May 5th

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ April 05 2005,15:15)]I was going to say (MtS - correct me if i am wrong but UKIP feel we would gain more for Britain by trading with the North Americas and our Commonwealth without the stupid EU Regulations that cause problems in this type of trade.

That is only phase one of the UKIP's plans.

Phase two is to 'annex' Europe and make it part of the commonwealth*






















* Ok I made that up.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Guest @ April 05 2005,15:16)]and one rule for another. I thought political posts were frowned upon... what a crap site!  

Quite right - and I'm sorry. But I don't see mine as a political post, I see it as the defence of a friend. And those sorts of posts have usually been allowed on here.

Matt

 

[Napster]

Well, I'm going to move this one. I did start this off as a valid point about the football club and the blatant jumping on the bandwagon, but it seems to havedegenerated into an ideological slanging match again

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

There is nothing wrong with talking politics. Here are the rules:

Pull up a stool, get in a beer and chat with your mates about what ever you want.

The landlord says : "Anything goes but, please, no racist or potentially libellous posts and no pornography".

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ April 05 2005,14:54)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,14:12)]FWIW, my opinion is that to the extent that there is an ideology behind UKIP, that ideology is essentially a mild form of racism.

Even if you have gone fishing, that is also total bullsh*t, Matthew.  I happen to know one of the people who created UKIP's early policies - and his motivation was almost entirely economic (he is an economist, and provided strong arguments for how the British economy would prosper strongly withing the EEC but outside the EU), coupled with a strong belief in political self-determination through Westminster, not Brussels.

When writing about something of which you clearly know nothing at all, you should perhaps choose your words more carefully.

Matt

P.S. I should point out that I don't support UKIP, nor do I intend to vote for them at the next election; instead, I happen to know one of the people who was a key figure in UKIP's early political ideology.  The very notion that Gerald might be a racist would be ludicrously funny if it weren't such an enormous insult.

Matt

I have no problems with people who make coherent economic arguments against further European integration - I believe there are almost certainly strong economic arguments to be made. However I have rarely, if ever, heard any such argument being put forward by UKIP or any other anti-EU group.

Instead whenever I have heard people speak about pulling out of Europe the argument I hear is purely political, based on prejudice and rhetoric. The typical argument is that we don't want to be ruled by Brussels. OK, but why?

The impression I continually get from UKIP spokesmen is that they just distrust Johnny Foreigner and that we would be better off if we ruled ourself rather than letting the French or German get involved in our affairs. Sadly this appears to be the angle that IMHO they are pushing. Perhaps if they encouraged your friend to put forward his ideas I would get the impression that they stood for something positive, rather than a distrust of Europe.

ps I notice you say early policies, which suggests that your friend is no longer prominent within the party - may I ask if this correct and if so why?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,16:32)]ps I notice you say early policies, which suggests that your friend is no longer prominent within the party - may I ask if this correct and if so why?

A combination of ill-health and, to some extent, falling out with some of the UKIP's pushier members.

I'd agree that, amongst the more mindless elements of that party, there are those who dislike the EU because, well, it's not British.

But it would be wrong to suggest that that's what the party stands for.

Matt

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,16:32)]The typical argument is that we don't want to be ruled by Brussels. OK, but why?

That's a simple one, incidentally.  The answer is: because we should have the right of self-determination; our political masters should be directly accountable to us, the people; and crucially, we - the people - should be capable of holding a vote of no confidence in them in order to get rid of them.

The Commission - who are the political masters of Europe - are not voted in.  Instead, they are all appointed by each of the Nation States.  They are, in short, the biggest and most powerful quango in the continent.

And yet they determine policy for the EU. As such, one can surely be forgiven for considering the EU as illegitimate and undemocratic - and they will remain so until such time as the commissioners can be directly elected and unelected.

Finally, why Westminster as opposed to Brussels?  Because Westminster must, by its very nature, have the UK's best interests at heart all of the time.  Brussels, on the other hand, has Europe's interests at heart at all times.  Sometimes that will work for the UK.  Sometimes, that will be entirely contrary to the UK's best interests (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy - which has always been a total disaster; European subsidies, to which we are a net contributor, not a net beneficiary).

Why should we be governed by a body whose legislative agenda will sometimes damage our national interests?

Matt

 

[footymad13]

ooo Politics !

Personally i am dead against the EU, but do see the plusses of it. But the fact remains we are a Island country, have a strong system already in place and before we even look at the EU we need to sort out our own government first. We do not need a Frenchman/German etc to govern the way we live, how ever way you look at it we will lose our freedom as a country in some form, and considering its not even 100 years since millions thousands died protecting that, i dont see why we need to stop being 'our own country'. But in my eyes the EU is a great organisation for advice and guidence and helps keep strong links with the countries closest to us.



Howard, Blair, Kennedy -  Christ, its depressing, One is a lyer and has made a right **** up of this country for years, the other isnt trusted and is a tory. And whilst i like Kennedy, you do get the idea that he is too weak. This government has made too many mistakes, wasted too much money and has not addressed crucial problems such as the amount of paperwork in the Police, Prison service etc and the problems in the NHS.

I would vote for the Monkey party, as least they don't pretend to be something there not.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ April 05 2005,16:51)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,16:32)]The typical argument is that we don't want to be ruled by Brussels. OK, but why?

That's a simple one, incidentally. The answer is: because we should have the right of self-determination; our political masters should be directly accountable to us, the people; and crucially, we - the people - should be capable of holding a vote of no confidence in them in order to get rid of them.

The Commission - who are the political masters of Europe - are not voted in.  Instead, they are all appointed by each of the Nation States.  They are, in short, the biggest and most powerful quango in the continent.

And yet they determine policy for the EU.  As such, one can surely be forgiven for considering the EU as illegitimate and undemocratic - and they will remain so until such time as the commissioners can be directly elected and unelected.

Finally, why Westminster as opposed to Brussels?  Because Westminster must, by its very nature, have the UK's best interests at heart all of the time.  Brussels, on the other hand, has Europe's interests at heart at all times.  Sometimes that will work for the UK.  Sometimes, that will be entirely contrary to the UK's best interests (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy - which has always been a total disaster; European subsidies, to which we are a net contributor, not a net beneficiary).

Why should we be governed by a body whose legislative agenda will sometimes damage our national interests?

Matt

Quote[/b] ] That's a simple one, incidentally. The answer is: because we should have the right of self-determination

That may be a simple answer, but it begs the question who is "we".

And who decides who "we" is?
For example where do Scotland and Wales stand in this, let alone Ireland. Essentially it is an arbitary decision, probably based on an accident of geography, or the limits of an army's capabilities or ambitions.

Incidentally if I have a right of self-determination, when can I exercise it? I think the British (as a whole, which is what I'm guessing you will decide equates to "we") have only once been asked the question relating even vaguely to self-determination (ironically on the question of Europe!). No-one has ever asked me

So, sorry but I don't buy that argument.

Quote[/b] ] our political masters should be directly accountable to us,

I agree entirely that our political ministers should be accountable (although I'd question whether the current system holds them directly accountable). The democratic deficit causing this problem is that decisions relating to Europe are made with the approval of government - not parliament. This emanates from our own Westminster system's failing of placing too much responsibility in the hands of the indirectly elected executive rather than that of the directly elected (lower) legislature.

Quote[/b] ] And yet they determine policy for the EU. As such, one can surely be forgiven for considering the EU as illegitimate and undemocratic - and they will remain so until such time as the commissioners can be directly elected and unelected.

Cabinet Ministers are not directly elected. They are chosen by the Prime Minister (incidentally again not directly elected, but chosen by the Queen), it just happens that most (NOTE not all) are chosen from elected MPs. In the same way the PM chooses who the commissioner will be, and that commissioner is invariably a formerly elected politician.

The solution I would say is obviously to expand the powers of the European Parliament - a democratically elected body - but I think the UKIP supporters would be at the front of the queue to oppose such a move.

Quote[/b] ]Finally, why Westminster as opposed to Brussels? Because Westminster must, by its very nature, have the UK's best interests at heart all of the time. Brussels, on the other hand, has Europe's interests at heart at all times. Sometimes that will work for the UK. Sometimes, that will be entirely contrary to the UK's best interests (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy - which has always been a total disaster; European subsidies, to which we are a net contributor, not a net beneficiary).

But why should I be interested in the UK's interests any more than what is in Europe's interests? Or to go the other way, why should I be any more interested in the UK's interests over that of the South East. Certain policies are detrimental to the South East - think stamp duty land tax on housing - and the South East clearly subsidises the rest of England, let alone the rest of the UK. Aligning yourself with the UK's interests is essentially an arbitary decision.

 

[Ron Manager]

As is the way with SZ this thread has gone off in all sorts of tangents. However to go back on course and referring to Napster's original point - how amazing that with an election coming up politicians will jump on any bandwagon going? No party political point being made here, they are all as bad as each other - wait to hear how all the main parties candidates are now keen Southend supporters who admire Freddy Eastwood!

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Guest @ April 05 2005,16:16)]and one rule for another. I thought political posts were frowned upon... what a crap site!  

Another anonymous poster who hasn't got the balls to register. Isn't it time we banned all unregistered posts?

WS

 

[dave cusaks nose]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ April 05 2005,14:49)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,12:25)]Aren't UKIP the politically correct wing of the BNP, in the sort of way that Sinn Fein are the politically correct wing of the IRA?

No they most certainly bloody aren't Cousin Weir!  That's an outrageous slur - and bordering on libellous.

You of all people ought to know better, FFS.

Matt

what ever happens on these boards me and you will always be pals, I like reading your posts you speak a hell of alot of sense

Cockles

 

[dave cusaks nose]

Quote[/b] (Guest @ April 05 2005,15:16)]and one rule for another. I thought political posts were frowned upon... what a crap site!  

but you make it, with your wit, please be really clever again

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,20:40)]Cabinet Ministers are not directly elected. They are chosen by the Prime Minister (incidentally again not directly elected, but chosen by the Queen), it just happens that most (NOTE not all) are chosen from elected MPs. In the same way the PM chooses who the commissioner will be, and that commissioner is invariably a formerly elected politician.

Slightly misleading again I feel, extracts from www.parliament.uk

Quote[/b] ]Who is the Prime Minister?
When the results of a General Election are known the Queen invites the leader of the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister and to form a Government. The Prime Minister is the leader of the Government and has a home and offices at 10 Downing Street. S/He must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The current Prime Minister is the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP.

Who chooses the Cabinet?
The members of the Cabinet are chosen by the Prime Minister. The majority of the members are drawn from the House of Commons although there are always a few members from the House of Lords.

Which positions are included in the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister decides which positions will be included in the Cabinet. Heads of Government Departments, known as Secretaries of State, will usually be Cabinet Ministers as well as senior figures such as the Lord Chancellor. There is no limit on the size of the Cabinet but the number of salaried Secretaries of State is limited to 21 by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

So not really chosen by the Queen is it, but by the actual political parties that are open to anyone to join and vote for the leader accordingly, so if you decide not to join the party then you can not moan that you have no say in the leadership.

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ April 05 2005,23:52)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,20:40)]Cabinet Ministers are not directly elected. They are chosen by the Prime Minister (incidentally again not directly elected, but chosen by the Queen), it just happens that most (NOTE not all) are chosen from elected MPs. In the same way the PM chooses who the commissioner will be, and that commissioner is invariably a formerly elected politician.

Slightly misleading again I feel, extracts from www.parliament.uk

Quote[/b] ]Who is the Prime Minister?
When the results of a General Election are known the Queen invites the leader of the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister and to form a Government. The Prime Minister is the leader of the Government and has a home and offices at 10 Downing Street. S/He must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The current Prime Minister is the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP.

Who chooses the Cabinet?
The members of the Cabinet are chosen by the Prime Minister. The majority of the members are drawn from the House of Commons although there are always a few members from the House of Lords.

Which positions are included in the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister decides which positions will be included in the Cabinet. Heads of Government Departments, known as Secretaries of State, will usually be Cabinet Ministers as well as senior figures such as the Lord Chancellor. There is no limit on the size of the Cabinet but the number of salaried Secretaries of State is limited to 21 by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

So not really chosen by the Queen is it, but by the actual political parties that are open to anyone to join and vote for the leader accordingly, so if you decide not to join the party then you can not moan that you have no say in the leadership.

I think that the point that the PM is not directly elected still stands. Even the concession of party members voting directly for their leader is a relatively new concept. I think I'm right in saying that only one PM has ever been directly voted for their party members, and even then ordinary party members' vote constituted just 30% under a weighting system.

The more important point is that Cabinet Ministers are appointees in the same way as Commissioners. This does not mean in both cases that lines of accountability do not exist, its just they are somewhat convoluted.

If the problem with the EU is one of democracy surely the answer is one of reforming the system not withdrawing from the system?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,20:40)]That may be a simple answer, but it begs the question who is "we".  And who decides who "we" is?  For example where do Scotland and Wales stand in this, let alone Ireland. Essentially it is an arbitary decision, probably based on an accident of geography, or the limits of an army's capabilities or ambitions.

Incidentally if I have a right of self-determination, when can I exercise it?

Well, the Welsh were annexed by Edward I in the early 14th Century, and the Scots have been de facto part of Britain since 1603 (James I) and, as a matter of law, since the Act of Union 1707.  As an island, it is anything but accidental that we should be a united island - indeed a United Kingdom.

So "we" are the people who live in these isles, and we get to choose the government who runs our islands every 4-5 years.

Contrast that with the Commission - who determine European Union policy.  They have never been elected to their role.  They are instead appointed oligarchs, and utterly undemocratic.

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,20:40)]

Quote[/b] ] And yet they determine policy for the EU.  As such, one can surely be forgiven for considering the EU as illegitimate and undemocratic - and they will remain so until such time as the commissioners can be directly elected and unelected.

Cabinet Ministers are not directly elected. They are chosen by the Prime Minister (incidentally again not directly elected, but chosen by the Queen), it just happens that most (NOTE not all) are chosen from elected MPs.

In the same way the PM chooses who the commissioner will be, and that commissioner is invariably a formerly elected politician.

Other than those Cabinet Ministers whose role is largely ceremonial (e.g. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), or connected to the House of Lords, then all Cabinet Ministers with ministerial portfolios - i.e. roles which create and dictate policy - are MPs and can therefore be directly elected or unelected.  So I'm afraid you're wrong about that.

The fact that they're not specifically elected to their portfolios is a rather technical distinction.  They are each elected members of Parliament, and are members of the party that has won the election.  They have therefore been elected to "office" in the widest sense; and can be un-elected.

I suppose the one glaring omission is the Lord Chancellor - but his role again also ought to be ceremonial, and his powers given to a Minister of Justice.  I'm sure that will happen sooner or later.

Commissioners are not elected by anyone, and are thus fundamentally undemocratic... yet they create and dictate policy.  That's wrong.  Once they are directly electable, or once their powers are transferred to the European Parliament, then the EU will be legitimate.  But at the moment, the Commission is a quango and should not be supported.

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 05 2005,20:40)]But why should I be interested in the UK's interests any more than what is in Europe's interests? Or to go the other way, why should I be any more interested in the UK's interests over that of the South East. Certain policies are detrimental to the South East - think stamp duty land tax on housing - and the South East clearly subsidises the rest of England, let alone the rest of the UK. Aligning yourself with the UK's interests is essentially an arbitary decision.

Ah, the classic pro-European apologist's response.  But that, you see, is an argument in favour of complete regionalisation; not an argument in favour of surrendering all our powers to Brussels.

My decision to align my interests with the UK's is anything but arbitrary.  It is all too easy to forget in these times of peace and prosperity, but in times of great national peril, the UK has worked as one body, one nation, and has protected all the peoples in this island of ours.  We can rely on each other; we have done in the past.  We have a common history, a common bond of language and culture, that ensures that we can stand shoulder-to-shoulder in times of peril.

That is not something we have ever shared with our European neighbours, whether we like it or not.  Do I want to place my life and liberty in the hands of the Italian Army if WWIII ever happened?

Call me a bluff old cove, call me a xenophobe (despite the fact that I speak numerous foreign languages and visit Europe numerous times a year - I love the place)... but when the chips are down, I'll rely on a Brit, thanks.  So my choice to support the UK as a concept is totally premeditated and self-determined, not arbitrary.

Matt

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] ] So "we" are the people who live in these isles, and we get to choose the government who runs our islands every 4-5 years.

But how do you reconcile that with Scottish and Welsh devolution?

In every major referendum I can think of, the people have voted to take power away from Westminster, whether it be entry into the Common Market, or Scottish or Welsh devolution. I can't recall the "people" ever voting for the UK.

Quote[/b] ] Contrast that with the Commission - who determine European Union policy. They have never been elected to their role. They are instead appointed oligarchs, and utterly undemocratic.

They have never been elected to that role, but they have been appointed by elected representatives (national governments) and approved by the elected European Parliament. Lines of accountability exist, and whilst not as clear as I think they should be, the same criticism can be levelled at the British Executive.

Quote[/b] ] Other than those Cabinet Ministers whose role is largely ceremonial (e.g. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), or connected to the House of Lords, then all Cabinet Ministers with ministerial portfolios - i.e. roles which create and dictate policy - are MPs and can therefore be directly elected or unelected.

The point remains that there is no requirement for Cabinet Ministers to be elected, and junior ministers are often unelected. Even so I as a voter have no chance of voting out say Jack Boots Straw. Its only the citizens (or subjects) of Blackburn who are able to do that and even if they do that - which is according to reports just about plausible - I reckon Straw will end up in the Lords. The line of accountability between myself and Jack Straw is tenuous, and I have to rely on the PM wielding his vast power of patronage responsibly. If not, my only remedy is to vote against Labour in my constituency - and in Southend that would be irrelevant anyway.

Quote[/b] ] Once they are directly electable, or once their powers are transferred to the European Parliament, then the EU will be legitimate.

Aside from the fact that the EU is already legitimate (its powers having been granted to it by means of treaty our democratically elected government) I agree that this is the real issue. However, crucially, this is not the solution put forward by the anti-EU brigade, including UKIP.

If this is their complaint, then lets see some constructive proposals to reform and improve it - transfering the Commission's power to the European Parliament would solve this problem overnight. By the same token I would like to see some efforts at constitutional change back in the UK, in particular that the prerogative powers should be exercised by, or at a bare minimum with greater reference to, Parliament.

Quote[/b] ] My decision to align my interests with thw UK's is anything but arbitraty. It is all too easy to forget in these times of peace and prosperity, but in times of great national peril, the UK has worked as one body, one nation, and has protected all the peoples in this island of ours. We can rely on each other; we have done in the past. We have a common history, a common bond of language and culture, that ensures that we can stand shoulder-to-shoulder in times of peril.

That is not something we have ever shared with our European neighbours, whether we like it or not. Do I want to place my life and liberty in the hands of the Italian Army if WWIII ever happened?

I think we actually share a lot of history with Europe, we weren't always on the same side but then neither were we with the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. At various times in Britain's history, Britain has held territory on the continent and been ruled by rulers from the continent. As for a common culture, the UK consists of a wide variety of cultures which is at most a wide coalition.

Essentially your argument seems to boils down to "we can't trust the Eye-ties". When people start to express - and base their politics around - such opinions, I start to feel a little uncomfortable. Fortunately I'm pretty sure that you hold nothing against the Italians, or any other race, but I think such opinions can be open to misinterpretation.

 

[Napster]

Just a short note. It's wrong to say we have never had a common language in Europe- we have, it was just years ago- and called Indo-European...

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ April 06 2005,14:31)]Essentially your argument seems to boils down to "we can't trust the Eye-ties".

You were doing well up to that point...

The "lines of accountability" thing to the Commission is bullsh*t, I'm afraid. Edith Cresson proved (by appointing her dentist to some Euro-sinecure at the cost of €300,000 pa to us tax-payers) beyond any doubt whatsoever that not only are commissioners unaccountable - but they're also untrustworthy.

Whither the so-called lines of accountability to Chriac, or Jospin (the French president and premier ministre at the time)?

Unfortunately, Matthew, you're attempting to defend the indefensible. I can't vote for a commissioner. They don't resign individually (and they've only done it once en masse, as a protest). A commissioner has never been removed from office, despite Eurostat finding on at least two occasions ministers guilty of the sort of fraud which, as has been shown in a UK scenario, always forces the individuals concerned to tender their resignations (e.g. Mandelson, Blunkett etc.)

He or she is appointed by a government (hmm... our last two have been Kinnock and Mandelson - how nice of Tony to do that for his mates), is granted huge powers of policy creation, and is totally unaccountable.

And therein lies my continued opposition to the EU. Even if, as is always the way with the British constitution, the rules and paths of accountability aren't entirely clear, the British system does at least still manage to be accountable. Ministers resign if they're crooks, they're pushed out of office if they're incompetent, and governments ultimately can be got rid of.

Until I can say that about the Commission, I cannot and will not support it.

As for Italy... io vado in Puglia per una piccola vacanza in alcuni settimani, so let it never be said that I don't adore the place.

Matt