voters want to attend to border and security issues in such large numbers?

What is the

[img] [/img]

Zombie maggots.

One of our local cafes is run by Cypriots.
Even they are moaning about immigrants.

[i]What would make huge swathes of voters want to attend to border and security issues in such large numbers?[/i]

I seriously think they are just plain stupid. They don't vote based on anything but "Ooh UKIP, I've heard of them" (probably 80%(ish) of the vote).

i think they have bough the media fed effect that the real reason for all their problems are foreigners/immigrants when in reality the real reason - zero hours contracts, MW/low wages, "flexible working", high unemployment etc are the result of capitalism and right wing ideologies within the labour market

They are essentially scapegoating other poor people rather than getting angry at the real target who caused all this.
The powers that be [ whomever they might be] would rather see a high vote for Farage and UKIP [ he is one of them anyway] than see the riots against bankers that was St Pauls

Give the people someone to hate and unite them behind that hatred.

@DezB it really is the EU and in particular the free movement of people within it, ie immigration.

@Junkyard, most people don't watch the news or read the papers. They are reacting to what they see.

EDIT: By the way there weren't any riots at St Pauls, I went down there a few times. There where a few speeches but mostly just sitting about. It was such a laugh that so many protestors went home to sleep in their own beds at night but left their tents there. Hardly a protest of any great conviction was it ?

Europe cannot survive without either (1) partial or complete abandonment of the € and/or (2) much closer integration including fiscal integration,

Pot holes
Bins
Immigrants

The three cornerstones of electoral focus grouping.

Macro economics
Social justice
Foreign Policy

What we should be voting on. But to be honest I haven't got a clue about them. So you can take your bin emptying foreigners and fill potholes with 'em.

Noting to do with this, then...

[img] [/img]

Jambalaya, IMO this is the mistake that the EU wiliest are making. The required level of integration is not acceptable to most people. The EU elite need or respond. The recovery has already stalled and social tensions remain v high. The € cannot survive with fudges too much longer.

@THM I fear the euro will survive very much longer with continued fudges, it would be much better fixed properly or disposed of but the former isn't acceptable to the voters and the latter isn't acceptable to the politicians (and probably the voters of Spain and Italy as without the euro their public debt burden is unsustainable)

Then Europe is in for a long period of poor growth. The required adjustment in the periphery countries is being driven by dramatic reductions in wages COMBINED with high unemployment. The results are still poor hence the need for European QE which will only fuel an asset bubble since EU banks are still largely buggered. A horror story that is as sad as it is inevitable.

Politicians can keep their fingers in the dyke for only so long.....

This country is so messed up with regards to looking after its own people that you have rely on the EU to be the responsible parent. And only 40,000 employed in EU operations, which is 60,000 less than HMRC employ, and still crap at tax collecting.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27576626 ]BBC NEWS Today: HMRC Tax Crackdown yields record yield from investigations into tax avoidance[/url]

This country is not messed up with rewards to looking after it's own people (whatever own means). It does a good job in absolute and relative terms. Not to say that it can't be improved but it's not messed up....