[Merged] The Europe Thread

So Labour have had their nose seriously bloodied in the Euro Election results, UKIP have had a resounding boost and what do we get from Labour?

Do we get an admission that maybe they've totally mis-read the views of the British public and they're going to re-consider their strategy? Nope, we get Jack Straw desperately spinning this as a defeat for the *Tories* because there were massive protest votes against all the ruling parties in Europe and that they're going ahead with the final revison of the draft constitution *anyway*!!

Helloooo?? This is Reality calling Mr Straw! The protest vote was the kicking you got in the local elections! The European Elections is the British people saying they don't like what you're doing and telling you to think again!

So, have the Labour leadership lost the plot? Are they so committed to a misguided policy that they're like Captain Ahab, dragging the rest of us on to our doom because they can see nothing else?

Can anyone really now argue that the British Voting public *want* closer integration and the introduction of the Euro?

(Or am I exaggerating for effect?! ;-) )

What do people think?

I think you're right ... this morning's papers have some intresting commentary and analysis. One of them talks about the massive gap between Labour's heart-of-Europe rhetoric and the reailty - which is that 'under [Tony Blair's] watch, Europe has become even more unpopular than it was in the days of the Major and Thatcher governments' (can't remember which paper, I had to read so many of them this morning )

The Guardian has been a priceless read today, spluttering about the anti-European reasults from virtually every page. They even put a Polly Toynbee opinion on the front. There is no doubt that the Guardian believes the British electorate cannot be trusted to deliver the 'correct' result.

The most tiresome thing about post-election inquests is how everybody who has done badly is so keen to talk instead about how everybody else has done even worse. It is here more than anywhere that the saying 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics' is shown to be true. Often I wonder whether the politicians are looking at the same set of results as me (or each other for that matter).

My own 'take' on this is that UKIP is the 'winner' here and the Lib Dems, if they are ever to hope to form a Government, need to realise that their raving Euro-enthusiasm is, like many of their 'policies' something they will need to re-think carefully. If they don't, all they will ever be is a recipient of the protest votes of traditional Tory (or Labour) supporters who can't bring themselves to vote for 'the other lot'.

As for the Tories and Labour, they have both done badly. I don't think this vote is a protest against Iraq and domestic failure - the British electorate is more sophisticated than that, and becoming more so - in both cases it is a vote against their policies and/or actions towards Europe.

The lesson for the Tories is clear - they need to become an avowedly Euro-sceptic party and weed out the Europhiles in the same way Neil Kinnock weeded out the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Europhile sniping and carping helped bring down the last Tory Government and will do them no favours in the future.

EDIT

I voted 'they should listen'. I was tempted to vote 'they will never listen' but the fact is, Labour was, not such a long time ago, campaigning for outright withdrawl. Opinions on Europe do change.

[Nugget]

In all fairness, I think itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s still very much a case that the vast majority of the English (Iââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢m going with the English because, at the moment, I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t know if the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish results have been announced) couldnââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t give a monkeys about Europe one way of the other.

I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t actually know what the turnout was, but I bet it was less than 50% - if the politicians canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t get people to vote in the local / general elections (which directly affect the electorate), theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got no chance when it comes to the European elections.

However, hopefully the †˜mainâÃà ‚¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ parties will take stock of whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s happened (Tories worst result since 1832 / Labours since the 1930s), and come to the conclusion that they need to get back to doing what the public want (or at least trying to ask them in the first place).

Oh well, with a bit of luck, seeing as heââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s won a seat in Europe, we wonââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t have to see so much of Robert Kiljoy-Joke †“ although itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s somewhat ironic that a party that wants the UK to pull back from Europe will now have 12 members sitting there.

Originally Posted by Nugget

I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t actually know what the turnout was, but I bet it was less than 50% - if the politicians canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t get people to vote in the local / general elections (which directly affect the electorate), theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got no chance when it comes to the European elections.

Based on 10 of 12 regions declared, turnout is 38.9% (source: BBC), which is apparently quite good for a Euro-poll. Last time we were the lowest in Europe at 24%.

Is it appropriate for a political party to radically change their stance on an issue simply because they lost votes at an election? The various parties have different policies on Europe, ranging from further integration to a complete withdrawal. There is a party that most people can vote for that reflects their opinion on Europe, be that Labour, Tory, UKIP or something else.

Listening to the opinions of the public and shaping policy in that manner is one thing. To do a radical about face on a policy is another issue entirely. I do not believe it should be a case of saying whatever the public want to hear simply to gain more votes, a party should stand or fall by its policies and have the courage of their convictions to stand by them even if it does mean that there is a dent in their popularity.

To have anything else would be to undermine the whole point of having a multiparty system in this country. One group could effectively run the country and just radically update their policies whenever there is a change in opinion. While it might be argued that there would be some worth in adopting anarchy in the original sense of the word, as the system currently stands I do not think that political parties should chop and change simply for the sake of popularity. To do so speaks volumes about their lack of integrity.

Originally Posted by towny

Based on 10 of 12 regions declared, turnout is 38.9% (source: BBC), which is apparently quite good for a Euro-poll. Last time we were the lowest in Europe at 24%.

If the turnout doesn`t even represent the majority of the population then it is meaningless to extrapolate results from this poll to the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If the turnout doesn`t even represent the majority of the population then it is meaningless to extrapolate results from this poll to the population as a whole.

Not voting is as much a democratic act as voting for the party of your choice. By not voting, people exercise their right not to influence the political process, and/or to leave the choosing of their political representatives to someone else.

So, you are right insofar as you say we can't extrapolate the results across the whole population - that would be to impute to them a political view that they might not hold. However if you are implying that the results are, as a consequence of this, meaningless (as less than 50% of electors voted), then I think you are wrong. Those who were entitled to vote but did not, left the choice to those that did. Therefore the result, regardless of turnout, is legitimised by the choice of the entire electorate.

[punky]

Originally Posted by towny

The Guardian has been a priceless read today, spluttering about the anti-European reasults from virtually every page. They even put a Polly Toynbee opinion on the front. There is no doubt that the Guardian believes the British electorate cannot be trusted to deliver the 'correct' result.

Brilliant

I think Blair seriously needs to start listening and re-evaluating. The line between a leader who stands up to public adversity and a dictator-like person that just drags the country into descisions against the mass appeal of the country is a fine one, but he's really starting to stand on the wrong side.

Over the weekend, Blair gave the whole "It is rough time, but stick with me" speech, but I think that will be suicidal. Blair is gambliing everything on the Europe policy, and he is going to lose out. I remember Ian Hislop's brilliant quote from HIGYFY, when he was asked: "Why isn't Blair giving us a referdum on europe?" and he said: "Because he would lose".

Labour have had a serious kicking. In some places they are even 3rd. The Iraq war was bad for them, but recoverable, especially when the corner over there is turned, but if Blair is going to continue to standby his popular policies, surely the MPs won't stand for it. Especially as Brown is gaining huge support.

[MovedGoalPosts]

The ballot box is the one true way in a democratic society that the electorate can express it's opinion on issues of the day. Unfortunately General and local council elections usually have so many different conflicting issues that it is difficult to detect the real mood of the electorate, many of whom, if they vote at all, do so on the basis of lesser of evils. European elections are somewhat different at the moment, as effectively this vote was the closest we could get to the key single European issue. Do we want to integrate more closely with Europe or not?

It is irrelevant what proportion of the electorate get off their bacsides to vots. Everyone has that right to vote, if they choose not to express an opinion, it does not devalue the result it just, as said above, means they are content to go with the flow.

Any political party that does not take this poll result for what it was, that the electorate is wanting less rather than closer ties to Europe, is going against the wishes of democracy.

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

It is irrelevant what proportion of the electorate get off their bacsides to vots. Everyone has that right to vote, if they choose not to express an opinion, it does not devalue the result it just, as said above, means they are content to go with the flow.

Not necessarily, not one of the parties (as far as I know) represents what I would want to see in the future of Europe. I did not vote on this election (and I`ll admit, not for any really valid reason), but if I did vote then no party represents my opinion, going with the status quo by abstaining does not represent my opinion.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Not necessarily, not one of the parties (as far as I know) represents what I would want to see in the future of Europe. I did not vote on this election (and I`ll admit, not for any really valid reason), but if I did vote then no party represents my opinion, going with the status quo by abstaining does not represent my opinion.

We have a representative democracy - we choose a body of people who then go off and make decisions on our behalf. That means it's impractical to expect to be able to vote for someone whose manifesto is identical to your own set of beliefs and priorities. If you choose to vote for someone, you should vote on the basis of 'best fit' (I don't agree with outright withdrawl from the EU, for example, but I support UKIP because right here, right now, I believe that expressing myself this way is the likeliest means of achieving what I do want, which is less of the burdensome, unnecessary integration that is so typical of the EU).

Similarly, if you choose not to vote, you express the view that nobody comes close to representing you. The end result is that the politicians think, 'hmm, how can we get the abstainers to vote for us next time?'. By not voting, you don't necessarly support 'status quo' or declare your support for whoever wins the election, but you are declaring your willingness to allow others to make the decision for you.

If you say that nobody comes close to representing your views, and you are not happy to let others make the decision by casting their votes while you abstain, then a third option is open to you - you can stand for election yourself.

[SMHarman]

As my wife keeps telling me every time I go off on one of my direct taxation rants. Shut up or stand for election.

[BBKing]

Graham wrote:

Can anyone really now argue that the British Voting public *want* closer integration and the introduction of the Euro?

I presume then that the reintroduction of capital punishment is next? I'm pretty sure that a majority of people in the UK would support it, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. If it is explained that the consequence of reintroducing hanging will result in innocent people being killed by state employees I think fewer people would support it. Likewise if it is explained what the UK will lose by being outside the EU, fewer people would support the UKIP, which has been extremely successful in getting its message across, because it has, er, one message. On my drive into work recently there have been three prominent signs in people's fields and gardens (and one on the 'Welcome to Middlesex' sign on the A316) for the UKIP with the slogan 'Say No To European Union'. I've not seen *any* election posters or billlboards for any other party for the European elections. It seems they didn't actually want to fight. Bizarre, given that the UKIP is pretty easy to attack.

Given that the UKIP has today said that they feel no need to work with the European Parliament and in fact want to wreck it, I suggest that anyone who voted for them has voted not to be represented in a democratic institution, and I can't recall anywhere else that has ever happened.

One other reason for liking the EU I forgot yesterday was that Rupert Murdoch is scared of it - in a world where corporations like News International are bigger than governments (I've lost count of the number of times Blair has gone along with what Murdoch says) I think we need large scale co-operation between nations to provide a balance. In this case, Europe-wide media ownership laws to ensure diversity of media.

Incidentally, I recommend everyone read the UKIP website - the number of times they mention 'co-operation with the United States' on the defence section of their website rather precludes anyone opposing the Iraq war from supporting them. They're also a bit wide of the mark blaming the EU for the Tornado F3 - an aircraft that dates from the early 70s for a NATO requirement. Didn't mention Airbus, either.

They also consider rail privatisation as the consequence of EU membership - a fallacy, rail privatisation was a Tory policy to get the railways off the Government's books.

They stop short of blaming the EU for France beating England last night, but it's surely only a matter of time.

Practically every policy they have depends on spending a vapourous 'Independence Dividend' that would come from EU withdrawal. Hmm...

Practically every failure, real or imaginary is the fault of the EU, even when it isn't. GM food is an EU policy? Monsanto is a US corporation, last time I looked. They seem to exist about fifty years in the past, and a nostalgic politician is a bad politician. Everyone thinks things were better in the past.

So you can see, plenty to aim at. Why on earth neither Labour or the Tories picked them apart I don't know. Still, their loss.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Is it appropriate for a political party to radically change their stance on an issue simply because they lost votes at an election? [...] Listening to the opinions of the public and shaping policy in that manner is one thing. To do a radical about face on a policy is another issue entirely.

Well two examples come to mind. Back in the 80's when the Greens suddenly turned out to be rather popular with the public (even though they only got a couple of seats in Europe) both Thatcher and Kinnock suddenly started making "environmentalist" speeches when, beforehand, they'd hardly even bothered to address the issue.

Also the recent volte-face by Blair on a European Constitution Referendum suggests that he *is* very concerned that were he to have continued with his "now don't you worry your pretty little heads about this" attitude, he would have lost more support.

IMO we're going to hear more "independant state in Europe" noises from Labour in the next few months.

I do not believe it should be a case of saying whatever the public want to hear simply to gain more votes,

Why not? He is a politician after all...!

a party should stand or fall by its policies and have the courage of their convictions to stand by them even if it does mean that there is a dent in their popularity.

Except that Labour has already demonstrated that its convictions and principles are somewhat more fluid than this.

I do not think that political parties should chop and change simply for the sake of popularity. To do so speaks volumes about their lack of integrity.

Well, exactly!!

[Matth]

UKIP had an INCREDIBLE result, considering they are essentially a one-issue party like the Referendum Party was - well, as far as their point in London seemed to be, they stand against waste, beaurocracy and career politicians. We need LESS government, not MORE.

Yep!, I'd vote to abolish the Mayor and london assembly, which came into being on a thin majority, of a thin vote, with no real NO campaign - a lesson to all who DO NOT want something, go and VOTE AGAINST IT.

If you don't like the main parties (especially in a proportional election), go and vote for one of the absurd candidates.