European Elections, Thursday 4th June- Discuss

[jim]

In relation to point 3 would you be ok with someone you don't know, have not voted them into power/or voted against them, and yet they are telling British forces what to do?!?!

To me that is a very scary prospect since within a year i'll be in training for the Royal Navy. At least with UK MP's I can have some say at an election. If have seen the bit of news about Spain laying claim to waters around Gibraltar (its arguing some that the water should be part of some environmental thing- and the EU has allowed it to) Now there has been a confrontation between the Royal Navy and the Spanish Navy. The Royal Navy turned the Spanish back and away from British territory waters. Now my point (other than the fact Spain are complete twits) is that if there was some EU defence force what would we do in similar situation???

How about the Falkland Islands??? Would an EU defence force be prepared to defened that British territory???


As for immigration, granted its not all the fault of the EU...................BUT it has played a big part in fuelling the problem!! For example the number of new member states which have added to our immigration problem here (i agree our government have been very slow to react) The EU should have put some restriction on the amount of people from those new members states, in order to give time to us and other to prepare! Then after a year or two those restriction would be lifted. Instead we had coaches waiting to bring the masses here.

The main point is that the EU has become too big!! It now has its tentacles in many parts of our lives which when i don't know who they are is worrying. It baffles me why Labour have signed over so much power?!?!? They don't seem to want preserve anything in this country.


Anyway, these are just my views and in no way diminish anyone else views.

The point about slowing up the immigration is certainly true, I can see a lot of benefit in that... it's a fair point. It probably could have been handled better, but I think ultimately after the initial influx slowed up, and it all settled down, the laws in themselves are working reasonably well - as you pointed out, after the initial 2/3 years it's alright.

Regarding the point about an EU Defence Force, I think it would have to be done on the basis that the EU was unified politically as well. In other words, the Falklands and Gibraltar would both be part of the British state, and therefore would be protected in just the same way that Poland would be. Along that line, it would mean that all European borders would be settled, and hopefully no disputes over things like Gibraltar.

I agree though, that with the current political organisation, united armed forces could not function - as you say, how could it possibly work if we signed our troops over to Europe and then the French decided that the Falklands weren't worth saving? If, on the other hand, the Falklands were part of the European territory, would a foreign nation want to risk war against the combined British, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish etc fleets, supported by an invasion force comprising of elite British, French and German troops? I don't think any nation on earth would fancy their chances in that situation.

[Blitzen]

I am ashamed to say, that this will be the first election i will decline to vote in.

I have had the right to vote since 1989, and i have ALWAYS exercised this right as i am a FIRM believer that if you don't vote you cannot moan.

BUT...this time around, regardless whether its EU parliament or even if it was a general election, i just cannot be bothered.

As far as i am concerned now, whether it's a Tory, Labour or Liberal candidate, they are just a money grabbing, self centred, ignorant, single minded, dreary, selfish waste of time.
Every politician is the worst kind of scum and i think they should all be taken out of parliament (well the ones that can bearsed to turn up and represent us), and shot at dawn.

[jim]

I am ashamed to say, that this will be the first election i will decline to vote in.

I have had the right to vote since 1989, and i have ALWAYS exercised this right as i am a FIRM believer that if you don't vote you cannot moan.

BUT...this time around, regardless whether its EU parliament or even if it was a general election, i just cannot be bothered.

As far as i am concerned now, whether it's a Tory, Labour or Liberal candidate, they are just a money grabbing, self centred, ignorant, single minded, dreary, selfish waste of time.
Every politician is the worst kind of scum and i think they should all be taken out of parliament (well the ones that can bearsed to turn up and represent us), and shot at dawn.

I don't disagree with any of the points that you've made, but surely given that the sentiments in your last paragraph are shared by a large number of people, some truly awful parties could do reasonably well (no names mentioned). Does that not spur you on to vote, if only to peg that bunch back?

[Saracen]

I am ashamed to say, that this will be the first election i will decline to vote in.

I have had the right to vote since 1989, and i have ALWAYS exercised this right as i am a FIRM believer that if you don't vote you cannot moan.

BUT...this time around, regardless whether its EU parliament or even if it was a general election, i just cannot be bothered.

As far as i am concerned now, whether it's a Tory, Labour or Liberal candidate, they are just a money grabbing, self centred, ignorant, single minded, dreary, selfish waste of time.
Every politician is the worst kind of scum and i think they should all be taken out of parliament (well the ones that can bearsed to turn up and represent us), and shot at dawn.

Oh dear.

I can't agree with that at all.




Why wait for dawn?

[AledJ]

I am ashamed to say, that this will be the first election i will decline to vote in.

I have had the right to vote since 1989, and i have ALWAYS exercised this right as i am a FIRM believer that if you don't vote you cannot moan.

BUT...this time around, regardless whether its EU parliament or even if it was a general election, i just cannot be bothered.

As far as i am concerned now, whether it's a Tory, Labour or Liberal candidate, they are just a money grabbing, self centred, ignorant, single minded, dreary, selfish waste of time.
Every politician is the worst kind of scum and i think they should all be taken out of parliament (well the ones that can bearsed to turn up and represent us), and shot at dawn.

Your right all parties seem to eb the same and i'm fed up eith all of them. But, the reason i voted was:

1. If i waste my vote then what right do I have then to complain when so and so stuff up.

2. If we don't vote do we not in some way tarnish the memory of those who have given their lives, so what we can live in a democracy ??

I did seriously think of not voting but i just could not do it.

[AledJ]

The point about slowing up the immigration is certainly true, I can see a lot of benefit in that... it's a fair point. It probably could have been handled better, but I think ultimately after the initial influx slowed up, and it all settled down, the laws in themselves are working reasonably well - as you pointed out, after the initial 2/3 years it's alright.

Regarding the point about an EU Defence Force, I think it would have to be done on the basis that the EU was unified politically as well. In other words, the Falklands and Gibraltar would both be part of the British state, and therefore would be protected in just the same way that Poland would be. Along that line, it would mean that all European borders would be settled, and hopefully no disputes over things like Gibraltar.

I agree though, that with the current political organisation, united armed forces could not function - as you say, how could it possibly work if we signed our troops over to Europe and then the French decided that the Falklands weren't worth saving? If, on the other hand, the Falklands were part of the European territory, would a foreign nation want to risk war against the combined British, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish etc fleets, supported by an invasion force comprising of elite British, French and German troops? I don't think any nation on earth would fancy their chances in that situation.

Your last point is a valid one!! Yes a number of nations standing together could provide that 'don't attack us or else' front. But i could never accept it no matter how good the reason may be, and that is down to a distrust of Europe.

[Saracen]

Your right all parties seem to eb the same and i'm fed up eith all of them. But, the reason i voted was:

1. If i waste my vote then what right do I have then to complain when so and so stuff up.

2. If we don't vote do we not in some way tarnish the memory of those who have given their lives, so what we can live in a democracy ??

I did seriously think of not voting but i just could not do it.

That's one way to look at it, but the other way is that by voting for a party you don't have any faith in, or for people you don't have any faith in, you legitimise and give a mandate to a system that arguably doesn't have legitimacy or deserve a mandate.

Imagine a magician doing a card trick. You're asked to pick a card, any card. If every card in the pack is the three of clubs, is it worth picking a card? So if a political system is stacked to load the likely outcome, does it legitimise it by participating? And does it honour those that gave their lives by regarding our current system actually as being a democracy? Or does it just perpetuate the fraud?

[AledJ]

That's one way to look at it, but the other way is that by voting for a party you don't have any faith in, or for people you don't have any faith in, you legitimise and give a mandate to a system that arguably doesn't have legitimacy or deserve a mandate.

Imagine a magician doing a card trick. You're asked to pick a card, any card. If every card in the pack is the three of clubs, is it worth picking a card? So if a political system is stacked to load the likely outcome, does it legitimise it by participating? And does it honour those that gave their lives by regarding our current system actually as being a democracy? Or does it just perpetuate the fraud?

The flip side on that is that you allow parties like the BNP to gain more power! As those who vote for them will outnumber those who would normally vote for the other parties. I never said democracy is perfect and it never will be!! Nothing is perfect but its what we have to work with. Yes, our system needs a work over but its still requires our vote if it is to change. As i have said if we don't vote the sstem will not change, and we risk allowing distasteful groups like the BNP getting a louder voice.

[pauldarkside]

The flip side on that is that you allow parties like the BNP to gain more power! As those who vote for them will outnumber those who would normally vote for the other parties.

Not for one second saying it's a good idea but it'd give this country the kick up the arse it needs. Maybe we'd get a quicker and more meaningful response from the other parties to deal with this mess, whilst stimulating more of the general public to get involved. Voter apathy has been replaced by a general disgust across the board and the way things are going (MPs still not grasping the crap-storm they've created), we'll be dealing with the consequences soon enough.

I don't know what kind of system needs implementing, but we shouldn't have to tolerate MPs benefiting from "mistakes" between now and the general election. Once MPs are elected there's sod all we can do until the next time they're up for election. We should at least have the ability to call for a vote of no confidence for our representatives - they're supposed to be there on our behalf, we pay them so should be able to sack them too and not just once every few years.

[jim]

We should at least have the ability to call for a vote of no confidence for our representatives - they're supposed to be there on our behalf, we pay them so should be able to sack them too and not just once every few years.

I think to be honest it's largely because people just don't care.

If 10% of the constituency had gone out onto the streets (say 12 months ago, prior to the expenses debacle) to campaign against their representative for a proper reason based on genuine evidence, then I'm sure the respective MP would have stood down and forced a by-election.

[Rebel]

I think to be honest it's largely because people just don't care.

If 10% of the constituency had gone out onto the streets (say 12 months ago, prior to the expenses debacle) to campaign against their representative for a proper reason based on genuine evidence, then I'm sure the respective MP would have stood down and forced a by-election.

You honestly believe their pride would win over their greed? Hmmmm I think in the case of MP's greed would win every time.

[santa claus]

I am appalled as are many of you by the expenses disgrace. There is no doubt this makes choosing how to vote more difficult. But imho, you must vote. It is your constitutional right and your responsibility. We cannot heap crisis upon crisis.

There needs to be leadership. That leadership needs to be more closely monitored and more transparent. It needs to answer to those it serves - the electorate.

Please use your vote if only in tribute to those who made it available to you and if you aren't happy with your politicians, then say so to them in the eloquent way that many do here.

This time the choice is difficult, but make it.

[format]

Every politician is the worst kind of scum and i think they should all be taken out of parliament (well the ones that can bearsed to turn up and represent us), and shot at dawn.

Blitzen you are buying into this media propagated witch hunt. Not every MP is a bad person. Even the MPs that did misuse the system - it doesn't make them complete scum.
Get a little perspective here.
I can't tell whether or not your post was serious or not, but to advocate something like that even in jest...

I could fill several pages of discussion of people who are more morally bankrupt than our MPs.

[JPreston]

format's correct

[Saracen]

I still think a lot, in not all, of the anger about MPs expenses are because of what the way many (though by no means all) MPs have been doing says about their personal integrity.

It's not just about the size of the sum involved. In fact, some of the petty items are perhaps more irritating than the big ones. After all, if an MP regarded the additional costs allowance as a sort of surrogate salary increase, and it's clear the system was designed, intentionally, for exactly that purpose, then it's hard to entirely blame the individual for doing what the system was designed to do.

But one of the recent allegations, if true, involved an MP making a £5 donation to a Battle of Britain (IIRC) fund, and then charging it to expenses. I'm not sure what offends me most in that, if it's true ..... that he charged it to expenses, or that someone earning the best part of £70,000 a year is so stingy as to only put a fiver in? Or both.

Personally, I have no problem with an MP claiming £100k a year for their second home costs, if that's what it genuinely cost them, and it was necessary to do the job. But donations? Duck houses and moat-cleaning?

As much as anything, it's that so many MPs can behave in the thoroughly disgraceful (if within the rules) and grasping way that they have, whilst pompously parading about Parliament referring to each other as the "Honourable" this or "Right Honourable" that.

It's the hypocrisy and double standards. It's the whole "one rule for us (which we wrote ourselves) and another for you" thing. It's the "Don't do as we do, do as we tell you" thing. And it's the fact that the WHOLE bunch of them, with a just a handful of exceptions, conspired to maintain their comfy status quo, because for years and years, every time there's been an opportunity for reform, the House AS A WHOLE votes it down. So even those MPs that haven't personally milked the system gave the nod, for the most part, to let it continue.

Now, it seems, party leaders are reforming, vengeful angels, determined to bring the righteous wrath of the electorate down on those that have sinned, especially if the aren't Ministers or good buddies.

But there's an old, and rather sage, saying .... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Do we trust the chief foxes to redesign the guard system on the hen house? I don't.

So a pox on all their houses. "Democracy"? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Saracen]

.....

I could fill several pages of discussion of people who are more morally bankrupt than our MPs.

But are they elected representatives, supposed to be representing us in running the democracy we live in.

We expect greed from bankers, whose prime function is to make money for their employers. We, or at least I, expect higher standards of those in public office. It's more serious when a traffic cop breaks the speed limit .... and even more serious when a senior officer responsible for traffic cops does it. And even more serious if the person taking the bribe is a High Court judge rather than a clerk in a private company.

Those that stand for public office should be, and should expect to be held to higher standards precisely because they're in a position of responsibility and supposed public trust. And it doesn't get much more "responsible" than those elected to govern, to make the laws we all live by.

If THEY can't be trusted to behave properly, and it's clear many can't, then it undermines any public faith in government, and that way lies anarchy. Or revolution. And of you combine decimation of public trust in government with a dire economy, rocketing unemployment, people losing their homes and top it off with an icing of official greed ..... well, who knows where this could end?