Challenge for the UKIP

[Mich the Tester]

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to answer that question due to a gagging order. Actually I'm quite surprised that some enterprising little sod hasn't gone through the UKIP MEPs attendence in the EU and seen what they have voted for and against and how it both applies to their 'manifesto' (they do have one don't they?) and their own personal gain

TBH it's a bit of a job, but the information is available. But it's quite possible that some young geek is doing precisely that while employed by a British political party head office.

[DodgyAgent]

Ooh, here's one:



Who voted against there being only one seat?

I'm not doubting that there is corruption but its not just the EU but also the beneficiaries of their handouts are also corrupt, everyone from governments to companies to individuals. But don't you think that if the EU were a company that this wouldn't also happen? Don't you think that sections of the UK government are also not corrupt?

So it is OK for corruption to pervade within the EU just because a UKIP member is also corrupt and companies too?
There is corruption everywhere, the trouble with the EU is that there is no democratic or economic (or criminal even) means to stop it.

With a company or an MP or a government consumers and shareholders can vote with their feet, an MP can go to jail and a government can be voted out of power. Not so the EU commission.

[Mich the Tester]

So it is OK for corruption to pervade within the EU just because a UKIP member is also corrupt and companies too?

No, of course not.

There is corruption everywhere, the trouble with the EU is that there is no democratic or economic (or criminal even) means to stop it.

Yes there is democratic control; that's the point of the parliament. A shame UKIP and the likes dont make more use of it, and a shame some of the pro EU fanatics (they are there too) seem to get in the way.

With a company or an MP or a government consumers and shareholders can vote with their feet, an MP can go to jail and a government can be voted out of power. Not so the EU commission.

Not true; the parliament can give a no-confidence vote, just as the British parliament can do that for ministers.

[sasguru]

Stripping out all the verbiage and ideology from both sides on this thread, I think the main problem is this:

In my view we cannot think clearly about this issue because we have not yet confronted the belief in British exceptionalism. What I mean is as follows: for centuries British people were taught that they were superior to other peoples, including those in Europe. This was necessary as a moral justification for empire - only if British people were bring the benefits of their superiority was that empire justified; otherwise it was a mere tawdry exercise in exploitation.
However when the empire collapsed suddenly following the bankruptcy caused by WW2, there had to be an about face, generations of beliefs had to be replaced in 2/3 decades by the sudden realisation that other peoples could not be treated, and were not, second class - the better economic performance of Europe (particularly Germany ) in the 60s and 70s also brought home the fact that Britain's economy without Empire was nothing special.
This failure to address failings of past attitudes (as the Germans did for better reason and on a much larger scale afte WW2) has led to confusion for particularly the older and more poorly educated generations (e.g. UKIP supporters). Taught to believe they were superior merely by accident of birth they cannot now adjust to the fact that this was a crock of tulip: suddenly those upstarts in Germany are much richer not to mention some of the natives in India and China. Hence the "stop the world I want to get off" mentality.
And therein lies the problem, many people think we are superior to Europeans let alone other nations.
The reality is we are not. Accidents of history lead to certain nations having their time in the sun, to be replaced by others, its all cyclical, and quite often depends on the luck of having the right technology at the right time.
Personally I think Britain (England?, Scotland?) could survive as a kind of European Singapore but its true destiny is within Europe.

[DodgyAgent]

Stripping out all the verbiage and ideology from both sides on this thread, I think the main problem is this:

In my view we cannot think clearly about this issue because we have not yet confronted the belief in British exceptionalism. What I mean is as follows: for centuries British people were taught that they were superior to other peoples, including those in Europe. This was necessary as a moral justification for empire - only if British people were bring the benefits of their superiority was that empire justified; otherwise it was a mere tawdry exercise in exploitation.
However when the empire collapsed suddenly following the bankruptcy caused by WW2, there had to be an about face, generations of beliefs had to be replaced in 2/3 decades by the sudden realisation that other peoples could not be treated, and were not, second class - the better economic performance of Europe (particularly Germany ) in the 60s and 70s also brought home the fact that Britain's economy without Empire was nothing special.
This failure to address failings of past attitudes (as the Germans did for better reason and on a much larger scale afte WW2) has led to confusion for particularly the older and more poorly educated generations (e.g. UKIP supporters). Taught to believe they were superior merely by accident of birth they cannot now adjust to the fact that this was a crock of tulip: suddenly those upstarts in Germany are much richer not to mention some of the natives in India and China. Hence the "stop the world I want to get off" mentality.
And therein lies the problem, many people think we are superior to Europeans let alone other nations.
The reality is we are not. Accidents of history lead to certain nations having their time in the sun, to be replaced by others, its all cyclical, and quite often depends on the luck of having the right technology at the right time.
Personally I think Britain (England?, Scotland?) could survive as a kind of European Singapore but its true destiny is within Europe.

In summary then those who want the UK to come out of the EU are stupid. The only reason I can see for staying in is that "we should not be left out" . Instead of conjuring a logical argument the europhiles have two reasons to stay in:

Anyone who thinks we should leave must be stupid (the logic of which has not been explained)
And that we should not be left out. Even though the EU is a job destroying undemocratic authoritarian institution.
The best the Europhiles can come up with is that we should stay on board the sinking ship and help bale it out

I may be stupid, but I think I will choose to jump

[sasguru]

In summary then those who want the UK to come out of the EU are stupid.

You said that, not me.
My point is we can't have this debate in a rational way until people stop thinking that just being British means that somehow we will always be top dog regardless of what we do. The world has moved on: insularity and superiority complexes are ruthlesslessly punished in the global markets.

[DodgyAgent]

[QUOTE=Mich the Tester;1751755]No, of course not.




Yes there is democratic control; that's the point of the parliament. A shame UKIP and the likes dont make more use of it, and a shame some of the pro EU fanatics (they are there too) seem to get in the way.


Not true; the parliament can give a no-confidence vote, just as the British parliament can do that for ministers.[/QUOTE

The EU is run by the European commission not the parliament. The parliament has the right to veto legislation but the commission also has the power to ignore the parliament

[BlasterBates]

[QUOTE=DodgyAgent;1751772]

No, of course not.




Yes there is democratic control; that's the point of the parliament. A shame UKIP and the likes dont make more use of it, and a shame some of the pro EU fanatics (they are there too) seem to get in the way.


Not true; the parliament can give a no-confidence vote, just as the British parliament can do that for ministers.[/QUOTE

The EU is run by the European commission not the parliament. The parliament has the right to veto legislation but the commission also has the power to ignore the parliament

No ...the EU is run by the council of ministers, i.e. the heads of state, the commission implements the decisions by the heads of state. They are similar to the permanent secretaries of the Civil Service.

The council of ministers makes a decision like we´ll have the Euro, then the British prime mniister says "but we don´t want the Euro" so the others um and ah and say OK. Then the commission then implements the Euro but can´t force the UK to join.

[DodgyAgent]

You said that, not me.

By implication we are:

Hence the "stop the world I want to get off" mentality.
And therein lies the problem, many people think we are superior to Europeans let alone other nations.

So if not stupid then we are certainly swivel eyed lunatic little englanders with an overblown sense of our own importance.

Let me ask you why then if we should all be Europeans (with a tesco on every high street, speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, doffing our hats to the glorious EU commission) why we should automatically subscribe to the version of the EU being imposed upon us? Or are you not so bright after all and keen to join to join the parade to support the first thing with "true european" stamped on it?

The trouble is that you people see the status quo of how Europe is governed as the only blue print for how a united Europe should be composed. It is your box and anyone who is anti your box is not necessarily anti europe.

Despite your much (self) vaunted intelligence You are not really bright enough to see outside of your own little Eurobox are you?

[Mich the Tester]

So if not stupid then we are certainly swivel eyed lunatic little englanders with an overblown sense of our own importance.

...

The trouble is that you people see the status quo of how Europe is governed as the only blue print for how a united Europe should be composed. It is your box and anyone who is anti your box is not necessarily anti europe.

Firstly, if I thought you were a swivel eyed little englander I wouldn't bother discussing this with you.

Secondly, I think I've made clear that I think the status quo is a mess (especially their 80s albums and that dreadful 'you're in the army now') and that a new approach is needed to ensuring free trade and a healthy economy in Europe, and that I think that new approach will come if the UK stays in the EU and works with other members who have similar needs. There are many possible blueprints, and personally I wouldn't favour a prefab blueprint, but something with less formality, more flexibility in the details, a much smaller bureaucracy and a solid agreement on free trade and liberty.