It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Euro 2004 election result: will the EU break-up in a few years?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Voters across the European Union have punished all the mainstream parties.

In the UK, the highly Euro-sceptic UKIP (UK Independence Party) which advocates complete withdrawal from the European Union did staggeringly well, netting 17% of the vote and knocking the mainstream Liberal Democrats into fourth place.

This trend was repeated across Europe with single issue and minority parties all doing well compared to the main parties.

In the UK, there are clearly a huge number of people who are highly suspicious of the way the EU currently operates and of the federalist agenda to form an undemocratic, unaccountable European super-state.

This view is represented by none of the three main political parties so it is clear that one or more of them will have to become more Euro-sceptic to enfranchise that very real view.

It is also clear that to a lesser extent this viewpoint is reflected right across Europe, indicating that mainstream European parties will have to become more sceptical too.

Surely, there is a real chance that with so much distrust of the EU, the federalist agenda will now come to a halt and could even be reversed over the next few years?


news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I disagree. In the UK, it can reasonably be assumed that every Euro-sceptic voted for the UKIP - therefore, four out of every five voters thinks that Europe is either a good idea, or at least beneficial enough not to provoke a vote for Kilroy-Silk.

Add that to the fact that these elections have, all over Europe, been more about punishing incumbant governments than electing real political representatives, and you see that the only winners at all in the UK were the LibDems, who increased their share of the vote without resorting to single-issue mudslinging or flat-out lies.

The UKIP and it's small-minded sister parties throughout the EU may make a lot of noise, but they are nowhere near being a dominant political voice. We can only hope that the "federalist agenda" will continue is a much more transparent way, allowing meaningful reforms while maintaining the close friendship and alliance between the countries of Europe.

Thankfully.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I hear what you are saying, but my point was that none of the three mainstream political parties cater for this evidently very large section of public opinion. 17% of the vote share is a massive section of the public who are not being represented on this view in the House of Commons. As a result of this, surely one of the main parties is going to have to take on a more Euro-sceptic agenda - probably the Tories?

Also, it's not true to say that everyone one who feels this way voted for UKIP - I'd like to reduce our ties with Europe, but I personally didn't vote for them because I don't vote for single-issue parties.

Also, an ICM poll commissioned by the BBC shows that 45% of respondents would like the UK to leave the EU and 46% would like the UK to remain in. Of course, this poll was conducted on a yes or no basis - if the pollsters had given the people a wider choice with, say complete withdrawal at one end of the scale and total federalism at the other the results would have been more evenly distributed with 25% at either end and most people grouped in the middle.

The fact that there was such a low turn out across Europe, and of those who did vote, such a large proportion registered a protest vote against the main political parties, shows I think that the corporatist, statist, federalist EU agenda is dead in the water.





[edit on 14-6-2004 by harrisjohns]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I'm a "Euro-skeptic" myself, and I didn't vote for the UKIP either.

Remember these elections weren't a vote for or against our(UK) inclusion in Europe. They were a vote on who should represent us in the European parliament.

The pro/anti issue will be more closely addressed in the single currency referendum, whenever that happens. (Even then it won't be a vote for or against "europe" per-se, it will be a vote for or against a common currency)

So far there hasn't been any serious mainstream debate on the issue, just spin, scare-mongering, condescension and name-calling.

Hopefully when a referendum date is fixed, we will see a proper debate, with fully fledged arguments and reasoning from both sides. Personally I think a lot of on-the-fence voters will move to the No camp.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I live in the US and I just read up on the EU. I believe I am also a Euro-skeptic. I thought the EU was for monetary policy, but you are set to have a constitution in a week or so?? I know this will still have to be ratified first, but its kind of scary the kind of power they will have.
I think its a good idea that there are some people in the parliament who won't be so inclined to give the EU a lot more power than it should have.

I had a couple questions though...Does EU law take precedence over the law of the respective nations? And do the newly elected parliament members become inolved in the upcoming constitution process?



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
.Does EU law take precedence over the law of the respective nations?

That's one of the key issues in the debate. As things stand, the member counties have agreed to defer to European law with regard to things like human rights, business and trade, and many other issues. Some are pushing for this to be extended to include common defence, tax and of course currency laws and institutions. The current british government's position is against common tax and defence, but for a common currency.


And do the newly elected parliament members become inolved in the upcoming constitution process?

Not as far as I'm aware. The "constitution" is being debated and beaten out by the individual governments. It will then have to be ratified by each of the member states, which in practice may mean further referendums, or, it may not.

There's a couple of good links here which attempt to shed light on the workings of the EU, the European Constitution and how it is intended to work in practice.

www.unizar.es...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I think the root cause of a lot of this is that people feel that they have been lied to on the EU over the last 30 years by ALL the mainstream political parties. After all, when we had the referendum in 1974 we were voting on nothing more than a free trade area. Since then the true federalist agenda has gradually become known and all governments (including Thatcher's supposedly Eurosceptic administration in the 1980s) have sold us down the river, signing up to treaty after treaty without the explicit consent of the people.

(Indeed, the deception of the people over the true nature of the EU must surely be one of the greatest real-life conspiracies of all time!)

A federal United States of Europe will never be a reality - the cultural differences between the member states are extreme and the UK is probably the least 'European' in outlook. The situation couldn't be more different from the US which is held up as a model by some Euro federalists of how a united Europe could work.

If this sort of state was imposed, destroying centuries of tradition and a great democracy with a strong economy, I honestly believe that this would result in some sort of reactionary revolution in this country sparking guerilla warfare and the rest.

I'm not a Daily Mail reader and have the wit, I think, to make up my own mind on the issue from the evidence at hand. One of the things that enrages me is the way that the Blairites and the 'Islington Intelligensia' who run this country portray anyone with a Eurosceptical attitude as some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth right wing extremist.

This isn't about Union Jacks and God Save The Queen, it's about replacing our ancient democracy and powerful economy with an undoubtedly corrupt, unaccountable and largely undemocratic European super-state which will never, ever work in our interest.

I'm all in favour of free trade, but that's where it should end.

I'm delighted by UKIPs success - it should be a wake-up call to all our mainstream parties that enough people in this country will not be steamrollered into a federal Europe.





[edit on 14-6-2004 by harrisjohns]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
If this sort of state was imposed, destroying centuries of tradition and a great democracy with a strong economy, I honestly believe that this would result in some sort of reactionary revolution in this country sparking guerilla warfare and the rest.


Seriously?

I invite you to go to your window, harrisjohns, and look out of it over the streets and houses - or, if you're lucky, the fields and forests. In the real world, in the world of mundane politics and everyday concerns, can you really see some partisan rebellion kicking off in the streets of Clapham and Coventry, of Notting Hill and Newcastle?

Political rhetoric is one thing, but we're talking about the UK for crying out loud, a country which can't even protest as effectively as the French.


Originally posted by harrisjohns
I'm not a Daily Mail reader and have the wit, I think, to make up my own mind on the issue from the evidence at hand. One of the things that enrages me is the way that the Blairites and the 'Islington Intelligensia' who run this country portray anyone with a Eurosceptical attitude as some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth right wing extremist.


You're certainly more literate and eloquent than the usual Daily Mail readers. The problem here is not the Blairites of the left-wing intellectual elite, but the fact that the average eurosceptic is a foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing extremist (I could add a few words to that list, but I won't). Look at feeble-minded troglodytes like Mr. Perma-Tan Kilroy-Silk, or any number of overweigt overblown overloud foghorns spouting rascist bile disguised as policy! Like the members of many political movements through the ages, my friend, you are cursed with a vocal minority who exemplify the very worst accusations levelled at your movement as a whole. Should all sceptics be tarred with the oily Kilroy-Silk brush? Of course not. I believe that euroscepticism is as valid a political view as any other. But in this world of instant media and K.I.S.S. reporting, you're going to be tarred whether you like it or not.

I believe you are right in your prediction, however - the Tories can't stave off the threat of the UKIP for long, and I can see an inevitable re-framing of their policies toward Europe on the horizon. Labour will doubtless hold fast to their witless stance on Europe - and everything else, come to that - and the next general election will be a deciding moment regarding our relationship with the international community at large, not just the EU.


Originally posted by harrisjohns
This isn't about Union Jacks and God Save The Queen, it's about replacing our ancient democracy and powerful economy with an undoubtedly corrupt, unaccountable and largely undemocratic European super-state which will never, ever work in our interest.


I accept that you are arguing from a rational point-of-view, and your scepticism isn't rooted in jingoistic tabloid trash, but your arguments don't hold water. Our parliament may be the torch-bearer of an ancient, noble tradition, but it's on it's way out regardless of Europe - modern reforms have already cut away the "venerable" second house, and will have their way with the Commons too. Our economy is strong and powerful because of our close ties with our European neighbours - neighbours in a philosophical sense as well as a geographical one. If the EU consolidates into a federalist state - as it surely will - how long do you think Britain will remain powerful, perched between the two most significant trading blocs on the planet? You say the EU is unaccountable, undemocratic and corrupt - I say that we should get in there and fix it! Yes, it has it's problems, but the future is coming, like it or not. Britain cannot survive outside the EU, and we have wasted many opportunities in years gone by, but it's not too late. Together with our European partners, we could build something which we would be proud to belong to, something which incorporates the best facets of our personalities and politics - nothing would be left behind, nothing would be discarded onto the junk heap of history, but reforged and made stronger!

Or we can sit and shiver in the cold, perched precariously on the edge of Europe, gazing longingly at the bright lights across the Atlantic. Scotland, I can tell you, won't be a part of that particular Britain for long, and neither, I suspect, will Wales...



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Nearly all people who dared to vote misunderstood the sense of it. Overall the people tried to show a sign against their ruling government party...but this vote was about EU politics and NOT national politics which nearly every EU citizen is unable to understand.

I stand here ashamed because of my EU fellows


by the way: I voted for a party that's also represented in my country but I would never vote for them in a national vote but for EU politics they have the aims I want to see achieved.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands


Political rhetoric is one thing, but we're talking about the UK for crying out loud, a country which can't even protest as effectively as the French.


True, Monsieur Strangelands, Britain is not a country of revolutionaries. I suppose it all depends on just how undemocratic is the ultimate European super-state and how that state would choose to treat the UK. Personally, I'd fight to maintain my rights and freedom.

You also have to bear in mind the mentality of the EU. This is an organisation which actively supports the imprisonment and/or heavy fining of British traders who wish to sell their produce in pounds and ounces. An extreme example I grant you, but it highlights that the EU can be obsessive, intolerant and unwholesome in the extreme.



The problem here is not the Blairites of the left-wing intellectual elite, but the fact that the average eurosceptic is a foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing extremist (I could add a few words to that list, but I won't).


I don't agree with this convenient caricature. The UKIP results show that desire for a complete withdrawal from the EU is held by a large minority and less extreme Euroscepticism is most certainly a mainstream view and arguably a majority view.



Look at feeble-minded troglodytes like Mr. Perma-Tan Kilroy-Silk, or any number of overweigt overblown overloud foghorns spouting rascist bile disguised as policy!


UKIP don't have a racist agenda, they can't be lumped together with the likes of the British National Party.



I believe you are right in your prediction, however - the Tories can't stave off the threat of the UKIP for long, and I can see an inevitable re-framing of their policies toward Europe on the horizon. Labour will doubtless hold fast to their witless stance on Europe - and everything else, come to that - and the next general election will be a deciding moment regarding our relationship with the international community at large, not just the EU.


Well, it will be interesting to see how Blair performs at the constitution summit the weekend. For him, the prospect of the talks failing and breaking down without agreement could be the ideal outcome because it will get him off the hook of a referendum on the constituion, which he would lose.

The Tories will be torn apart by this result as the arguments will now start between the pro and anti-Europe wings of the party. Europe has always been their nemesis. Sad, because a weak opposition is bad for democracy.




I accept that you are arguing from a rational point-of-view, and your scepticism isn't rooted in jingoistic tabloid trash, but your arguments don't hold water. Our parliament may be the torch-bearer of an ancient, noble tradition, but it's on it's way out regardless of Europe - modern reforms have already cut away the "venerable" second house, and will have their way with the Commons too. Our economy is strong and powerful because of our close ties with our European neighbours - neighbours in a philosophical sense as well as a geographical one. If the EU consolidates into a federalist state - as it surely will - how long do you think Britain will remain powerful, perched between the two most significant trading blocs on the planet? You say the EU is unaccountable, undemocratic and corrupt - I say that we should get in there and fix it! Yes, it has it's problems, but the future is coming, like it or not. Britain cannot survive outside the EU, and we have wasted many opportunities in years gone by, but it's not too late. Together with our European partners, we could build something which we would be proud to belong to, something which incorporates the best facets of our personalities and politics - nothing would be left behind, nothing would be discarded onto the junk heap of history, but reforged and made stronger!


I genuinely admire your hopes for the future. However, I don't believe this utopia could ever be carved out of a Europe where cultures are so very different and where the self-interest of each member nation reigns supreme. In reality, we don't have friends in Europe and, politically, the UK is despised within Europe. This will always prevent us from influencing the future direction of the EU. To hijack your analogy, we already are shivering in the cold on the fringes. Further integration will lead to pneumonia.

Regarding economics, we buy more from Europe than we sell to them so the advantage is all theirs, whether or not we are part of the EU. That not withstanding, I agree we should be part of an economic free trade area with Europe, but let's leave it at that.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
My understanding was that the EU will in fact be more beneficial for the UK. The three largest countries, England, France, & Germany? can veto whatever they like. So, they can pretty much dictate law, while the smaller countries benefit economic-wise.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Our economy is strong and powerful because of our close ties with our European neighbours - neighbours in a philosophical sense as well as a geographical one.

I disagree. We do have strong ties to Europe, but we also have strong ties to the US, and Asia. The City of London does more business in a day than Wall Street. We invest heavily overseas and are big exporters of all manner of high value products and services..and all without a sharing currency or constitution with anyone.


If the EU consolidates into a federalist state - as it surely will - how long do you think Britain will remain powerful, perched between the two most significant trading blocs on the planet?


Surely if there are two major trading blocs, then perched between them is the best place to be? We NEED to be trading with as many people as possible, not just a single bloc. Hong Kong was, and still is, very successful.Sometime being a bit different is good.



.Britain cannot survive outside the EU, and we have wasted many opportunities in years gone by, but it's not too late.

There has never been a convincing argument put forward as to WHY Britiancannot survive outside the EU. It's stated as a matter of fact by Pro-Europeans, but it's never accompanied with detailed economic argument or analysis.



Together with our European partners, we could build something which we would be proud to belong to, something which incorporates the best facets of our personalities and politics - nothing would be left behind, nothing would be discarded onto the junk heap of history, but reforged and made stronger!

Are then any examples of something like this having worked in the past? Have any group of nations come together in this way, successfully? Any at all?

On the other hand there's plenty of examples of what happens when would-be nation builders get map-happy. the USSR, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Catalonia, Palestine, etc..etc..

Don't get me wrong. I love europe, and I'm all for open borders, free trade etc.etc.. but we can have ALL of these things without be governed from Europe! Can you imagine having to catch a flight to go and picket your parliament? Do we really want a government that is SO much bigger than us? REALLY??


[edit on 14-6-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
The Tories will be torn apart by this result as the arguments will now start between the pro and anti-Europe wings of the party. Europe has always been their nemesis. Sad, because a weak opposition is bad for democracy.


I couldn't agree more - and I couldn't be happier about it! The broad house of Tory is fundamentally outdates, and I can foresee and split - not until after the general election, and probably not for a long after that - into a more right-wing party occupying hardline-Tory/UKIP territory and a more centre-right party occupying more liberal conservative ground.

Good, I say. Split the vote, let the LibDems in.


Originally posted by muppet
Hong Kong was, and still is, very successful.Sometime being a bit different is good.


Well, I suppose there's nothing stopping the UK from trying to copy the Hong Kong model - obviously, we'll have to get rid of our manufacturing industry, because it can barely compete with imports now, never mind five years down the road. Never mind the punishment our agricultural and fishing industries will take... or the political isolation which will remove us from the top table of global diplomacy...

I don't believe the UK should be caught between the US and the EU - it's possible we could "survive" outside, but we would find it difficult to thrive and grow. Remember that it's not just a question of our current trading relationships with other countries - a federalised EU will become a vastly more powerful trading bloc than it is now, and will be able to enter markets where the UK has an interest and squeeze us out - not maliciously, I dare say, but it will happen nonetheless. That is the economics of scale, I'm afraid.


Originally posted by muppet
Are then any examples of something like this having worked in the past? Have any group of nations come together in this way, successfully? Any at all?


No, there aren't. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Regardless of the tabloid-engendered Blitz spirit, this isn't an invasion! We're not being coerced to join the EU - if we were, then I too would view it with suspicion. Rather, we have the opportunity to forge something truly remarkable and unprecedented, a political state which will protect Britain's interests - if we're on the inside - for many, many years to come.

Your point about a "foreign" parliament is a good one, but kind of redundant for people in my situation, I'm afraid. As a Scot, it would probably be a damn sight easier for me to get to Brussels to witness or protest the actions of government, than it is for me to get to London.

And yes, when it comes right down to it, I do want a large government. I want my small town and my quiet rural county to be part of something large, something new and exciting. Does that mean I'm in favour of remote rule? Of course not! National parliaments are not going be scrapped or superseded by Europe. It just means that we'll have to conduct ourselves according to the rules of the club - rules which we will have a very strong voice in composing, if we don't cut and run. We can make Europe work - not just for us, but for all the citizens of all the countries. We can be the strong voice that inspires and soothes.

But I am a big believer in the power of democracy. If the UKIP can get their seperatist vote above - charitably - 30%, then I'll be inclined to take heed, and pack my bags for foreign climes. However, I won't be at all surprised to see their votes drift away come the next election, when the vast armies of taboid-guided voters have their attention elsewhere.

I'm afraid that, while harrishjohns and muppet are clearly both dedicated, intelligent Eurosceptics who have formed their own opinions, the largest proportion of your army consists of people who've been whipped up into a frenzy by Kilroy-Silk and the Daily Mail.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:22 AM
link   
afternoon. i would say that the results from the elections show everything but a potest count for existing parties.I'm afraid it's gone way past that.Myself and a majority of people i know,voted for na complete change in SYSTEM.We are now voting on Policies rather than taxes or personalities.Everyone who says it was a protest,and labour/conservative will take note and offer an answer,are wrong.The time for educated "politicians" is coming to an end.I think we would all now vote for policies,which affect us as individuals,not he whole world or europe.Look we all know about Federal Reserve/bank of England/eschelon spying/NWO running everything.This is the beginning of the fight back against them.Anybody still stuck in the mindset -Conservative/Labour-Republican/Democrat are outdated and have already been replaced with modern individuals able to follow their instints and sense rather than being corruptable or nieve.The national election will bw the real eye opener-but have Labour got the guts to make it PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.Personally i doubt it,they wouldn't last 5 minutes if every vote had meaning,and that is the only way of voting,but they will bury PR under a mountain of lies,or by another so-called "terrorist attack".



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The three largest countries, England, France, & Germany? can veto whatever they like. So, they can pretty much dictate law, while the smaller countries benefit economic-wise.


Theoretically, but it rarely happens. Usually its Germany and France voting together against us. As I say, we have no real friends in Europe, and further integration will be like marrying the school bully.



Originally posted by harpalchemist Labour got the guts to make it PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.Personally i doubt it,they wouldn't last 5 minutes if every vote had meaning,and that is the only way of voting,but they will bury PR under a mountain of lies,or by another so-called "terrorist attack".


Well that's the old axiom about proportional representation - no party who rules under the current 'first past the post' system will ever introduce it because it will disadvantage them.

As for next year's (probable) general election, people won't vote in the same way at all, Strangelands is right.

The UKIP vote will evaporate, as will votes for all the minor parties, because they will have no chance of winning a parliamentary seat.

Most of the UKIP vote will go back to the Conservatives.

Personally, I think the Liberal Democrats are a spent force. Much of their traditional support (and their parliamentary seats) comes from the south-west and south-east of England, which, ironically are also the most Euro-sceptic areas in the UK. Interestingly, Lib Dems conveniently forget about their pro-European stance when campaigning in these areas and never mention it. I think with UKIP and the Tories on a strong anti-European push, the game is up for the LibDems and they'll lose a lot of seats.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by harrisjohns]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
The broad house of Tory is fundamentally outdates, and I can foresee and split - not until after the general election, and probably not for a long after that - into a more right-wing party occupying hardline-Tory/UKIP territory and a more centre-right party occupying more liberal conservative ground. Good, I say. Split the vote, let the LibDems in.

Even though I'm not really a LibDem supporter I'd agree with you that the current party leanings are outdated and a bit of a stir-up and some fresh blood and ideas wouldn't go astray..


I don't believe the UK should be caught between the US and the EU - it's possible we could "survive" outside, but we would find it difficult to thrive and grow. Remember that it's not just a question of our current trading relationships with other countries - a federalised EU will become a vastly more powerful trading bloc than it is now, and will be able to enter markets where the UK has an interest and squeeze us out - not maliciously, I dare say, but it will happen nonetheless. That is the economics of scale, I'm afraid.


I think our traditional manufacturing industries, the ones that are struggling, will continue to struggle even if we join. These companies may experience a slight boost initially as the reduced costs of doing business with Europe kick in, but I think this will be a temporary reprieve. We (and the rest of Europe) will still struggle to compete with the developing nations where labour costs are so much lower. In other areas though media, software, financial services, IT, communications, intellectual property and all manner of other "niche" industries, we are massive exporters. We are experiencing the growth of the new "information" economy, something that doesn't require heavy resource and fossil fuel consumption, and I believe we would be better positioned to compete worldwide independently. There is a saying in this new world of business, one that is illustrated everywhere you look these days.. It's not the big that eat the small, it's the fast that eat the slow. I think the economies of scale and unity within a federal Europe are a chimera.



Your point about a "foreign" parliament is a good one, but kind of redundant for people in my situation, I'm afraid. As a Scot, it would probably be a damn sight easier for me to get to Brussels to witness or protest the actions of government, than it is for me to get to London.

I'll be interested to see how the debate pans out in Scotland. As you say we are afflicted with some ignorant foaming-at-the-mouth types in the Skeptic camp, but I think the same thing applies in Scotland, only this time it's ignorant foaming-at-the-mouth "England's to blame for everything" types, and I think that's where a lot of Euro support in Scotland (and Wales) comes from. to me again this is a problem, since people who follow these simplistic arguments are likely to be the first to be disappointed or disillusioned with the their lot in the new Europe. You'd then be waiting decades, if not centuries, for the nationalist separatist tendencies to recede. (christ, you've still got idiots in NI matching around in orange sashes celebrating a 250 year old battle!). As harrisjohns says, there would be a real danger of unrest and insurrection.


But I am a big believer in the power of democracy. If the UKIP can get their seperatist vote above - charitably - 30%, then I'll be inclined to take heed, and pack my bags for foreign climes.

here, here.. (not you packing your bags, but the belief in democracy bit!!
)
Whatever the people chose, above all that's what we have to go with. That's why in the recent European elections people should have voted for who they would like to represent them, ASSUMING the Euro thing goes ahead, rather than voting for an Anti-Europe party...Doh!
save it for the referendum!! But to me this is another illustration as to the problem with big, multilevel "democracy". People don't think it through and become too easily manipulated by the likes of the tanned-smarmy one.

I just hope the quality of the debate, when it happens, is good, and enough people really to think the issues through properly.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

[edit on 15-6-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Picking up on comments from muppet and strangelands, I think what we genuinely need is a frank, truthful debate about our current position in Europe and how we want to move forward.

Our pygmy political leaders in this country are frightened of tackling the issue because they know only too well that their own parties and the population at large is divided on the subject.

Where there is a vacuum of real information and debate, the scaremongers step in on both sides of the argument.

It is THE most important issue facing the UK as all other decisions ultimately stem from how we are governed.

So, it's time for our leaders to put aside concerns about their own careers and popularity and actually do something for the country and the people they were elected to serve.

Let's shelve the focus groups and halt the spin doctors and use the forthcoming referendum on the constitution as an opportunity to establish the real facts and thrash out a way forward.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
Our pygmy political leaders in this country are frightened of tackling the issue because they know only too well that their own parties and the population at large is divided on the subject.


I agree. Personally I think the whole In/Out debate should be kept as separate from normal party politics as possible, because of it's importance. Why should the issue be rolled up with every other issue into a "united party position"? Answers on a postcard please...




top topics



 
0

log in

join