Little bit of politics - let's keep it civil

[Dixie]

So UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - has taken first place in the elections for British MEPs, bagging at least 23 seats with Labour and Conservative tied on 18 with only the Western Isles of Scotland left to declare. This is the first time in 100 years that neither of the two main parties have come first in a national election.

Let's not debate the merits or otherwise of UKIP as a party - that could get ugly. But what message does this result send to the three (other) main political parties, and to our fellow members of the European Union? And what should the leaders of those bodies do to counter the disaffection that has seen UKIP's support soar?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Happy to have this debate elsewhere, but not even in the non-rugby section of this site in my personal view, which I quite accept May be different other folks'.

As a political activist and with my wife as an elected District Councillor, I can tell you there has been a lot of debate at all levels right up to our glorious Leader in the last few months. I am delighted to be able to say "told you so" and hope the wake up call and lessons to be learnt are heeded.

 

[damo]

Does the vote suggest that the British people are favouring leaving Europe?

 

[4eyesbetter]

Not necessarily. Let's remember two things:

1. UKIP has won a quarter of the vote...on 36% turnout.
2. It's one thing to gain just over a quarter of MEPs with just over a quarter of the national vote in an election that few people take very seriously with proportional representation. It's a completely different thing for UKIP to win even one seat in a General Election run on first-past-the-post where turnout's likely to be doubled.

Nigel Farage is many things, but he's not a blithering idiot, and I'm sure he's been thinking very hard about how to not be the SDP for the new millennium. 1983 election: Tories 42.4% 397 seats; Labour 27.6% 209 seats; SDP/Liberal Alliance 25.4% 23 seats; It ain't what you get, it's the place where you get it, and that's what gets results. What this does do is set us up for the most interesting general election since the war; there are so many variables, and a lot of them are completely unprecedented.

 

[Taff]

... But what message does this result send to the three (other) main political parties, and to our fellow members of the European Union?

That British people have had a gutsful. They are fed up of immigrants travelling all the way across Europe to come to the UK when the only thing I can see that attracts them are our benefits. They are not travelling through other countries in Europe to come here for the weather (generally it's crap), the food (generally it's crap), the TV (generally it's crap) or the lovely friendly people who live here. As far as I can see the only thing that attracts immigrants here are the benefits. And when a Romanian man can come here and claim Child Benefit for his kids still back in Romania (when UK organisations are struggling for cash) someone somewhere is extracting the urine. I have 2 boys - one of which is disabled and the support group he goes to twice a month effectively lives hand to mouth. It just covers it's monthly costs with sod all reserves in the bank. Frankly it's touch and go whether it will still be around in a year, after the local council either slashed or refused all funding. When British disabled kids (and their parents) suffer because some of our money gets exported to support other Europeans, is it any real surprise that people are rebelling?

... And what should the leaders of those bodies do to counter the disaffection that has seen UKIP's support soar?

Change. Adopt a tougher attitude to scroungers - give them sod all. Farage is a straight talker - and generally speaking the British like a straight talker. I'm all for giving some poor persecuted soul a temporary roof over his head if there's all kinds of crap going on in their country, but as soon as the crap is cleared, I would like them out. Why do we give people permanent asylum for temporary problems?

Does the vote suggest that the British people are favouring leaving Europe?

IMO the only reason we haven't had an In / Out referendum up to know is because the authorities are convinced that we would vote out. If you look at a lot of other European countries, I reckon the split is around 50/50 but in the UK I reckon it's a 65/35 split in favour of pulling out.

 

[FlipFlop]

AS an interested out side observer (English, but now live outside EU), I'm confused by why so many conservative voters vote UKIP at the moment. the Tory party has promised a referendum, and is actually able to deliver it. UKIP just wants out, and can't deliver it.

It would make more sense for a anti-Europe Tory voter to vote Tory. Of course those non-Tory voters who are anti-EU, have only UKIP to go to, as they are likely to be "anyone but Tory" voters.

More worrying is the rise of the Far Right parties across Europe.

 

[RobLev]

So UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - has taken first place in the elections for British MEPs, bagging at least 23 seats with Labour and Conservative tied on 18 with only the Western Isles of Scotland left to declare. This is the first time in 100 years that neither of the two main parties have come first in a national election.

Let's not debate the merits or otherwise of UKIP as a party - that could get ugly. But what message does this result send to the three (other) main political parties, and to our fellow members of the European Union?

It should be that they must take UKIP seriously, and actually nail the dishonesty of the factual claims underlying their appeals to the electorate, not simply try to out-kipper them.

And what should the leaders of those bodies do to counter the disaffection that has seen UKIP's support soar?

I had hoped that when Clegg decided to take Farage on in debate the purpose was to get more terminological inexactitudes on record that could then be nailed in the susbequent election campaign. He accomplished the former (EU airforce anyone?), but failed in the latter.

Farage is refreshing in one way. Other politicians will hedge and shade the truth to make it look like it supports their views and policy positions. Farage simply creates his own "truths"; like the Peruvian immigrant convicted of manslaughter that avoided deportation by pleading the Human Right Act because he owned a pet cat. You'll remember Theresa May telling a modified version of the story to the 2011 Tory conference. The truth was that the man in question wasn't Peruvian, but Bolivian; he wasn't a criminal of any description; and he was permitted to stay because he had created a family life here and the Home Office policy that should have been applied (that predated the HRA, IIRC) said he should therefore be permitted to.

Sorry to get into the merits of UKIP as a party; but IMHO their success is based upon giving the electorate a simple, but not entirely factual, narrative that a significant proportion is happy to believe (i) because they distrust politicians generally and (ii) everyone wants life to be simple, and life's problems to have simple solutions.

 

[Taff]

... I'm confused by why so many conservative voters vote UKIP at the moment. the Tory party has promised a referendum, and is actually able to deliver it. UKIP just wants out, and can't deliver it. It would make more sense for a anti-Europe Tory voter to vote Tory.

And do you think the main political parties would adopt a tougher position if UKIP didn't exist? IMO no they wouldn't? Do you honestly think Cameron would be offering an IN/Out referendum if UKIP didn't exist?

IMO UKIP is a protest vote and come the general election a lot will vote Conservative - partly to get the In/Out referendum. I'm sure Nigel Farage doesn't have a foreign policy; the fact is he doesn't NEED a foreign policy because UKIP will never form a government.

It could be a myth, but over here a lot of people I know look on Australia with envy. As I said it could be a myth, but the perception here is that the Australian government don't let anyone in unless they are of benefit to Australia, and make no pretence of it being anything else. I have had friends and colleagues who have tried to emigrate to Australia (some have got in and some haven't) but they have virtually all said it was a hell of a job to get in. Compare that with the UK.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I had 3 leaflets drop through the door:-

UKIP

BNP

English Democrats (whoever they are)

After laughing at the grammar/ spelling and photos of the candidates, they went in the (recycling) bin.

The main parties don't bother for Local/Euro elections as I live in a "monkey with a red rosette" Labour stronghold and Ed Miliband is the MP for the constituency next door. I can safely say I have never seen a Conservative candidate out campaigning in the 30 years I've lived here. I arrived in the year of the miners' strike.

In the finest tradition of electoral apathy I got in from work at 19h30 had my tea and went to the pub - won the quiz (again).

As apathetic as I and my fellow 64%ers are I'd like to stay part of Europe and the lads round the corner do a good job on my car.:romania:

PS I don't know that they are Romanian but it's the only Eastern European flag.

 

[RobLev]

...

More worrying is the rise of the Far Right parties across Europe.

This. (Albeit I've been involved in debates on another forum over whether UKIP qualifies for this description, so it might not be a separate issue).

 

[OB..]

Sorry to get into the merits of UKIP as a party; but IMHO their success is based upon giving the electorate a simple, but not entirely factual, narrative that a significant proportion is happy to believe (i) because they distrust politicians generally and (ii) everyone wants life to be simple, and life's problems to have simple solutions.

UK answer to Sarah Palin? :biggrin:

 

[RobLev]

UK answer to Sarah Palin? :biggrin:

Complete with the connection to the bloke in the saloon bar (albeit by holding a pint, not winking...).

 

[irishref]

The true disaffection is shown, I believe, in the very low turnout. I think supporters of the main 2.5 parties "voted" more by staying away, rather than switching to UKIP.

The low turnout unduly increases UKIP's conceived popularity I think. I don't think they'd win more than 3 seats in a Westminster election, where the constituency model and FPTP keeps the status quo firmly established.

As for across Europe: a very mixed bag. As shocking as Le Pen's victory in France may be, here in the NL we are at least seemingly giving Wilders the boot - his party lost heavily in terms of votes and most parties in the EU elections here campaigned on a broadly pro-EU ticket.

 

[Browner]

It could be a myth, but over here a lot of people I know look on Australia with envy. As I said it could be a myth, but the perception here is that the Australian government don't let anyone in unless they are of benefit to Australia, and make no pretence of it being anything else. I have had friends and colleagues who have tried to emigrate to Australia (some have got in and some haven't) but they have virtually all said it was a hell of a job to get in. Compare that with the UK.

If Sub class 188 & 888 persist ......when will Aus be annexed to China ?
Forecasting is in here.
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/index.htm

As for UKIP.... They only have a short window to impact the political landscape, only because their likely target voter % is decreasing daily !!

 

[Browner]

......... and the lads round the corner do a good job on my car..

I once made (what I thought was witty/banter style comment) about my drive getting Tarmaced , thereafter followed a chastisement , so if consistency is applied ???!!!!!!!??? then expect the same Lee ...

But wait, none of the target of your wit are overtly sensitive or PC members of RR so I doubt anyone will complain

I liked your humour , which I always take as wit/banter/humour and nothing else ...xx

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, Switzerland has certainly thrown a spanner in the works, haven't they...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-as-voters-choose-to-end-EU-immigration.html

Switzerland has got the Europe joining issue sorted. As with most major issues, it gets put to a referendum; a true democracy where the people get to directly decide on major issues such as immigration, health and social reform.

In 1992 they almost joined the EU, the proposal being rejected by 50.3% to 49.7%

After the Swiss people have seen they way that Europe has invaded, overridden and compromised the sovereignty, currency and courts of its member nations, it has never again come that close.

1997 - defeated 74.1%
2001 - defeated 76.8%

 

[Taff]

Switzerland's main trading partners are European Union members. By far the biggest partner is Germany. In 2010 it was followed in descending order by Italy, France, the Netherlands, the US and the United Kingdom. In 2009, 59.7% of exports went to EU countries, and 78% of the imports came from EU states. This is despite the fact that the Swiss have consistently voted to remain outside the body.

Source: www.swissworld.org

Well that has nailed one pro-European argument then, and just confirms what I've thought for years. Ie European countries don't buy stuff from us because we're in Europe - they buy stuff from us because it suits them.

According to the BBC (see HERE) the UK is the second net contributor to the EU (after Germany) paying in £3,500,000,000 more a year than we get out of it. To put it another way, the EU needs us a damn sight more than we need the EU. Personally I would happily pull the plug on it and keep the £3,500,000,000 a year to spend here. No wonder some countries can't wait to get into the EU.

 

[RobLev]

Well that has nailed one pro-European argument then, and just confirms what I've thought for years. Ie European countries don't buy stuff from us because we're in Europe - they buy stuff from us because it suits them.

According to the BBC (see HERE) the UK is the second net contributor to the EU (after Germany) paying in £3,500,000,000 more a year than we get out of it. To put it another way, the EU needs us a damn sight more than we need the EU. Personally I would happily pull the plug on it and keep the £3,500,000,000 a year to spend here. No wonder some countries can't wait to get into the EU.

Firstly, that net contribution table, I believe, leaves out of account our 3.5bn rebate.

Secondly, even outside Europe, if we wanted to trade on favourable terms we'd still have to contribute to the EU budget, in the same way as do Norway and Switzerland. Calculating at the same rate as the Norwegian contribution (which is based on their GDP as a proportion of European GDP), our payment would be of the order of 4.4 billion Euros; but without access to the regional and other funds that currently bring down our net contribution.

 

[RobLev]

Well, Switzerland has certainly thrown a spanner in the works, haven't they...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-as-voters-choose-to-end-EU-immigration.html

Switzerland has got the Europe joining issue sorted. As with most major issues, it gets put to a referendum; a true democracy where the people get to directly decide on major issues such as immigration, health and social reform.

In 1992 they almost joined the EU, the proposal being rejected by 50.3% to 49.7%

After the Swiss people have seen they way that Europe has invaded, overridden and compromised the sovereignty, currency and courts of its member nations, it has never again come that close.

1997 - defeated 74.1%
2001 - defeated 76.8%

Switzerland is learning that you don't break agreements with the EU, particularly on such fundamental issues as free movement of people, without consequences:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27244959

Switzerland is at least as closely integrated into the EU economy as the UK, and is affected by all the rules and regulations on goods etc that the 'Kippers complain about, but with the significant disadvantage of not having a vote on their being made. It also pays into the EU budget...

 

[FlipFlop]

On the Switzerland issue. Switzerland is learning that you can't go against the will of the people. It is also learning that "sanctions" against it from the EU have amounted to stopping Swiss Students using Erasmus (and also stopped EU students coming to Swiss Universities)

(Side note: Swiss students abroad, who have had their funding under Erasmus cut, have been paid for by a private/public fund, to ensure they finish their studies, EU students in Switzerland have been told to pay, or go home, and had no help from their governments!)

The EU wants to act against Switzerland, for breaking a treaty, but it is very hard form them to do so, and still claim to be a democracy. (quiet in the corner - I said claim, not is) How can a democracy actively punish a country for acting on the direct vote of their citizens? And if it were to do so, it sends a strong message, that the EU is willing to bully, and act contrary to the voice of the people. Which strengthens the Anti-EU voice.

But to do nothing, would mean that the "fringe" players would see that it is possible to act outside, but have what you want.

But the issue of free-movement is not so clear cut. The UK is worried about free movement, other countries are talking about it. And the quota doesn't fully stop freedom of movement, just limits the numbers who can move (by this I mean, they are not stopping people from any particular country, just the total number of EU). I think quite a few EU countries would like to put quotas on the movement of people around the EU.

And the best bit in those articles is the bit about: "you can't pick or choose what you sign up to". Well that is exactly what Switzerland does do. It signs up to bi-lateral agreements with the EU, which include payments to be made were appropriate, and doesn't sign up or get involved in any treaty it doesn't like. So it doesn't get a say on what is in the treaties themselves, but it gets a say on what is in the bi-lateral treaty, and (importantly) gets to decide if it wants the treaty, or not.