European Parliamentary Elections results, major concern?

[Zoraptor]

UKIP's biggest recruitment tool has been 'unfair' treatment from Europe (and the British political establishment) so that would not weaken them at all, if anything it would strengthen them domestically as being outsiders is pretty much their whole, er, raison d'être. Very easy to spin anything based on rather arbitrary rules such as the party groupings as being unfair, and they'll do it relentlessly because it innately appeals to the kind of people who they target to vote for them. The people who will see such treatment as a fair and balanced implementation of sensible rules, on the other hand, are never going to vote for UKIP anyway.

 

Yeah, it would be a problem for UKIP as a European party, but they don't really see themselves in that context. Domestically they have plurality support per the last Euro election, they're not dependent upon European funding.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

[JadedWolf]

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

 

There's more flavours than pro and anti. You can absolutely despise the loathsome monster the E.U. has become and still not want to throw away every good thing about it. Mind you though, I think it probably would be a good thing if the UK left the E.U. They've never been very enthusiastic about any of it, and since they're not part of the Euro it would hurt a lot less for them. The only thing I am wondering is what the Scots would think about that, since they tend to have a very different political outlook to the English.

 

For a country like my own, the Netherlands, leaving the E.U. would be like cutting off your own leg. We're a trading nation in the heart of Europe, it would be absolutely stupid.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

 

 

For a country like my own, the Netherlands, leaving the E.U. would be like cutting off your own leg. We're a trading nation in the heart of Europe, it would be absolutely stupid.

 

 

Yeah you are correct Jadedmeister, leaving the EU will spell economic doom for the Netherlands as all your important exports like clogs, Old Amsterdam Cheese and weed will be impacted.

[JadedWolf]

 

 

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

 

 

For a country like my own, the Netherlands, leaving the E.U. would be like cutting off your own leg. We're a trading nation in the heart of Europe, it would be absolutely stupid.

 

 

Yeah you are correct Jadedmeister, leaving the EU will spell economic doom for the Netherlands as all your important exports like clogs, Old Amsterdam Cheese and weed will be impacted.

 

 

 

Why, you....

 

[Gorgon]

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

Might as well try and deal with reality. The reality is that it's here. 

[Gorth]

Remind me again, exactly why does the European Parliament exist?

 

I remember for 20 years it used to be a practical solution for disgraced or semi-retired politicians, which could pull in favours owed and get sent to Bruxelles. The idea being, they could line their pockets and be out of sight at the same time.

[Nepenthe]

Remind me again, exactly why does the European Parliament exist?

 

I remember for 20 years it used to be a practical solution for disgraced or semi-retired politicians, which could pull in favours owed and get sent to Bruxelles. The idea being, they could line their pockets and be out of sight at the same time.

 

It has some actual role in the legislative process these days, so it's no longer just that.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Btw, we just had the equivalent of the UKIP victory with the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor defeated in the primary by an anti-amnesty conservative.

[ShadySands]

Btw, we just had the equivalent of the UKIP victory with the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor defeated in the primary by an anti-amnesty conservative.

 

A victory for gerrymandering?

[Meshugger]

Btw, we just had the equivalent of the UKIP victory with the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor defeated in the primary by an anti-amnesty conservative.

 

Please translate for us eurotrash here, how often does that happen?

[ShadySands]

It hasn't happened ever

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/06/11/320871655/eric-cantors-collapse-what-happened

 

 

EDIT: still half asleep

Edited June 12, 2014 by ShadySands

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Btw, we just had the equivalent of the UKIP victory with the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor defeated in the primary by an anti-amnesty conservative.

Please translate for us eurotrash here, how often does that happen?

It depends. Many republican politicians in competitive districts will attempt to soften their message(in regards to immigration) after the primary to not pisses off more moderate general election voters and Latinos. As a whole, the party seems to be trying to court Latinos, as they are a quickly growing segment of the population.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Btw, we just had the equivalent of the UKIP victory with the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor defeated in the primary by an anti-amnesty conservative.

 

A victory for gerrymandering?

 

Not sure what gerrymandering had to do with it, it's not like somebody drew up a district just to make Cantor lose.

[ShadySands]

True they aren't drawn to best a specific person but rather to keep the the district under specific party control. Draw your district to be firmly conservative then as soon as you make marginal moves to the left on a few issues and you get defeated by someone even further on the right. Possibly applicable in this case because his district was redrawn a few years ago to make it more conservative

[BruceVC]

True they aren't drawn to best a specific person but rather to keep the the district under specific party control. Draw your district to be firmly conservative then as soon as you make marginal moves to the left on a few issues and you get defeated by someone even further on the right. Possibly applicable in this case because his district was redrawn a few years ago to make it more conservative

 

I have been researching this issue, it seems that David Brat ran his campaign primarily on an anti-immigration perspective?

 

With the changing demographics in the USA and the increasing numbers of Latino voters I find this type of strategy anachronistic, surely this can't be a sustainable policy for Republicans going forward or am I missing something?

[Nepenthe]

 

True they aren't drawn to best a specific person but rather to keep the the district under specific party control. Draw your district to be firmly conservative then as soon as you make marginal moves to the left on a few issues and you get defeated by someone even further on the right. Possibly applicable in this case because his district was redrawn a few years ago to make it more conservative

 

I have been researching this issue, it seems that David Brat ran his campaign primarily on an anti-immigration perspective?

 

With the changing demographics in the USA and the increasing numbers of Latino voters I find this type of strategy anachronistic, surely this can't be a sustainable policy for Republicans going forward or am I missing something?

 

I think most republicans believe sustainability to be something for liberal hippies...

[NWN_babaYaga]

The only concern is once again that the established ONE PARTY for lobby interests dont realize that the people of europe are sick and tired of their fraud called politics. Thats for me the only thing... but i know nothing will change behind closed doors. They are all corrupt people who take money from the tax payer without even being in the god damn parliament. Yes thats right, they go there in the morning, write themself in the list and then leave the building... that makes around 360 € a day w/o being there. And that goblin Van Rompuy that nobody ever knew is a different topic on it´s own... who is he and what hellhole spit that idiot out... an old mummy would make a better job in just pretending to be alive!

 

And these so called politicians were caught right on camera and running away from the journalist. the only time they knew how do some sport. That shold be the first thing in the morning for all these lazy mofos. Do running an hour and then be nailed onto the seats of the parliament until the moon shines!

Edited June 14, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Rostere]

LOL @ the American Congressional election system. Just beyond retarded.

 

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

 

Oh come now, don't be ridiculous, the EU taken as a whole is less far-right than the UK, as the latest elections have shown.

 

Personally I believe a strengthened European Union is an absolute necessity. First, we have the aspect of foreign policy - the EU must work as a single actor to have any relevance on the world scene. It's very telling how Putin is BFF with all the anti-EU parties. Why do you think that is? An EU military force and an EU-wide "FBI" police force (whose foremost missions would regard investigating terrorism, organized crime, large-scale corruption, tax evasion and other transnational crimes) are also needed.

 

Then we have the single market. True, you might not need the whole EU apparatus for a rudimentary implementation of this, but nevertheless the bureaucracy behind it is more complicated than many people know. All the EU-wide regulations on animal rights, subsidies, et.c. are made in order to be able to keep this in place. The next step here is negotiating a free trade agreement with the US, which would be the most important thing to happen this century.

 

Then we have the reallocation of funds from richer countries to the development of poorer ones. This is essentially a huge "Marshall Aid"-like project for all former SU nations. This is strategically absolutely necessary for EU peace and by extension the peace in regions which the EU is expanding into.

 

The Euro is a complete and utter failure, and the reasons why should be apparent to anybody who has even the slightest idea about economy. For the Euro to be viable, we would firstly need to give the EU the ability to reject or approve the budget of any member country, and secondly an EU police which can investigate corruption and tax evasion, to ensure all taxes are really paid in the member countries. Personally I like the idea of a single currency, but at this stage, with the current checks and balances, it is simply not viable at all. That is why the EU needs countries like the UK whose leaders generally are not complete barefoot economists. But I don't think the EU doing one stupid thing is reason enough to leave it, it's just all the more reason to stay in it if you are one of the nations which can help to set things right. Isolationism will solve nothing here.

 

The CAP is also one idiotic policy which should be reformed or scrapped, but I still don't think it makes it worth leaving the EU, when there is reasonable support for reform.

 

UKIP's biggest recruitment tool has been 'unfair' treatment from Europe (and the British political establishment) so that would not weaken them at all, if anything it would strengthen them domestically as being outsiders is pretty much their whole, er, raison d'être. Very easy to spin anything based on rather arbitrary rules such as the party groupings as being unfair, and they'll do it relentlessly because it innately appeals to the kind of people who they target to vote for them. The people who will see such treatment as a fair and balanced implementation of sensible rules, on the other hand, are never going to vote for UKIP anyway.

 

Yeah, it would be a problem for UKIP as a European party, but they don't really see themselves in that context. Domestically they have plurality support per the last Euro election, they're not dependent upon European funding.

 

It depends entirely upon what the people who voted UKIP wanted to achieve in the first place. Surely they wouldn't have bothered to go to vote if they knew voting for UKIP wouldn't change anything? The technical issues of effects from being in a group or not goes way above the head of the common plebs. I'll tell you what: even if the UKIP had been able to join a group, they would have said to their voters "We're too small to change anything", because even then, they would have had little say. Voting UKIP for the EP is simply not tactical. If you really want out, vote UKIP in national elections.

If they honestly wanted to send people to Brussels to negotiate rules more favourable for Britain or less federalist in general they will have failed if the UKIP does not join a group, because that would leave them powerless. The only 100% safe option here for him to increase the anti-EU influence in the EP is for Farage to team up with Le Pen and the other anti-immigration parties. They are the only group, except for their own which is falling apart, who does not think that Farage is a fruitcake or an untouchable racist.

If they wanted to secure funding for their party, they will have failed miserably if the UKIP fails to join a group. Indeed the UKIP will lose a ****load of money compared to the current situation.

 

Ugh. There it is again, the stupid myth that the UK is "unfairly" treated by the EU. One needs only to look here and here to get a quick reality check. GOOD MORNING BRITAIN, ****ING ITALY PAYS MORE PER CAPITA TO THE EU THAN YOU DO. YOU SHOULD BE LYING UNDER THE BED, CRYING IN SHAME (on a side note I have no idea why Sweden pays so indefensibly little).

The only way the UKIP will be able to do anything about the EU at all without joining Le Pen is if Farage will be in government after the next set of UK national elections. What are the odds for a UKIP + Tory government? If people think that is impossible, they better get used to the idea of Farage as Prime Minister, since that is what you will need to achieve if you want out of the EU.

[Zoraptor]

Surely they wouldn't have bothered to go to vote if they knew voting for UKIP wouldn't change anything?

 

Yeah, but that's not how democracy works, at least in theory. By that measure someone voting Labour in a safe Tory seat or vice versa just shouldn't bother to vote since there's no chance their vote will change anything. People in 'liberal democracies' simply are not (generally) conditioned to think that way even if a lot of the time it reflects reality; it is though quite likely why there is declining participation and voting rates.

 

Voting for UKIP- and I'll caveat this as not being resident in the UK nor having ever voted for them- certainly appears to be near pure protest vote, and protest votes are not really expected to do anything other than show dissatisfaction with the status quo. And it's a protest vote from a bloc that will only get more strident if they feel they are being ignored, which they undoubtedly will, and in a political climate in which dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether justified or not, is high and growing that will get them more votes. UKIP aren't really expected to achieve change at this point, indeed, once they do achieve change their entire reason for being becomes redundant. And they will spin any lack of action into being the fault of 'EU bureaucracy running mad and stifling British Liberty under their smothering continental regulatory blanket etc etc' rather than them themselves, so powerlessness actually enhances their standing rather than weakens it.

[Walsingham]

L

Ugh. There it is again, the stupid myth that the UK is "unfairly" treated by the EU. One needs only to look here and here to get a quick reality check. GOOD MORNING BRITAIN, ****ING ITALY PAYS MORE PER CAPITA TO THE EU THAN YOU DO. YOU SHOULD BE LYING UNDER THE BED, CRYING IN SHAME (on a side note I have no idea why Sweden pays so indefensibly little).

The only way the UKIP will be able to do anything about the EU at all without joining Le Pen is if Farage will be in government after the next set of UK national elections. What are the odds for a UKIP + Tory government? If people think that is impossible, they better get used to the idea of Farage as Prime Minister, since that is what you will need to achieve if you want out of the EU.

 

Well, that certainly told me

 

Your 'new' pitch seems to be that we have to work together to tackle Putin and organised crime, and we have to give budget control to Brussels to deliver the Euro. How is that a sales pitch?

 

I don't see any ecvidence that Brussels or the Euro-elite have the faintest interest in foreign policy or corruption or drugs or people trafficking. There's no coherence, and no sense of urgency in Euro-level action on any of those issues.

 

The Euro project is about one thing only: and that's a pan European superstate. Based on principles of big government, taxes, and regulation.

[Meshugger]

LOL @ the American Congressional election system. Just beyond retarded.

 

I'm detecting a wee bit of a pro-Euro trend on here.

 

I can't speak for most anti-Euros, but I personally have a problem with being dragged into a polity which is electing far right groups, and which has known issues with financial accountability and bureaucratic inertia.

 

If you can't sell the Euro plan to me, and I'm well traveled and like the other Euro nations, then don't blame more parochial people for being less keen. It's not them being racist. Your pitch sucks.

 

Oh come now, don't be ridiculous, the EU taken as a whole is less far-right than the UK, as the latest elections have shown.

 

Personally I believe a strengthened European Union is an absolute necessity. First, we have the aspect of foreign policy - the EU must work as a single actor to have any relevance on the world scene. It's very telling how Putin is BFF with all the anti-EU parties. Why do you think that is? An EU military force and an EU-wide "FBI" police force (whose foremost missions would regard investigating terrorism, organized crime, large-scale corruption, tax evasion and other transnational crimes) are also needed.

 

Then we have the single market. True, you might not need the whole EU apparatus for a rudimentary implementation of this, but nevertheless the bureaucracy behind it is more complicated than many people know. All the EU-wide regulations on animal rights, subsidies, et.c. are made in order to be able to keep this in place. The next step here is negotiating a free trade agreement with the US, which would be the most important thing to happen this century.

 

Then we have the reallocation of funds from richer countries to the development of poorer ones. This is essentially a huge "Marshall Aid"-like project for all former SU nations. This is strategically absolutely necessary for EU peace and by extension the peace in regions which the EU is expanding into.

 

The Euro is a complete and utter failure, and the reasons why should be apparent to anybody who has even the slightest idea about economy. For the Euro to be viable, we would firstly need to give the EU the ability to reject or approve the budget of any member country, and secondly an EU police which can investigate corruption and tax evasion, to ensure all taxes are really paid in the member countries. Personally I like the idea of a single currency, but at this stage, with the current checks and balances, it is simply not viable at all. That is why the EU needs countries like the UK whose leaders generally are not complete barefoot economists. But I don't think the EU doing one stupid thing is reason enough to leave it, it's just all the more reason to stay in it if you are one of the nations which can help to set things right. Isolationism will solve nothing here.

 

The CAP is also one idiotic policy which should be reformed or scrapped, but I still don't think it makes it worth leaving the EU, when there is reasonable support for reform.

 

How is this supposed to happen? On whose authority? Through solidarity or "solidarity"? The EU-election has already been established as a protest vote on how things are run in Brussels, so the solution is to remove more power of the citizens to a centralized sovereign that is not directly accountable to its constituents? It will simply not work from a top-down process.

 

Just look at the Ottoman or the Austrian-Hungarian Empires.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

I would return to your (Rostere's) point about economics. I would remind the forum that arguing in favour of economic benefits isn't an argument in favour of the EU. It's the argument which was given for the EC. Can we go back to just a free trade area? Of course we bloody can. It's what we were.

 

I listen to this pan-Euro political message and I go all Guard Dog. I get the urge to ask awkward bloody questions.

 

I'm going to put a pointy set of questions to you, Rosti. It concerns the three fundamental security issues facing all European nations, and I want to know what the EU has actually done about any of them. 

 

1) Energy security

2) Political instability in the near East, from Moscow to Marrakech

3) Economic reform within the EU, where many nations are currently husbanding grotesque inefficiencies [you can't have security without a healthy economy]

 

~~

 

EDIT: I'm asking because I expect you do have some sort of answer. Don't disappoint me.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Walsingham

[Gorth]

The Euro project is about one thing only: and that's a pan European superstate. Based on principles of big government, taxes, and regulation.

...and making the transfer of funds from wealthy, financially disciplined countries to corrupt governments more streamlined and efficient.

[Zoraptor]

That list is... problematic. I'm probably as far from a European Integrationist as you are, but I think it has to be admitted that the problems with Europe's responses to the various crises- which there undoubtedly have been- do have two possible generalised solutions- and are largely the result of the current set up being a kludgey compromise that satisfies no one. One solution is to, basically, decentralise the EU and go back to the E(E)C days and fully independent (of big E Europe) economic and foreign policies, but the other is to go further along the integrationist route. Rostere is, for example, most certainly correct that a lot of the problems with the Euro as a currency is that it lacks the... fiscal unity, for want of a better term, that most sovereign currencies have; fair rules which are consistently applied across a fully integrated financial system with no tendency to turn a blind eye to infractions because it is effectively impossible for the constituent regions to commit such infractions. As it stands it's a kludge, a compromise. Moving away from the kludging and compromising to full federalisation would 'fix' the Eurozone, as much as any currency can be 'fixed'. Reversion to individual currencies would also 'fix' it, as much as any currency can be 'fixed'. The Euro as it stands is broken, you can either go forward or go back, and each approach has its own problems. Same is true for most of the European Project, to greater or lesser extents.

 

But both the go forward and go back approaches are hand waving at this point- while I personally think the EU is better as primarily a free trade/ customs union type set up saying that would fix the problems in your list is hand waving every bit as much as saying that further integration would fix them- the sovereign states of Europe were perfectly capable (and regularly did) stuff up foreign relations, energy security and economic reform by themselves. And while individual responsibility for individual mistakes is in general a fine principle sometimes those stuff ups lead to truly catastrophic consequences.

 

Really though, at least in theory a fully Unified European voice on such issues should improve all three points on the list, as the problem with all three is that the EU does not really have a unified voice or policy on any of them.