MEP Elections

[Saracen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27592487


he has a point tbh

He does indeed. But I wonder if he seriously expected anything else?

Personally, I expect the EU machine to pay lip service to the rising discontent, and not much else, unless forced to.

And bear in mind, for all that sceptic parties did well in a number of member countries, the pro MEPS are still the large majority. Also, while sceptics gained ground and even won in several countries, including the UK and France, they are miles apart from being on the same page, or sceptic for the same reasons, seeking the same changes or working together or speaking with one voice.

A far-left, anti-austerity party in Greece and a right-leaning UKIP in the UK might noth be euro-sceptic, but that doesn't mean they want the same things. And Farage has said, repeatedly and forcefully, they WILL NOT link up with any far right parties like France's FN. And I don't blame him. Here, I think that would be political suicide, and a lot of supporters would drop UKIP as if it were radioactive.

So, a rising "tide" of euroscepticism isn't so much a growing force as a collection of disparate voices that might, some of the time, be saying similar or the same thing(s). And often not.

[scaryjim]

... a rising "tide" of euroscepticism isn't so much a growing force as a collection of disparate voices that might, some of the time, be saying similar or the same thing(s). And often not.

It is all a bit "What has Europe ever done for us?", isn't it

[HalloweenJack]

It is all a bit "What has Europe ever done for us?", isn't it

no not really. we joined the common market - we didn't join the USofE

[Saracen]

It is all a bit "What has Europe ever done for us?", isn't it

Not really.

There are major issues, and substantial disputes over what's best. It's not all just discontent ftom the great unwashed.

For instance, uf you have two or more economies in a 'union', then unless all their fundamental economic cycles are in harmony, with the usual ups and downs going with the same length, then even economies in sync today will be out of sync next year, or in five years.

And the EU has 28 economies to try to sync. Worse, it's economies that are among the most advanced and developed in the world, like Germany, with those that, well, aren't, like Romania. Not only are infrastructure levels, and therefore the spending required, hugely different, but do are standards of living, and of course, costs of living. And that is what drives a lot of intra-EU migration. If you live in a country with a very low cost of living, and commensurately low wages, then every pound/euro earned in Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, etc, and sent "home" goes FAR further than it does here. Same applies to benefits, including in-work benefits, so anyone getting that with family 'back home' can get UK/German level benefits, or wages, that spend, back home, at, say, Romanian cost of living rates. One figure I saw put that at about a 6x multiplier.

As always, these issues are shrouded by gross exagerations on both sides of the argument.

Our pressures on public services are not ALL down to immigration, EU or otherwise. To assert that is daft. BUT .... to assert that immigration has no effect at all is similarly fatuous. There is indisputably an effect. How big is hard to quantify reliably.

And, add to that is the FACT that a lot of immigration clusters together. Visit Luton, Leicester, Peterborough, or a umber of other places and it's, first, unmissable, and second, cannot help but change the character of areas where it happens. Oh, and by the way, visit certain areas in Spain, France, etc and you'll find similar clusters of Brits, right down to traditional-type pubs and fish and chop shops. Personally, if I visit Spain or France, or Romania for that matter, the last thing I want is fish and chips, or a cluster of Brits. But then, I'm visiting, not emigrating.

Anyway, any sensible argument recognises that EU membership has benefits, not least combined trading powers and crime-fighting capabilities. But any sensible argument also recognises that there are costs, not least is a substantial loss of sovereignty that WE, the people, have never at any time been asked about.

What I, personally, want to see is a proper, rational, adult discussion of what we gain, and lose, from being in, without the rancour associated with, for instance, anyone with concerns about an utter inability to control immigration immediately being dubbed a racist or facist, and with our politicians having the decency to engage and not treat us all like mushrooms.

And then, after that national discussion, a referendum. You know, a bit like the Scots are getting in September.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING short of that referendum is going to put this issue to bed. And the longer it carries on, the worse it's likely to get, and the worse the contempt for our 'elected' elites is likely to be. Will we end up with mobs rampaging on the streets, like Greece, or adopting the solution to our ruling elites that the French adopted for theirs when it was the aristocracy in control.

After all, that aristocracy's main offence was a smug, 'I've got mine so screw you' indifference to the concerns, or snger, of the people, and a marked inability to either listen, or care.

Will contempt for politicians and a sense of disconnect with the powers that be just tumnle on, or will something soatk something else? Who knows.

[Saracen]

no not really. we joined the common market - we didn't join the USofE

Or, more succinctly than my last post, Jim ... that.

[santa claus]

......

[peterb]

Apologies if this has been posted previously but did anyone read Boris Johnson's post election assessment?:



What a pompous oaf.

He is, but he does have an amusing turn of phrase!

[santa claus]

......

[Vaughan07]

I didn't bother voting...can't be doing with any of hem. Here's to another 12 months of broken promises.

[Saracen]

I didn't bother voting...can't be doing with any of hem. Here's to another 12 months of broken promises.

Well , le's see. You join a forum, and within 15 minutes and 6 posts, are asking members here to vote for you so you can win a trip to Silverstone. But in that same 15 minutes and 6 posts, are telling us you can't be bothered to vote in a national election. See any irony in that?