Euro Elections Tomo!

[Hate Is Art]

Try not to discuss policy just who you would place your bets on. UKIP and the Torys will get some seats, hopefully Labour get more though!

[Louis Pio]

Hmm I think RESPECT won't get a seat. If they do it will of course only be George Galloway who will probably break with them later if he get's a better offer.

Anyway my bet's on Labour.

[Funky Monk]

1.Labour (only just)
2.Tories
3.UKIP
4.Lib Dems
Perhaps a seat for Greens, maybe not.

Dont think RESPECT will get anything

[RedAnarchist]

1. Lib Dems
2. Labour
3. Tories
4. Greens
5. UKIP
7. Respect

[James]

Tories
Labour
Lib Dem
UKIP
Green

And 1 BNP.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Hopefully the idiot RESPECT COALISTION won't get a vote. I can't believe our Communist Party(ies) are encouraging a vote for those reactionary idiots.

I think the Tories will get more seats than anticipated. Disaffected Labour voters are more likely not to turn up than to vote for anyone else, so expect a very small turnout which will thus benefit the Tories as their voters have something they believe they need to vote for.

I can, unfortunately, see the BNP picking up a few local seats though.

Vote Green for MEP
Vote Communist for locals

[DaCuBaN]

Vote Green for MEP
Vote Communist for locals

Lucky you... you actually have a communist candidate standing <_<

I&#39;m going to vote against the tories, and against labour, and against the BNP, and against the UKIP.

The question is who does that leave me with :rolleyes:

I&#39;m not an environmentalist - far from it - so the Greens are out... So it looks like there isn&#39;t even anyone to vote for simply to oppose the idiots :angry:

*EDIT*

Notice I won&#39;t even talk about respect :P

[Kez]

I think with this PR system, there will be a 2-3 seats for RESPECT and BNP each, but we must recognize these as temporary alternative votes, and not long term.

Imactually hoping Ken gets booted out (even by a Tory) so that it will lead to demise of Blair, i think Labour have to do very poorly in all 3 elections to doubt Blair.

[h&s]

"Labour" will lose much of their majority, but I rekon UKIP and the BNP will eat into the Tory vote.The Lib Dems will also make gains on the tories.

Notice I won&#39;t even talk about respect
Surely its better to vote Respect than "Labour" or the Lib Dems?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1 Tories
2 Labour
3 Green Party/UKIP/RESPECT
4 BNP/Lib Dems

Either one of the &#39;big two&#39; (Labour/Tories) will get first place, and since they&#39;re both pretty much the same nowadays things won&#39;t change a single jot.

[Sammi87]

1. Labour
2. Lib Dems
3. UKIP
4. Tories
5. Greens

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:46 PM
Either one of the &#39;big two&#39; (Labour/Tories) will get first place, and since they&#39;re both pretty much the same nowadays things won&#39;t change a single jot.
how naive

[monkeydust]

how naive

Couldn&#39;t agree more Kez. To call New Labout &#39;New Conservative&#39; is to fundamentally miss te point, especially concerning Europe.

Anyway, my personal prediction.

1.Labour
2.Conservative
3.UK Independece party
4.Liberal Democrat
5.Green Party.

I estimate the turnout to be 37%, which would be about 13% up on 1999.

I don&#39;t know about everyone else, but in my area UK independence party posters and signs are ubiquitous. I walked down a street today, in a fairly working class area, at least 1 in 4 houses had a UK indepence party poster in the window, or a sign outside. I would assume that many more on the street will vote for them also.

I think they&#39;re going to do worryingly well in this election.

I think it&#39;s a great shame, anyone who supports the UK Independece party fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the EU.

Myself, I shall not be voting.

[Hate Is Art]

urgh, my Mum is voting UKIP&#33;&#33;&#33; *sob*

Dad is voting Labour&#33; Better I Guess&#33;

[Wenty]

i voted respect, classic.

[monkeydust]

urgh, my Mum is voting UKIP&#33;&#33;&#33; *sob*


She&#39;s either an idiot, misinformed, or both.

Pulling out of Europe entirely would be, realistically, disastrous for the UK. The economic consequences would be far reaching. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I&#39;m not a supported of the free market, and Europe&#39;s adoption of it, but, pragmatically speaking, the loss of jobs (predominantly working class jobs) would be enormous.

Most UKIP supporters seem to believe that there&#39;s a Franco-German conspiracy to rule Britain, this is, quite frankly, a myth. Don&#39;t forget that, if it wasn&#39;t for Europe, British citizens would have no official rights.

If people want the "British to rule Britain" why don&#39;t they campaign for something worthwile like electoral reform?

My personal issue with the EU is the so called &#39;democratic deficit&#39;. Despite some reforms the EU Parliament is not the primary legislataure of the union. Furthermore, nearly all policy originates from 30 buraucrats on the European Commission, who are unelected and unaccountable (Neil Kinnock&#39;s actually Vice-President of this commision).

If the Eu sorted this out I might be more supportive of it.

On a side note, I nearly got beaten up the other day when a skinhead caught me pissing on the UKIP poster on his garage wall. Needless to say, I legged it straight away.

[Funky Monk]

UKIP believe that there is a pan-European conspiracy to rule Britain, they blame the Belgians and the Austrians as well.
But i quite like Neil Kinnock,

[Hate Is Art]

My Mum is just my Mum, how can you accuse you call our Mum a Fascist?

[James]

Seems we have to wait till sunday 9pm now for the results (so we don&#39;t influence the rest of europe?).


If people want the "British to rule Britain" why don&#39;t they campaign for something worthwile like electoral reform?

They argue the british parliament should legislate for britain - and not the european parliament. This isn&#39;t fascist in the slightest - its actually common sense.


My personal issue with the EU is the so called &#39;democratic deficit&#39;. Despite some reforms the EU Parliament is not the primary legislataure of the union. Furthermore, nearly all policy originates from 30 buraucrats on the European Commission, who are unelected and unaccountable (Neil Kinnock&#39;s actually Vice-President of this commision).

If the Eu sorted this out I might be more supportive of it.

Same for everyone i imagine. UKIP are against europe because, they say, the politicians lied to the people. The referendums were in reference to an economic union - not political union. Thus they are for pulling out of the political EU. You state a few supporting examples.


On a side note, I nearly got beaten up the other day when a skinhead caught me pissing on the UKIP poster on his garage wall. Needless to say, I legged it straight away

How would you feel if someone was pissing on your house?


UKIP believe that there is a pan-European conspiracy to rule Britain, they blame the Belgians and the

e.g.?


Austrians

The only UKIP statement i&#39;m aware of relating to austria was its political broad cast which made the valid point the EU has many chairmen, who shouldn&#39;t be so. I really can&#39;t see the logic in having a guy sit on a committee relating to the sea, when they live in a country which doesn&#39;t even have a mile of sealine.

Thus why i also wouldn&#39;t support brits sitting on a committee relating to the alps.


But i quite like Neil Kinnock,

His wife (an MEP) is a *****. She got caught recently just turning up to sign the register (thus qualifying for financial perks), then fucking off back to England. Now that is wrong&#33;

[Funky Monk]

Did you see the advert? Did you see how it wa presented??

[James]

lol: as a very austrian, austrian

But which party does have PC electoral broadcasts/propaganda?
the point is also still valid. One could be a pathetic media person, and argue that it in fact "represents" how silly and laughable the EU really is.

[monkeydust]

They argue the british parliament should legislate for britain - and not the european parliament. This isn&#39;t fascist in the slightest - its actually common sense.


Who said anything about Fascism?

I gather that they wish Parliament to legislate for Britian, my point however, in reference to electoral reform, refers to the common will amongst UKIP supporters for "Britain to rule itself".

If Britain as a national entity is considered to consist of all British citizens then for "the British" to "rule Britain", would, assuming representative democracy is to remain, involve as accurate representation of "Britian&#39;s interests" as possible.

The British Parlaiment still does legislate for Britian, however certain areas, such as pollution, require suprantional action to tackle.



How would you feel if someone was pissing on your house?


It would depend on:

A:How laggered the subject in question is.
B:How annoyed I am at the time, for example I may be angry, unable to decide whther to vote English Democrat, UKIP or BNP.
C:Whether or not they were targeting my UK Independece party poster.
D:If they were targeting my poster, my annoyance would increase if they successfully got the urine between my lovely &#39;O&#39;, in the word &#39;NO&#39;, cunningly portrayed with the flag of the EU.

[Louis Pio]

(so we don&#39;t influence the rest of europe?).

Yes that&#39;s what I heard in the danish media. They are afraid of the anti-eu parties getting a good vote which would probably effect the vote in other countries

[James]

Who said anything about Fascism?

Alot of people seem to think UKIP are "fascist". Wasn&#39;t aimed at you.



I gather that they wish Parliament to legislate for Britian, my point however, in reference to electoral reform, refers to the common will amongst UKIP supporters for "Britain to rule itself".

If Britain as a national entity is considered to consist of all British citizens then for "the British" to "rule Britain", would, assuming representative democracy is to remain, involve as accurate representation of "Britian&#39;s interests" as possible.

The British Parlaiment still does legislate for Britian, however certain areas, such as pollution, require suprantional action to tackle.

The european union now makes a very large % of our laws (forget the figure): true some of these are fantastic: like the environment related ones. But they also do alot of BAD laws (and remember all their laws are binding: we can&#39;t opt out like we used to).

The UK parliament could legislate on the environment like the EU does - it is my opinion that it doesn&#39;t to the extent of the EU simply because its not as bigger issue in the UK (media), as it is on the continent.

[Reuben]

i really cant believe your defending ukip james a party that will happily stand a racist and a homophobe

[monkeydust]

Alot of people seem to think UKIP are "fascist". Wasn&#39;t aimed at you.


They&#39;re not fascist in the least, but that doesn&#39;t stop them from being the biggest pile of wank since the "Mongolian barbecue great place to have a party party".

Moreover, the tend to play on the nationalist feelings still residual within British culture, which isn&#39;t something I consider desirable.


But they also do alot of BAD laws

Yes, though they haven&#39;t done anything catostrophically bad, netither is the continent conspiring to &#39;control Britain&#39;.

I&#39;d personally say the &#39;good&#39; outweighs the &#39;bad&#39;, but that&#39;s really an issue for another debate.


and remember all their laws are binding: we can&#39;t opt out like we used to

Well, yes and no.

parliament can still, though only to a small extent, choose to &#39;conviniently ignore&#39; the specifics of certain laws, such as those in the human rights act.

And if the EU proposed something that utterly against British interest parliament could refuse to accept. Parliament is still, technically sovereign, and can still refuse to accept legislation presented from the EU (though doing so may result in our resignation).


The UK parliament could legislate on the environment like the EU does

Could it?

Whether we like it or not, environmental issues are not hermetically sealed within state borders. Pollution produced in Britain, for instance, may well affect the continent and vice-versa.

An issue with such broad geographical implications realistically needs supranational authority to tackle.

[Funky Monk]

I think the knee slapping dance was taking things a bit too far. I argue that resorting to national stereotypes to convince voters is rather racist.

[James]

Yes, though they haven&#39;t done anything catostrophically bad, netither is the continent conspiring to &#39;control Britain&#39;.

I&#39;d personally say the &#39;good&#39; outweighs the &#39;bad&#39;, but that&#39;s really an issue for another debate.


2/3 of legislation now originates in European Parliament.
Your point about good and bad is very important. I think we should be able to pick and choose. Why should we have to have the bad legislation?



Well, yes and no.

parliament can still, though only to a small extent, choose to &#39;conviniently ignore&#39; the specifics of certain laws, such as those in the human rights act.

And if the EU proposed something that utterly against British interest parliament could refuse to accept. Parliament is still, technically sovereign, and can still refuse to accept legislation presented from the EU (though doing so may result in our resignation).


I think this will decline. The EU is now penalising countries increasingly which fail to enforce EU rullings etc.
Yes parliament is still sovereign; but as you point out, it can only be sovereign if we leave the EU.


Could it?

Whether we like it or not, environmental issues are not hermetically sealed within state borders. Pollution produced in Britain, for instance, may well affect the continent and vice-versa.

An issue with such broad geographical implications realistically needs supranational authority to tackle.


Yes of course it could. It depends on who is elected of course.
The environment is now a major issue which won&#39;t just disapear.

And lets not pretend the EU is the only international body.

[monkeydust]

2/3 of legislation now originates in European Parliament.


I&#39;m almost certain that it&#39;s not that much. Where did you get those figures from?


Why should we have to have the bad legislation?


I don&#39;t necessarily think that we should, though, of course, it depends what we consider to be &#39;bad&#39; legislation.

If &#39;bad&#39; legislation is to mean something pointless, irritating and ill thought out then our concerns here might be justified.

But if &#39;bad&#39; legislation is to mean simply anything which conflicts with &#39;British interest&#39; (whatever that may be), then it may, occasionally, be justified. For example, profits of British industry may be hit by limiting greenhouse gas output, though ultimately such restrictions wil be beneficial to the planet as a whole. Likewise, fishing quotas may harm our fishing industry in the short term, yet could be considered necessary for a long-term sustainable situation.

As I have said, pragmatically, I&#39;m not in principal opposed to legislation which conflics with our interests for the &#39;greater good&#39;. However, in the current situation I am sceptical of any such laws, merely because they are formulated and implemented by a body which is wholly undemocratic and unaccountable. Namely, the European commision.




Yes parliament is still sovereign; but as you point out, it can only be sovereign if we leave the EU.



Again, I&#39;m not entirely in agreement.

Realistically, British Conservatives will have to recognise that parlaiment is no longer, and can no longer be, entirely sovereign.

Britain is no longer an island in any sense other than the geographical. Even if we did pull out of the EU, the pervading influence of international business and &#39;big&#39; states, notably the US, would shape our policy to somewhat, if only indirectly.

In other words, complete parlaimentary sovereignty is, realistically; an illusion.

[James]

I also thought it was a dodgy number; but the BBC said it last night, and the lib dem, lab and tory representatives, and the "experts", didn&#39;t contest it.

Environment is not a european monopoly.

and yes we do have parliamentary sov: parliament could pass any law and it would be "the number one".

Of course there are restraints and influences - but that doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t exist.

[monkeydust]

I also thought it was a dodgy number; but the BBC said it last night, and the lib dem, lab and tory representatives, and the "experts", didn&#39;t contest it.


I&#39;m not necessarily contesting it entirely, though I think that they probably forgot to put local legislation into the equation. 2/3 seems a bit extreme, especially as the EU explicitly operates on a process of subsidiarity.



and yes we do have parliamentary sov: parliament could pass any law and it would be "the number one".


Of course, technically.

But realistically, if Labour, for instance, tried to pass a law providing incredibly heavy progressive taxation, the CBI would have the economic clout to force them to reconsider.

[DaCuBaN]

2/3 of legislation now originates in European Parliament

The question I must ask is, why is this a problem? What difference does it make if our &#39;rulers&#39; are based in either brussels or London?

Living up in Scotland - and being against independance for either the UK or Scotland, to me it becomes six of one and half a dozen... London is 700 miles away, brussels is just under 1000 - so what is the difference?

The way I see it, whether Europe is &#39;favourable&#39; or not to our interests as &#39;british citizens&#39; is a moot point. As socialists, most people here accept that some kind of revolt is required to bring this in - be it violent or otherwise - and concentrating power in the EU rather than westminster would surely help this cause more? Less direct control and more centralisation would surely make dissent substantially easier?


Why should we have to have the bad legislation?

Our interests are not tantamount, we should be willing to make some sacrifices for the benefit of others. Or at least I think so ;)