I do not know much about the UKIP, actually almost nothing, BUT can understand whomever in Britain or elsewhere would love to get out of the E.U.

The E.U. in the past three decades became less and less federalist and more and more centralist. This is not what Europe should be. I hope that the Brits opt to stay in the EU but might welcome if it would be as narrow as possible, for example 51,2% pro EU and 48,8% against the EU ! So that the Centralists in the EU had to take a bit of a warning

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...64775465_n.jpg

that's not true at all. as i noted before, the euro-sceptic arguments i'm most persuaded by revolve around the anti-democratic nature of the EU institutions, the poor quality of certain institutions vs national institutions and perhaps also economic arguments.

Er . . . what's not true at all?

I just said that I didn't say there was a logical entailment between being anti-EU and being xenophobic.

I accept that your reasons aren't xenophobic.

UKIP isn't going to win because all they are going to do is split the tory vote. I think we have to be more worried about when the coalition fails which may be soon.

The Tories are imploding, and their whole in-out vote on the EU is dangerous politics gameplaying. Many people will not chose to stay in or leave based on logical issues, but on knee-jerk reactions.

I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned that is simply nonsense:
- You've got an elected parliament with powers over the commission, budget etc.
- You've got the council of ministers with representation from your nation's government
- And if you live in most EU countries you have a say in treaty amendments either via qualified majority voting of your national representatives or by referenda

Compare that to the UK:
- No written constitution & means to affect change by the people
- No oversight of government or parliament that a constitution brings
- No right of consultation via a referenda
- A government that can commit the country to the various EU treaties with any consultation
- A press that is dominated by one big owner

__________________
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

that's wishful thinking, do you have any evidence for this?

Yeah, it's just a mid-term reaction to UKIP's poll success. Everyone will get back in line as the next election approaches.

The ukip are a bunch of incompetents lead by an incompetent. As such they are no electoral threat.

But just imagine what they could be if they got their act together and became a right wing populist force in the style of the svp. Things would look very different then. And all it would take is some real leader to step in. So don't assume that because it hasn't happened yet it will never happen.

You might have a point if it was a system didn't allow us to be outvoted on things that are primarily in the UK's interests ( http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...27-706812.html ) and if the system had been put in place democratically in the first place (i.e. by referendum).

The system of electing MEPs is problematic in itself (although this is not an EU issue).

I believe a system of QMV without having a referendum to agree to putting QMV in place in essence anti-democratic of itself.

I'd prefer more local politics (similar to Switzerland with community level, cantonal level and federal level decision making) and would like to see move devolution of powers to give people more say in things that matter to them. The opposite of centralising powers in far off places.

EDIT: apart from never being asked on the various EU treaties in the first place - we had a referendum on a London Mayor FFS, you'd think joining the EU, Lisbon Treaty etc. would be more important and warrant a referendum, the main thing I find anti-democratic is that the EU as a whole is grabbing more and more power. Tenuously leveraging and interpreting existing provisions to provide more power and say than what was originally envisioned if not outright grab for new power and control (Lisbon Treaty, ESM - really terrifying that such a blatant grab can be proposed without much protest!).

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

hear hear. look at all those BNP councillors who got in and had to resign from councils after 6 months as they were totally clueless. You'll see plenty of the same from UKIP councillors too later this year when they realize that they have to do all that tiresome stuff like setting budgets and having to compromise

They are an electoral threat to the Conservative Party.

It's not to do with UKIP winning seats.

It's to do with them attracting previously Tory voters and causing the Tories to lose to Labour or the Lib Dems in marginal seats.

This is why you see Tory MPs causing a fuss about UKIP issues like the EU and gay marriage. It's also why you say an immigration squeeze in the Queen's Speech.

True, but you could say much the same thing of the bnp, maybe not now but at the height of its strength narrowing down labour majorities in traditional working class areas. My sister, who was at the time canvassing for labour showed me an internal email asking canvassers to take people expressing xenophobic views seriously and treat them with respect and listen to their concerns. If that was a change in policy, it's pretty clear it was in response to the bnp.

The BNP vote was tiny compared to UKIP.

Also as the BNP is and was seen as more extreme they were more easy for the political mainstream to ostracise and combat in elections.

The Conservative Party doesn't know how to handle the UKIP threat, hence the current flailing.

You're right though that the threat isn't just in terms of winning seats, it's also to do with changing the policies of the major parties. Minority parties like the Greens (in the 90s) and the BNP (in the 00s) have had an impact on policy and discussion within the larger parties.

yes. i think this is the problem with the system of voting for parties.

it would be nice if we could vote on issues or legislation. rather than find a party which supposedly agrees with me and watch them go back on their word, it would be nice if the electorate could be empowered to directly vote in legislation on key issues.

I like the idea in theory but I have doubts if it could be made to work successfully in the UK.

Our representational government still has a role because most of the population is politically ignorant and leadership is required. Can you imagine minaret type referendums in the UK? Yikes.

I believe it is a chicken and egg thing. Give people real power and they grow into the responsibility that comes with it. Most Swiss people I know who do participate in referenda are also pretty savvy on the topics! Even the people with relatively simple backgrounds and education. The argument that you shouldn't let people have a say because they are too stupid has also been used by apologists for third world dictatorships, so be careful down which road you head.

People should have a say. But the degree of direct vs representational democracy will depend on the geographical and historic context.

Parliamentary democracy has served the UK well and we have not had a dictator (arguably Cromwell).

But none of this happened without the agreement of the states, it is more about how the UK internally decides on how it commits itself to the EU. And in that respect it appears that the UK government has unfettered powers, unlike the others who are restricted by their constitutions.

I found this summary of the referenda approving the various EU treaties - it appears that the Danes and the Irish are the only ones who require consultation on every single change! The peoples of both countries have rejected proposals in the past which the led to clarifications, renegotiations and so on.

Apart from the fact that politicians would have to give up a lot of power, I don't see why the UK could not bring in a constitution that would require referenda on important national commitments. After all the French constitution now requires a referendum for all future accession treaties too.

__________________
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela