EU Election 22/05/14; assume the UK will stay ‘IN’.(19 Posts)
I suspect there is a widespread misunderstanding on what the UK is voting for on May 22nd; as in a nutshell we are looking to elect MEP’s to the European Parliament, to represent this country’s, your regions and therefore our own personal interests.
The main party positions on a stay ‘in’ or opt ‘out’ referendum is now crystal clear and not up for negotiation. Labour and the Lib Dems in government will NOT promise one, the Conservatives in government (with a majority) after a renegotiation WILL promise one in 2017, and Ukip WOULD promise an outright EU withdrawal but without a 326 seat majority in parliament (they currently have zero seats), it is impossible for them to carry out Mr Farage’s promise.
“Ukip will have to negotiate a withdrawal from the European Union over many years and the party still has to work out the details of how it would secure such an exit, a leading Ukip MEP candidate in May's European elections has conceded.”
"Janice Atkinson, who is number two on the party's candidate list in the South East England constituency, admitted it would be impossible just to walk away from the EU.”
Assuming that the voters for the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip) have always known Mr Farage has no powers to carry out their one firm policy, but believed a Ukip ‘protest vote’ would put pressure on the three mainstream UK parties – that strategy is no longer valid, as the mainstream parties have finally cast their EU in/out strategies in stone.
So realistically, as due to skewed electoral UK boundaries the Conservatives need to have around an 8- point poll leading into the 2015 General Election to get that parliamentary majority in order to ensure an EU referendum, with a Labour government or a Labour Lib Dem coalition - IT IS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT THE UK WILL REMAIN ‘IN’ the EU until the next (2020) UK general election, at least.
So for the first time in years, this May’s 2014 European Election is not about ‘protests’ on EU membership, EU policies like immigration, elitist politicians, a 3-party system, or anything else.
This European election is about the UK’s interest within the EU that can only be represented (AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE) by pragmatic MEP’s who believe in the project, so personally want to both be there and vote on issues in our best interests – and that can only be done by electing MEP’s from the 3-main parties.
We can thank Mr Farage for leading the ‘protest about everything’ party for 20-years and making memorable, often insulting speeches in the European Parliament - but as they have no power to give the people what they promise and we could be in the EU for decades to come, surely we need a more positive representation on our interests – and as Mr Farage was saying in Maria Miller’s Basingstoke constituency the other day, politicians need to be both accountable and value for money.
(Up to May 2009) “Ukip leader Nigel Farage boasts of his £2m in expenses
“Farage used EU allowances to finance his eurosceptic message”
Once Ukip finally got past ‘racial issues’ in order to obtain votes, and began flip flopping domestic policies to appeal to UK voters each year (with policies depending on the political colour of their current targeted audience) - the Ukip ‘rainbow’ of policy making has been to stand for very little, but remain fleet of foot in opposing everything the three main parties do, that is deemed to be unpopular.
Admittedly Ukip is not the only political party that has done this for 4-years, but an example of this would be that if an MP from the three main parties, while driving through a town accidentally ran down a voter, Mr Farage would be there within 24-hours, telling voters that he follows the Highway Code speed limits and blame the government for, something.
In theory Mr Farage’s populist visit to Ms Millers Basingstoke constituency last week was a perfect example of this, but it was the sheer hypocrisy of this particular headline grabber that to me at least, went over the personal integrity line.
The Times today has a story on Mr Farages “expenses “ and Mr Farage has appeared on the BBC to try and squash this particular ‘EU claim versus free UK office rent’ story as, (hopefully with tongue firmly in cheek), “politically motivated” – and said as MEP’s we do not get expenses, we get a £3,500 monthly allowance paid into the members bank account for a rather loose list of authorised items – but this disclosure creates more questions than answers to a man who previously disclosed in May 2009 that he had claimed around £2 million in allowances and expenses.
Maybe a Ukipper can correct me if I’m wrong, but as an MEP from 1999 to 2009, over the full 10-years @£3,500 per month, Mr Farage’s total EU allowance would come to £420,000, yet by Farage’s own admission in mid 2009 he had spent over twice that – SO WHERE DID THE REST OF THE MONEY COME FROM UP TO MAY 2009 – and how much has come from the EU to his personal account since????
Further to the subject of this thread, on the importance of voting for the best candidate regardless of political part in the MEP elections on the 22nd May.
As there is unlikely to be a Conservative majority next year and it could take a parliament or two (or leader or two, lol) for a post Cameron Conservative Party to establish themselves - as no other party either can or will give the people a say on remaining within the EU – the UK really has to assume we will remain within the EU under a Labour administration, whether in coalition with the Lib Dems or not.
“David Cameron would quit as Prime Minister after general election if he could not deliver on in-out EU referendum pledge”
“David Cameron pledged tonight to step down as Prime Minister after next year’s general election if he could not deliver on his promise to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.”
“His comments indicate that the pledge to stage the EU vote in 2017 would be a “red line” for the Conservatives in any post-election negotiations to form a Coalition government.”
If there is a similar EU MEP electoral turnout in May this year as in 2009, 35% or lower, most MEP seats will go to Ukip, who in principle do not believe we should be there, so will not best represent the Uk in very important matters.
Surely with all the main parties stating their case, this job advertisement is no loner applicable
‘EU PROTESTERS’ needed on an MEP salary of £78,000 annual salary + Daily attendance Allowance + Staff Costs + £3,500 a month allowance to spend on basically what they want.
At least the protesters we grew fond of, like the one previously known as ‘Swampy’, didn’t pretend he had long term solutions to anything, while pocketing a very generous taxpayers remuneration package.
Farage intimated on Question Time last night that Ukip MEP's are against the existence of the EU and it's parliament, so why send a regional representative with those 'issues' on £78k a year plus allowances, rather than those issues important to your region?
Try spending a little time looking at all candidates of all political parties for who will WORK for your region within the EU, rather than be paid an annual fortune by the taxpayer, to protest against the EU.
By NOT voting, if there is another 35% turnout, the odds are you will be sending a Ukip 'protester' on a jolly, at your (taxpayer) expense. Nice 'work' if you can get it.
You seem to be holding a conversation with yourself, so I'll keep you company
You need to understand - we don't care about the European Parliament because it is a toothless little pussy cat of a Parliament that has no real power - so you could send next door's gerbil to sit in a UK seat there and it wouldn't make a jot of difference.
So UKIP may as well send their MEPs there so they can keep an eye on the whole rotten shambles and get some political experience.
And the annual cost of one MEP is absolutely nothing at all when compared to the cost of running the EU gravy train and paying for it's 2 geographical centres and the frequent flip flop of teh gravy train as it moves between the 2.
Saw UKIP had a well-manned stand at the Helston Floral Dance yesterday. That did surprise me. No sign of any other political parties.
WetAugust ... I'm happy to talk to myself, it's only a problem when I start nagging and have no where to go - but pleased to have the company. lol
You are confirming my point; I know Ukip don't care about the EU, but thanks to Ukip taking Conservative votes and the dodgy Uk boundary lines, WITHOUT A REFERENDUM THE UK WILL REMAIN IN THE EU FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 5 -10 YEARS, so the UK needs MEP's looking after our interests.
As to the EU having "no real power", according to Mr Farage, they set 70 odd % of our laws, which is it???????
Paying £78k a year plus huge allowances for Ukip to "keep and eye on things" and get work experience, or "political experience" for Westminster is a nonsense for a party saying we need to get out of the EU, but just stand in the way of a referendum.
Which just goes to show Farage wants Westminster power and will leave us without a YES/NO say, for seats in London, and this is alternative to grubby mainstream politics? Hmmmm.
We need to get out of the EU and it is a disgrace that none of the mainstream parties will countenance this and have the temerity to besmirch the UKIP for giving people the option. What happened to democracy?
What are you talking about, the Conservatives are the only mainstream party that if they win the Westminster parliamentary majority needed in 2015 (to get it past Labour and the Lib Dems), we will get a Referendum in 2017 - and Cameron will resign if a Conservative government cannot deliver that promise.
For Ukip to change British law and bring us out of the EU, they would need 326 seats in Westminster when they don't have one seat - so can U-kipperers and the country wait until....when....2025 at the earliest???
Ukip cannot deliver their ONE promise of bringing us out of the EU and/or changing EU immigration laws. FACT.
Don't take my word for it;
“Ukip will have to negotiate a withdrawal from the European Union over many years and the party still has to work out the details of how it would secure such an exit, a leading Ukip MEP candidate in May's European elections has conceded”.
“Janice Atkinson, who is number two on the party's candidate list in the South East England constituency, admitted it would be impossible just to walk away from the EU.”
“Her remarks at a public meeting in Brighton last week underline the extent to which key details of Ukip policy have yet to be developed.”
They pretend they can do it, but it is "impossible" as when Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty, our EU membership was enshrined in British law - which Farage cannot change. FACT.
Well UKIP certainly does need political work experience Isitmebut. They are making a monumental cock up of what should be an attraction proposition - a referendum on EU membership.
Yes, 70% of our UK law originates from the EU but it is not originated in the EU Parliament. The EU Patliament cannot propose law and cannor appeal laws; it can only advise. It's a very expensive focus group!
I watched Grant Shaps on QT last night and was not impressed - at all. Absolutely no conviction IMO. You know don't you that renegoiation has been tried before, back in the 70s and has failed. I really doubt that Cameron could secure anything that would make the general public want to stay in.
What do you think that Cameron could secure in renegoiations?
I ask that because the stated objective of the EU is ever closer union. That's been their objective for decades, resulting ultimately in complete political and fiscal union of all member states. That's what we would be expected to go along with if we stayed in.
So what is Cameron going to get that would stop the UK, as a member state, being subsumed into political and fiscal union?
WetAugust ,,,,, thank you for correcting my apparent misunderstanding of where EU laws are passed and I’ll take your word for that (for now lol).
But may I say that you are seriously missing the POINT of the Cameron negotiations and the ‘stay in or get out’ referendum.
Cameron has stated that his personal view is that it is better for the UK to ‘stay in’, but like any core Conservative he is against big, expensive, red-tape laden government that reduces Productivity and the EU is already that, and as you say, likely to get worse as it morphs into a superstate.
Come 2015, if the Conservatives are elected with a parliamentary majority, Cameron will have a mandate from the people to have the 2017 EU referendum and negotiate on our behalf for various changes before hand which other European leaders will have to respect – but come the referendum day, ‘the people’ would have all the costs/benefits facts before them and THEY make the choice, not Cameron.
As to EXACTLY what Cameron is looking to negotiate on, I’d hope we’d see that in their 2015 general election manifesto, but whatever he asks for (and does or does not get), the people decide if we want to stay in or not.
If we stayed in, as we are not currently a Eurozone Member (using the Euro and having interest rates set by the European central Bank) that is unlikely to change under the Conservatives, as you’ll find that “closer European integration” produces a 2 or 3 speed/tier EU; where several original members totally integrate and the 20 odd others chose whether they are Eurozone outside the hard core, then the non Eurozone like the UK, hopefully in a more streamlined, less bureaucratic EU, with borders.
Finally Ukip has not mentioned a referendum, they are pretending they can take us out of the EU without one and I feel that as their ambitions are in Westminster, a 2017 Conservative referendum would come too early for them - so are doing their best to pooh, pooh, the prospect of one – which to me goes to the integrity of Ukip, where ‘Independence’ from Europe, is on their can, but doesn’t fit in with their personal, financial, and Westminster agenda.
Cameron will have a mandate from the people to have the 2017 EU referendum and negotiate on our behalf for various changes before hand which other European leaders will have to respect
Oh I wish it were so. Honestly Isitmebut, I don't know how to emphasise this to you but The Eurocrats simply wouldn't care or even acknowledge theis so-called mandate of the UK electorate
Why should they? The UK electoate cannot make them. The Eurocrats do what they want with no curbs on their power. They don't have to listen to a load of 'little Englanders'. We can't sack them and we can't make them change their established Treaties to suit the UK. And even if they did agree it would take years for the amending Treaty to be ratified by the other 25 EU states - so that takes us up to about 2020.
And you think the other EU states will just give Cameron what he wants - I don't think so. They will all be holding out for concessions too. They won't give the UK anything at all without strings attached.
And then there's the question that will be posed to the electorate. That can be skewed in favour of the answer the Govt wants.
� but come the referendum day, �the people� would have all the costs/benefits facts before them and THEY make the choice, not Cameron.
then the non Eurozone like the UK, hopefully in a more streamlined, less bureaucratic EU, with borders.
Yes, the idyll is a pure free trade association and nothing else. Like EFTA.
I know, let's leave the EU and join EFTA.
WetAugust …”if”, “if”. “if”, “if”…..LET ME REPEAT, it does not matter a rats tail IF the other EU leaders or Eurocrats KNOWING Cameron has an EU mandate for (potential) economic - and other common sense changes that will benefit the whole EU as a competitive trading block – but do nothing about it,.
UKIP 100% CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, but the people through a Conservative in/out referendum (similar to Scotland), can.
Any dodgy EU ‘should we stay in or maybe leave’ shenanigans would come from the totally committed EU junkies, the parliamentary Labour and Lib Dem parties, who have said categorically they do not trust the people to a vote, but they’ll kinda organise a referendum IF there are major EU Treaty changes that affect the UK – but how vague can those conditions and referendum be e.g. ‘directly’ or ‘non directly’ affect the UK and offer a convoluted referendum question, open to political interpretation.
So understanding that only under a Conservative majority government in 2015 will the UK have an option to leave the EU in 2017, here are some facts;
-The Conservatives due to electoral boundaries HAVE to be several points AHEAD of Labour in the polls to get a small parliamentary majority in 2015.
-The Conservatives are likely to be neck and neck with Labour in 2015, so once again the Ukip votes - that was 3.1% in 2010 without Farage and likely to be 6-9% in 2015 with him – will stop the Cameron getting a majority in 2015 and allowing the people an EU referendum in 2017.
-If come 2015 Cameron cannot ensure an EU referendum as the largest party/no majority in another coalition with the Lib Dems, he has stated that he will resign, so heaven knows WHEN the Conservatives will be able to offer ‘the people’ a referendum on our EU membership, again.
-So as this may mean STAYING IN THE EU FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 5-10 YEARS, votes for Ukip MEP’s as a ‘protest’ on May 22 when we will need MEP’s to work on behalf of Britain and our individual regions would be very damaging to our interests.
-Votes for Ukip in 2015 to bring the UK out of the EU in 2015 (when Ukip have no power to do so), are not only misdirected votes, but a vote that allows a Labour or Labour/Lib Dem coalition to completely suck up to the European Superstate dream they’ve had for decades – and eventually join the Eurozone, as Clegg was always for it and it was only Brown stopping Blair that saved us from the one currency/interest rate nightmare from 2007/8.
“Ukip MEPs are laziest in Europe, missing a third of debates as Cameron warns UK needs politicians who will 'turn up'”
• Ukip ranked bottom in league table of 76 parties from across the EU
• On average its MEPs turned up for just 61.1% of votes over five years
• Lib Dems best UK party with more than 3 MEPs, attending 87% of votes
• David Cameron says European Parliament elections 'do matter'
Note MEP Remuneration; £78,000 annual salary + Daily attendance Allowance + Staff Costs + £3,500 a month allowance paid into their personal bank account whether claimed or not – that is not peanuts, so why send someone who’ll monkey around – and if you don’t vote, the nuts tend to get in, by default. Pass it on. lol
Completely ignorant to politics but wanted to ask a Q on the EU vote.
As a woman, is it not possible that I will be better represented by the EU state, considering the few policies for women in our own country and our poor representatoin? I can't choose between our bunch but some other countries in EU seem to respect that women have over 50% of the vote in their countries and so they have better representation and policies geared to help families. Sweden and Norway for example. It seems, to my untrained eye, that even though these countries make up a tiny percentage of the EU as a whole, on balance they have a higher chance of influencing change for women in our own country, as long as we stay in the EU?
Or am I completely misguided?
Lioninthesun ….. an interesting subject, especially as I heard a woman on the news yesterday with the same concerns as you “considering the few policies for women in our own country and our poor representation”.
The argument appeared to be that the state of the State’s finances, the lack of housing, the lack of well paid jobs and many of the other bread and butter issue’s the main political parties are going on about - but with not enough detail in my opinion – are somehow NOT women’s issues, which frankly I found rather bizarre as I thought we were all similarly affected and it didn’t matter too much re the gender of those causing, or fixing the problems.
If women in the UK have ideas of how we make a near £100 billion annual overspend (and the interest charges of the borrowing) disappear overnight leaving loads more ££££room for spending on ‘socially nice’ things - then I wish they’d damn well speak up, coz this old fart ain’t got a clue how to do it - other than over the long term from economic growth and more jobs.
Re Norway and Sweden you mentioned, I have to admit that I was both very interested and impressed with that nice chef Hugh Firmly-Withastool’s (whatever) recent Scandinavian tour looking at all aspects of each country, in particular their individual social responsibilities and attitudes to each other, from a young age. Most of this seemed to stem from A TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT to provide good value services e.g. education, from their high taxation – and a healthy attitude to sex, maybe because it was free and they are broke lol. Unfortunately as we are approaching £1.5 trillion of debt, a UK experiment to trust government’s again with our hard earned taxes, could be a way off IMO.
Finally that brings us to EU, but please don’t forget that the main drivers of policies are the 18 countries of the Eurozone (that adopted the Euro and one interest rate set by the European Central bank) and although they may share many of the social attitudes of the Scandinavian countries, many of their social policies that were unaffordable but masked during a global boom, are now a drag on the economies/finances of those countries as the link re their economic growth below shows, which is far lower than the UK.
“The 18-country bloc saw economic growth of 0.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with fourth quarter 2013. This missed analyst expectations of 0.4 percent growth. In the fourth quarter last year GDP also grew by 0.2 percent, data from Eurostat showed.”
My point is that whatever the women friendly policies of the EU were before hand, realistically you will be relying on 28 countries worried about policies that may concern businesses they want to invest/create jobs, to reach the right decisions moving forward for many years to come.
But let us no forget that THIS election on Thursday is about sending MEP’s that will represent the polices important to your region, this is not about being ‘in’ or ‘out’ – so as it is unlikely that Conservatives will be able to get a majority in parliament in 2015 to offer the people a referendum, what I am suggesting is it is both important to vote and for the main party with the policies that you identify with – rather than allow in by default, a highly paid group of protesters who often can’t be bothered to vote.
For the UK to more fully engage with women voters, a UK where it is compulsory to vote (like other countries e.g. Australia) might be the answer, as while I have no idea what percentage of women vote in the UK now – if every woman at the ballot box can’t get the politicians pro women creative policy juices going, nothing will. IMO.
I'm surprised that there aren't figures on how many men/women vote tbh! Would have thought that was key to political stance from the get go!
For a start I'd love to see how Nordic countries implement payment from fathers who walk out on their children, for example. Our system here is a laughing stock and in turn encourages the NRP to avoid paying full tax by opting out of PAYE. This has become socially acceptable, and yet single parent families are the poorest in our country. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if the NRP were paying an actual percentage of the wages they divert through their own companies (most of which spring up within a year of them leaving the family home), we wouldn't have such a poor underclass. As soon as a political party taps into this they could produce many figures to show their 'improvement' of improvement for these low income families without doing anything at all bar changing the law to penalise men who lie and avoid tax. A win/win - you get tax from them and your underclass is pulled up.
I'll post more later when DD is asleep, but if anyone knows how they resolve this in other countries please do share!
“Police To Patrol More Than 100 Polling Stations”
"Councils are also investigating irregularities on nomination, voter registration and postal vote forms."
An MEP who manages to both speak his mind and has the interests of this country at heart.
“ I haven’t wavered in my view that Britain would be better off out. While we’re members, though, let’s at least try to prune the thicket of regulations, to cut the budget, to repatriate powers to Westminster, to limit the entitlements of foreign welfare claimants. These are not aspirations; they are things Conservatives have already done. Do we really, on that basis, deserve fewer votes than last time? As the poet says, “Now, at the latest minute of the hour, grant us your loves.”
Join the discussion
Please login first.