Time to leave the EU?

[Soul_13]

Originally Posted by Gareth

All sounds very soviet. Sometimes EU-enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.

Well in many ways he has a point. Britain alone (as France, Germany etc) is nowhere near big enough to compete in the world stage against economies of China, or India size (or US or Russia). Staying outside the EU means being bullied the same way as it used to be during the cold war (by the Americans).

[Stairz]

i think the idea of the EU as a well-structured and fully-functioning mega-awesome-superstate is actually quite appealing, particularly in the face of emerging powers like india, china and brazil. individually european countries will be too small to compete with these gigantic rampaging juggernauts, too small to project any real influence or protect home interests - when china sends a million man army on a giant floating robo-ship and demands britain hand over all its hot women i don't think that one aircraft carrier is going to cut it, and it'll probably have run aground on some rocks somewhere anyway.

come on, imagine a country boasting cities like paris, london, madrid, venice, barcelona, berlin, athens, stockholm, copenhagen and norwich - sounds pretty frigging awesome to me!

it'll take ages though, and lots of reforms. but eventually a generation will feel it and it will happen. britain though will probably only accept it when that giant floating robo-ship has left with all those hot women (all three of them). then europe will finally be united and we can get on with some proper old skool european style overseas conquest and imposition: THE EMPIRES STRIKE BACK.

also like eddy said, they may as well just hand over the world cup now. that won't be going anywhere.

[Isaac Newell]

We will just subcontract the Vietnamese army, they are very good at beating the Chinese.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Soul_13

Well in many ways he has a point. Britain alone (as France, Germany etc) is nowhere near big enough to compete in the world stage against economies of China, or India size (or US or Russia). Staying outside the EU means being bullied the same way as it used to be during the cold war (by the Americans).

Neither does Japan or Madagascar. No one's saying it's a given that these places have to merge with other countries.

[manrush]

Just as Scotland is better off in the UK than on its own, the UK is better off in the EU.

[Derbedeu]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Neither does Japan or Madagascar. No one's saying it's a given that these places have to merge with other countries.

Japan is totally subordinate to the US, both military-wise as well as economically.

As for Madagascar, are you serious? They've never been a power like Britain, France, Germany, or Japan.

Even Africa has started to unify through the African Union, though like all things from that continent, it is severely hampered by corruption, social issues, and economic ones.

[Octoman]

Nigel Farage is returned as leader of UKIP. Interesting article here from mthe Wall Street Journal on the threat UKIP poses.

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010...david-cameron/

I'm glad he won. I went to a lecture by one of the other candidates Tim Congdon last week (mainly for the free Champagne) and the guy was an extremist of the worst order. Despite his failings Farage has been good for UKIP.

[pricemazda]

Nigel Farage - a man who employs his wife and his son on the parliamentary payroll.

[Octoman]

He does at least keep the European issue on the agenda. Daniel Hannan has endorsed him.

[Soul_13]

There is not such thing as a European issue.

[pricemazda]

Originally Posted by Octoman

He does at least keep the European issue on the agenda. Daniel Hannan has endorsed him.

It's a bit like Hitler endorsing Stalin.

Daniel Hannan shouldn't be in the Conservative Party, he should either leave these shores and become a Tea Party, Fox news Contributor or join the loons in UKIP

[Octoman]

They're a pressure group. And a very effective one at that. UKIP pretty much cost the Tories an outright majority at the last election.

Since then we have seen further discontent with the EU'sbudget grabbing antics and even more evidence of the failed economic model. UKIP really could capitalise on that and hurt the Tories again. The only way to make them go away is to have a referrendum on EU membership. If we vote to remain in, UKIP are finished. If we vote to leave, UKIP were right.

As long as people are denied a referrendum UKIP has a place in politics.

[pricemazda]

I'm not so sure UKIP cost the Tories over 20 seats. You'd have to look at the margin between Tory votes and the winning line. The tories lost because not enough Labour voters in manual professions switched.

Elections in the UK depend on this small group of people in a tiny number of seats switching. Everyone else can go to hell.

[Octoman]

You see, here is the thing. Some people such as yourself really would like to see a referrendum on voting reform. Others want a referrendum on the monarchy. Others on EU membership. And some on Scottish / Welsh independence.

Why not acknowledge that we have a few constitutional issues building up that are outside of 'business as usual' politics and put together a program of votes over the term of a parliament to settle these issues once and for all.

1. EU membership vote
2. AV vote followed by PR vote
3. Monarchy vote
4. Scotland / Wales vote.


I predict that we would retain the monarcy, Scotland and wales would remain within the union, AV might pass but PR wouldnt. The EU membership vote would be tight.

Think about how it would free up politics from the issues that have been bogging it down for years. For a start the SNP and UKIP would disappear.

[pricemazda]

I have long been in favour of an in/out eu vote, because I am more than confident that people would vote yes to stay in. The EU is something people love to hate but in reality they have already 'banked' the benefits but once reminded they will vote yes.

I do find it odd that people are content with allowing political parties to concentrate their resources on a fraction of the electorate and twist policy for 60 million to suit them.

[pricemazda]

Of course, i should give credit to both Hannan and Farage as they both support voting reform.

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by pricemazda

I'm not so sure UKIP cost the Tories over 20 seats. You'd have to look at the margin between Tory votes and the winning line.

I found an old post I made at the time of the election:

This is interesting - just read on the UKpollingreport site. The following 17 seats were all lost by the Tories by 1000 votes or less. And in all of them UKIP took more than 1000 votes, depriving the tories of the seat. If they had won these seats, they'd now have a majority.

Telford
Somerton and Frome
Plymouth Moor View
Morley & Outward
Newcastle-Under-Lyme
Bolton West
Great Grimsby
Walsall North
Walsall South
Southampton Itchen
Dorset Mid & Poole North
Wirral South
Solihull
Wells
St Austell & Newquay
Derby North
Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East

[pricemazda]

That assumes that all 1000 UKIP voters would have voted tory, many might have stayed at home, voted for the BNP or who knows. It is often a mistake in political science to assume that one set of voters are 'natural' supporters of any party. It is actually the height of arrogance of party hacks to assume so.

Like I said, elections in the UK are won on the centre ground, not on the extremes. To believe UKIP cost the Tories the election is the same as saying Cameron didnt' win because he wasn't hardline Thatcherite enough. The truth is, he wasn't fully successful in detoxifying the tory brand. Lord Ashcroft's report is highly illuminating in this regard.

The Tories needed to win more Labour/Tory marginals.

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by pricemazda

That assumes that all 1000 UKIP voters would have voted tory, many might have stayed at home, voted for the BNP or who knows. It is often a mistake in political science to assume that one set of voters are 'natural' supporters of any party. It is actually the height of arrogance of party hacks to assume so.

It looks at seats where the tories lost by less than a thousand seats but UKIP gained well in excess of that. For example, in the Poole North seat the Lib Dem majority over the tories was 269, but over 2,100 voted for UKIP. It's not unreasonable to assume that UKIP cost the tories that seat. Similarly in Bolton West the majority was only 92 but over 1,900 voted UKIP.

But it's not as clear cut as that in some of those the seats and yes it's wrong to assume all UKIP voters would have voted tory. Undoubtedly UKIP cost the tories seats but whether it was enough to stop them getting a majority we'll never know.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by pricemazda

I have long been in favour of an in/out eu vote, because I am more than confident that people would vote yes to stay in. The EU is something people love to hate but in reality they have already 'banked' the benefits but once reminded they will vote yes.

A vote on leaving the EU should never be allowed, just as a vote on Scottish independence should not (devolution to Wales and Scotland should not have been put to the vote either, what a stupid idea). I say this because we all know that people won't vote in an informed way or even in their best interests, they'll vote on some fake braveheart or little england sentiment, and as the total collapse of the Irish Free State shows, when a country / region does something like that, they end up Royally screwed. To quote the PC video game Tropico, in which you take control of a banana republic as a dictator, sometimes "the people do not know what they truly want, el Presidente."