Re: The European Elections
 

Or, IMO, rather that they consider they're all as bad as each other, so it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

More to the point, had the UK European Election results mirrored the UK Local Election results, I think it would have been meaningless because people would have just been blindly voting for a party.

However the fact that there were *substantial* differences suggests that many of those who voted were actually doing so on the basis of issues and principles, rather than simple "party alliegence".

Re: The European Elections
 

Whilst there is still a bare majority for the death penalty in the UK (55% according to a Gallup Poll for the Guardian after the Sarah Payne, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman murders) it was found that most of those in favour are in the higher age brackets (50-60+) whereas those under 40 were mostly against it. This reflects strongly against 76% being in favour only a decade before.

However this is IMO, frankly, a red herring and off topic for a discussion about Europe, so I'll not address it further here.

But the difference between the votes in the Local and European Elections suggest that people do *not* believe that the UK will "lose" by being outside the EU (but still *within* some form of Free Trade area which is what UKIP is talking about).

I think these people have voted, rather, not to be *part* of that institution and not subject to its rulings and decisions. That is somewhat different from what you suggest.

I also think Kilroy's comment about "wrecking" the European Parliament was an ill-adviced off the cuff joke rather than a serious suggestion.

I think this is something that can quite easily be handled by national governments, rather that needing some pan-european body to "control" Murdoch's empire.

Why? For instance they say "A self-governing Britain will work constructively with allies in North America, Europe and elsewhere, to the extent that this is in British interests. We are not isolationists, but nor do we envisage ourselves as 'world policemen'. British forces have a valuable peacekeeping role, but only in areas of strategic concern or historical ties to Britain."

Now that's somewhat different from the spin you seem to want to put on it which appears to suggest that UKIP would have blithely gone along with the US invasion as Blair did.

Actually what they say is...

"Some of the most controversial aspects of rail privatisation, such as the creation of Railtrack as a private monopoly, were introduced to comply with EU rules"

... which, whether it is true or not (I can't prove or deny this at the moment from the searches I've done) is, again, different from what you claim.

Resorting to ridiculous statements like this does not help the credibility of your arguments, nor does, seemingly, hoping that nobody will actually rise to your challenge of checking the UKIP site to verify your statements.

Sorry, how much do we pay nett into the EU each year?

Or, at least, it seems that's what you want people to think.

Which has precisely *what* to do with the price of fish?

"Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna today hit out at retiring Irish EU Commissioner David Byrne for being more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational companies than the interests of consumers. Referring to today's decision by the European Commission to lift the ban on selling genetically modified sweetcorn in Europe, she said Mr Byrne has been central to development of the EU's policy on GMOs."

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?n...ticle&sid=5130

Now if that's not a result of EU policy, what *IS* it the result of??

Probably because if they aimed at the targets you've just pointed out, they'd end up very wide of the mark and looking foolish?

Re: The European Elections
 

The euro-lovers are slating UKIP for being a one issue party, but it isn't just one issue. It is one extremely important issue. Most other things pale into insignificance to the Euro issue.

Votes for UKIP were mostly a protest vote though. I know plenty of people who voted for UKIP, and none like Kilroy-Silk, or anyone else in the party, but they just wanted to pull out of the EU consitition.

Re: The European Elections
 

Agreed - and for me, this is one of the most heartening things about last week's election results. The clear difference between the local elections, the Euro-election and, in London, the mayoral/assembly election demonstrates that we have become a mature, intelligent democracy that is (generally) capable of voting based on relevant issues and not blind loyalty.

I saw the first signs of this a few years back when, despite Labour's renaissance at Westminster, Liverpool's voters ditched Labour and gave the city council to the Lib Dems. Prior to that, even the blue half of the city would have voted for a monkey providing it was wearing a red rosette. </obscure footballing metaphor>

Re: The European Elections
 

That story only gave the Green MEP's side of the story.

I think the EU has actually done (or was doing) quite a good job of "protecting" us from GMOs - against stiff opposition from the US, & some EU member states (such as the UK).

It is because of the EU that there was an (almost) 6 year long moratorium on the approval of any new GM food, which acted as a de facto ban.

It is because of the EU that when GMOs actually are approved, they have to be properly labelled as such, to ensure consumers can make informed choices on purchasing them. (much to the chagrin of the US government - & others - & the biotech companies, as they do not want us to have that choice, as they know many people would be unwilling to buy any GM food or anything containing GM ingredients)

The Commission voted in favour of approving this particular GM sweetcorn after the governments of EU member states had failed to reach an agreement on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html & http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...217227,00.html


Oh, & apparently the UK strongly wanted to give the go ahead, despite opposition from other EU members:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/env...p?story=461997


http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=475142



Some people think it may have been due to bullying of the EU by the US & other countries.

The US, Canadian, & Argentinian governments complained to the WTO about the EU's GM moratorium, as they believed it was an unscientific ban, & went against free trade & WTO rules etc.

IIRC, the US also threatened the EU with various things in retaliation, which could have sparked a trade war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html


And besides, even though it has been approved by the EU...

Re: The European Elections
 

True, but it is, at least, another side to the one previously presented!

Now this is something that gives me problems. If the member states can't agree on something *why* should the EU Commission be able to force something through? Surely the default or fallback position should be "no" rather than "yes"?

:rofl: That's the *USA* complaining about breaches of Free Trade and WTO rules?? The people who were going to ban *cashmere*?!

Re: The European Elections
 

In our recent 'voting intentions' thread there was a little discussion about the lack of honest discussion on the genuine pros and cons of EU membership. I thought I'd resurrect that train of thought here because this morning's Independent is making my blood boil ... under the headline 'The £23bn question', the entire front page is given over to what is, frankly, scaremongering. Or rather it would be scaremongering if it wasn't such a blatant tissue of lies, half-truths and spin. I have seen better written defences of Europe from 'A' level geography students. Here's just one of the priceless nuggets of nonsense:

What the &*£$ # ? :rofl:

The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation that pre-dates the EU. The Convention is adhered to by the EU, it does not belong to the EU. Withdrawing from the EU would in no way involve withdrawing from the Convention. And in any case, the Convention is now enshrined within our own Law. Repealing it would be a matter entirely separate from any concerns about which international organisations we belong to.

Honestly, the anti-Europe camp have been accused of scaremongering and lies but this takes some beating. I'm not proposing to re-type the entire article here (I am supposed to be at work :D ) but I would urge anyone with an interest in the whole Europe debate to get a look at it.

This is a sad day for rational debate.

Re: The European Elections
 

Yes, it is entirely appropriate. The government is there to represent the people.

Yes, leadership is required but not if it is against the will of the people (realises he has just undermined his Iraq war argument - Doh).

There is no case to continue down the road of a federal Europe. We have not been in the Euro now for over two years and guess what. The economy hasn't collapsed, millions of jobs haven't been lost all the scaremongering has been showed to be just that.

The country is waking up to the fact that we don't need to be "in" Europe politically. The continental shelf already dictates we are "in" Europe geographically and that is enough.

Re: The European Elections
 

I'd be laughing too if it wasn't so bloody ridiculous! This is the sort of ludicrous nonsense you'd expect from the Tabloids. :mad:

Regrettably very true :(

Addendum: In fact that article irritated me so much I've just sent the following e-mail...

To the Letters Editor: Letter for Publication.

Sir,

Your paper's article "The £23bn Question" is the most ludicrous scaremongering I have read in a non-red top newspaper for a long time.

It suggests that, by "leaving Europe" we would be forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It begins with rank economic speculation claiming "More volatile interest rates would add to the risks of boom and bust in the housing markets." but why? Our interest rates are under control now, why should they suddenly become "more volatile" if we leave Europe? What exactly will change?

It lists rights we would apparently lose "Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers" and "The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law." But why? If a law is good, what does it matter whether we're in the EU or not?

This whole article is a tissue of nonsense and is not the sort of reporting I expect from a newspaper such as yours.

You should be ashamed of it.

Yours Faithfully,

Graham Marsden

Re: The European Elections
 

Ironic perhaps that the Independent went tabloid-only a couple of weeks ago ... :spin: Must be a state of mind or something. :rolleyes:

Re: The European Elections
 

And how often do we repeal legislation? There are laws on the books going back 400+ years. The only legislation I can think of as being repealed is law that is consolidated (all Company Law into CA85), and Hanging.

Re: The European Elections
 

That's why I changed the comment in my letter to "non-red top" :D

Re: The European Elections
 

It does actually happen every now and again, eg in the passage of the various Criminal Justice Acts assorted old laws get quietly swept up and dropped in the bin, we just don't usually hear about it.

Re: The European Elections
 

Way to go Graham!! I might just drop them a line myself.

Re: The European Elections
 

Some old laws have been repealed, eg (sorry, this is a little biological!) it used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in anal intercourse.

That law is no longer on the statute books at all.

Anyway, that's getting off topic.