European elections 2014 your thoughts OMO

[NTECUK]

So the people (the 40 % or so who bothered to vote) seam to be sending a message.
In the last 5 years or so the regulations the uk had requested to be changed at the europea
parliament was around 55 applications with a 0% success rate.
What you thinking OMO?

[Specialone]

I think UKIP voters are sending out a big message to the main parties and you watch them adopt some their policies.
Shame we didn't have them in 1997 before it all started.

[thefallenangel]

Even the Polish think there's too many people coming into the country which is ironic.

[EssexDave]

I think UKIP voters are sending out a big message to the main parties and you watch them adopt some their policies.
Shame we didn't have them in 1997 before it all started.


What do you mean 1997?

There's a lot of confusion and mis information about the EU and the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in the 1950s after the war to try and prevent atrocities happening across the world as they did before. It has absolutely nothing to do with the EU, and over 50 countries subscribe to it including Russia.

It IS a good thing. The UK had just over 1000 application in the European Court of Human Rights last year, with only 23 heard and only 12 judgments given (7 in favour of claimant, 5 in favour of UK).

One case in Germany: A guy was going on holiday to meet his wife. At the airport, he was taken by CIA into a room and questioned for 3 hours. Shortly afterwards, he was flown to an unknown location (apparently Libya) for torture and questioning. He was kept there for three months, poked and prodded in all the places, before being returned to somewhere just outside of Europe and left to wonder towards a border control, looking like a terrorist.

The guy was a German citizen, although a muslim. The court, reviewing all the evidence, gave him an award of some measly £30,000. BUT, it gives these things publicity. The countries themselves decide to bind themselves to this, and given the amount of Human Rights violations going on across the world it can't be a bad thing.

The EU was set up in the 1960s. We tried to join a few times but we were refused the first couple before we actually got in. It's evolved since then, but each time the country has had to agree to a new treaty, there is nothing that Europe has done without us saying you can do that.

The free movement is nowhere near as bad as people think. Plenty of people leave the UK, whether for business, work or holidays.

Several big companies, such as JP Morgan, Airbus and the Automotive Retailers Association have said they will leave the UK if we leave the EU. AKA loads of money not coming through here, and over 3,000 jobs lost just for leaving the EU.

The other issue, is that if we leave the EU, to try and prevent other countries leaving, they will put prohibitively high taxes on us trading with them. What that means, is that out biggest trade partner evaporates.

Our two largest economic producers by GDP are firstly finance, and secondly weapons. A lot of which is traded with Europe, and Britain is essentially the financial centre of the EU. Once we leave, we lose all this, and expect things to get a whole lot worse before they get better. I've seen estimates ranging from a minimum negative economic impact worse than the recession in 2007 lasting for up to 5 years (best case scenario) or going on for up to 50.

Too long didn't read The EU is bad, but leaving is worse. Deal with it, accept the benefits and the fact that it increases our economic growth, productivity and produces a heck of a lot of jobs.

[punyXpress]

So the people (the 40 % or so who bothered to vote)
No, I didn't vote.
When the parties give us candidates and policies worth voting for, I shall resume doing so.
Oh yes, Cameron has been repeating his 'promise' of a referendum ad nauseam, and when the result is not to his liking he will totally ignore the public opinion, this being the standard EU way of dealing with such matters.

[Specialone]

I meant when labour relaxed the borders.

[Grant66]

I meant when labour relaxed the borders.

But that was UK government's decision not EU. Before that UK had the tightest border controls across Europe (we were and still are outside the schengen agreement).

Don't blame the EU, put the blame where it belongs. Labour party government.

Sent from a portable communication device.

[Specialone]

But that was UK government's decision not EU. Before that UK had the tightest border controls across Europe (we were and still are outside the schengen agreement).

Don't blame the EU, put the blame where it belongs. Labour party government.

Sent from a portable communication device.

Who said I was blaming the eu? I never mentioned the eu at all, people are assuming I was talking about coming out of the eu or blaming them for eveything, I know exactly where the blame lies for our lax borders, labour.

[Grant66]

Not directly, but if you think it's a shame ukip wasn't around in 97, it suggests a support for that party.
Hence the reasoning that you are also anti EU.

Sent from a portable communication device.

[maviczap]

I meant when labour relaxed the borders.

But that was UK government's decision not EU. Before that UK had the tightest border controls across Europe (we were and still are outside the schengen agreement).

Don't blame the EU, put the blame where it belongs. Labour party government.

Sent from a portable communication device.

Labour didn't relax the Border Controls, as the regulations have been the same for a long time.

Poland, Latvia & Lithuania all joined the EU at the same time, so their peoples took advantage of the free movement between countries.

The Immigration service, as it was then, was under resourced to deal with the mass influx of other nationalities wanting to come here illegally. Once there in, its much harder to find them.

Gordon Brown didn't help matters by merging Customs & Immigration into one agency.

[EssexDave]

Gordon Brown didn't help matters by merging Customs & Immigration into one agency.


Did Mr Personality really help anything?

[maviczap]

No, I don't think so

[Bibio]

stop sitting there and blaming your politicians for everything. if you want to blame anyone blame yourself for letting them do what the feck they want.

the biggest problem with the UK is apathy. the public would rather sit in front of their TV and shout at the problems rather than actively do something about it.

until the public of the UK start telling their politicians what to do then politicians will keep on doing what they like.

[Mrs DJ Fridge]

I voted, and like many people my vote was a protest vote, unfortunately I was amongst the minority as to where my protest vote went, I do not feel that I wasted my vote, I do however feel saddened that such a huge proportion of those who voted chose a one trick pony as the recipient of their votes. Protest is to be expected at this point in the cycle, we have had the boom and bust, it has, and still is, taken much hardship on a worldwide scale to rectify to damage caused by the reckless gambling of the early years of this century. Of course we all want controlled growth, but how can that go on forever, therefore boom and bust will always be the way of the world, and this will also lead to constant dissatisfaction with our leaders and so the world goes on. Regarding the referendum, are they not legally bound to act on the results?

[Spank86]

stop sitting there and blaming your politicians for everything. if you want to blame anyone blame yourself for letting them do what the feck they want.

the biggest problem with the UK is apathy. the public would rather sit in front of their TV and shout at the problems rather than actively do something about it.

until the public of the UK start telling their politicians what to do then politicians will keep on doing what they like.

They will anyway.

People ARE telling politicians what to do but the system is designed specifically so that politicians don't have to obey the will of the minority, majority, or pretty much anyone else unless they have a pocket full of cash and the specific politician needs it.

[NTECUK]

Have you tried to talk with your MP.
Even when its a large number that the delegate a spokesperson with a perttion,Sadly it mainly falls on deaf ears.
I found this in our local area to be true.

[NTECUK]

Did Mr Personality really help anything?
I don't think the current UKIP leader will help anything either.
The EU fisheries policy has been a complete shambles for decades, that the discard policy wasted countless millions of tonnes of perfectly good fish, and that the British fishing industry has suffered appallingly as a consequence of this mismanagement.

There is one glaring problem with UKIP harping on about how terrible the EU fisheries policy is. That problem is that a certain Mr Nigel Farage was a member of the European Fisheries committee for three years, yet he only ever bothered to turn up to one single meeting out of 42*.

So UKIP are happy to use the suffering of the British fishing industry as part of their Vote UKIP propaganda campaign, yet when Farage actually had an opportunity to stand up and fight for the British fishing industry in a place where he could have made an actual difference, he couldn't even be arsed to turn up to 97.6% of the meetings.

[Spank86]

The thing is voting for UKIP isn't about getting UKIP into power any more than voting green in the 90s was about getting a green prime minister.

It's about using fringe parties to show the government where their interests lie.

The move votes UKIP get the more the other parties will see a way they could get more votes.

[ethariel]

The same people vote for the main parties time and time again, this time however more than a few 'i dont bother to vote most times' did get up and vote and it was a poke in the eye for the 'Big 3'.

What's really scary is these 'I'm not a politican but i'm now an MEP' will be voting on points of substance than will in all probability impact UK law or regulation and more probably not for the better.

Do UKIP hate bikes? better hope not!

[NTECUK]

The same people vote for the main parties time and time again, this time however more than a few 'i dont bother to vote most times' did get up and vote and it was a poke in the eye for the 'Big 3'.

What's really scary is these 'I'm not a politican but i'm now an MEP' will be voting on points of substance than will in all probability impact UK law or regulation and more probably not for the better.

Do UKIP hate bikes? better hope not!
going on there track record they are unlikly to do much attending

A certain Mr Nigel Farage was a member of the European Fisheries committee for three years, yet he only ever bothered to turn up to one single meeting out of 42*.

So UKIP are happy to use the suffering of the British fishing industry as part of their Vote UKIP propaganda campaign, yet when Farage actually had an opportunity to stand up and fight for the British fishing industry in a place where he could have made an actual difference, he couldn't even be arsed to turn up to 97.6% of the meetings.

[Spank86]

Deja Vu?

[Nick762]

EU? Great idea in principal but IMO suffering from lousy implementation.

If they had stuck with the founder nations with roughly similar economies or at least similar potential, it could have worked but trying to apply a one size fits all approach to countries as disparate as Germany and the Baltic States strikes me as plain daft... Well we have seen what happens when nations start cooking the books. If the Euro is so fantastic then why are the Scots making noises about keeping Sterling?

The European Commission seems to be a dumping ground for failed politicians (and their families) and has become a self serving bureaucracy/gravy train which lacks transparency... Who else would bring in the Italians to investigate institutional corruption?

Free movement of labour... Again a good idea in theory. If you can move half way across Europe to a country where they don't speak your language and still be in legitimate employment within a few days well, all power to you. Those are the sort of motivated individuals we need here. Free movement of benefit claimants probably wasn't foreseen. I see this all the time in my line of work and wonder why when you have no job, family or friends in this country, why are you here?

I object to the lack of backbone our politicians show when other nations seem to adopt a pick and mix approach to which EU directives to implement while at the same time being too quick to pass the buck to Brussels when it comes to unpopular measures.

In short it's broken. On one hand it's trying to expand while on the other it's rotten at the core.

[embee]

All the leaders of the EU countries are now realising that democracy is a bit of a be-atch when it really works, the grubby electorate can get in the way of their plans. Hey guys (an' gals), guess what, we don't like what you're doing. Get your act together and listen for a change.

I suspect these election results will actually be the best thing Cameron could have hoped for. Brussels will almost certainly have to ease off the loud pedal, which Cameron couldn't possibly have achieved on his own without the extreme left/right success. This will play straight into his hands come the next general election.

Interesting how the media have also suddenly changed their tune, having realised that accusing various candidates of being little short of racist scum is effectively also accusing 30% of the electorate (who voted) of being racist scum, which is getting a bit hairy for even the good old Beeb.

Ah, joyous times.

[21QUEST]

I don't usually vote but I went out and voted UKIP.

Part catalyst for actually going out to vote was actually watching an old episode of 'Question Time' which had the UKIP leader on the panel....where the representatives of the main parties just made me shake my head, every time they spoke.
You'd have been better off trusting(don't laugh now) something that moved on it's belly. It's almost like they've got their 'spin' spinning so far up their ar_ses, they'd completely lost contact with reality.

[EssexDave]

I remember watching a senior UKIP Member who sits on their policy panel essentially say they don't have many policies set in stone yet, and once they have them they will tell us. Bit rubbish really if you don't know what you even want to do should you get into power.

The whole EU thing is such a complex issue. For example, you have no rights to benefits unless you've worked in a country for a certain amount of time, and you can have social welfare stopped should you become a long term burden on the state. The problem is, in implementation, it is more work to sift through all of this than just pay it all - so it gets left. That isn't the EU - we have the power to stop it, but we just don't bother.

I know a lot of people who have come from the EU and effectively contribute to our economy. They have all learnt our language sufficiently to converse in their job in English and have adjusted to our way of life. One is a doctor, one is a cleaner and another a teacher.

Most of the negative things about the EU reported in the press are overly exaggerated, or emphasis is placed on the amount of money.

For example, so many people complain about foreign aid, but the percentage of GDP we spend on it is miniscule. Another one people commonly bemoan is employment benefits, which are less than a third of pension benefits.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't issues with the system. The problem quite often lies with people willing to listen to what they are told by the press, who are undoubtedly pursuing their own agenda and so people vote without all the facts.

Mark my words, if we leave Europe, our country will falter. Big time.

[thulfi]

Wait, but I thought punks were lefties.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/04/Bl7qikdCEAE5yfL.jpg

confused:confused:

[Specialone]

Well if all euro countries are supposed to offer the same unemployment payments as per eu directives, then why the hell do migrants (the ones who have no interest in working here) travel past a lot of other eu member states on their way here? Surely they could stop at the first one?

The direct money it costs us in benefits isn't so important, it's the hidden costs that are mind boggling.

Our country is just too small for the unnatural high growth in population, issues this causes for example;
-Shortfall in housing, resulting in mass house building required.
-Busier road network, capacity won't be met and no roads will be built.
-More strain on emergency services, fire, police, ambulance etc
-NHS, this is where the real costs will be, more hospitals or capacity, more treatments etc, costs are huge.
We already have healthcare migrants costing this country mega money, my wife has worked in the NHS for 22 years so knows this first hand.

-Then there's the benefits, housing, unemployment etc etc, these are not small figures and I guarantee any official figures are down sized to make it look like its not that bad, but the real cost is a lot higher but unquantifiable.

We, as a country just need to say enough is enough before its too late, it's got nothing to do with race, discrimination or any other excuse, it's purely self preservation and a logistics issue and if UKIP help change in that direction, directly or indirectly, then I welcome it.

[Spank86]

For example, so many people complain about foreign aid, but the percentage of GDP we spend on it is miniscule.


Good point, isn't it only 0.7% of GDP?

So it would take about 100 years to use it alone to pay off our current national debt?

[keith_d]

I think it's entertaining to look at the enormous difference between European politics and what's going on in the UK.

Brussels is pushing for wider integration and more centralised control, effectively trying to engineer a United States of Europe. While here in the UK we're voting on splitting up a four hundred year old union where the participants have far more in common than any of the EU member states. What does that say for the future of European integration?

Judging by the results, voters have noticed that Brussels is p**sing into wind. Perhaps it's time to recognise that the economic gains of a single market are important, but they don't necessarily require a full economic and political union.

[EssexDave]

Well if all euro countries are supposed to offer the same unemployment payments as per eu directives, then why the hell do migrants (the ones who have no interest in working here) travel past a lot of other eu member states on their way here? Surely they could stop at the first one?

Directives generally aren't laws set by the EU, but more requirements to be met. This means they say something along the lines of, you must make a law to accomplish this goal. In reality, the Member States have a lot of autonomy in doing so, but if somebody says you must pay an unemployment benefit to those who are entitled to it, in order to support their job search. That's very open to the amount and will depend on country to country as to how much it is.


We already have healthcare migrants costing this country mega money, my wife has worked in the NHS for 22 years so knows this first hand.

My very limited understanding, and perhaps somebody who knows better can tell me, was that unless you're a UK citizen, you get basic healthcare, and we recover the cost of that from your nation. It isn't unless you're a UK citizen that you get the 'proper' full healthcare.

In terms of benefits, the majority go to those who were born and live in the UK.

I'd really recommend reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25134521 if you're interested on the topic.

I've seen various figures being batted around, but most of them agree we pay benefits to about 140,000 EU citizens, whilst we pay benefits to over 300,000 non EU citizens (e.g. from Africa and other countries). We pay less than 1% of our benefits bill to EU nationals despite them making up 2% of the country's population.

You mention unquantifiable costs, but let me also talk about unquantifiable benefits - we have an ageing population and as it stands the pension age is having to increase rapidly to enable us to cope with this issue. Yes it was made worse by the recession and the huge debt left behind by the previous labour government, but regardless, it was an issue because of the demographic of the UK.

Having an influx of workers, have rarely bring their parents over will help to mitigate this problem. The problem is that everybody talks about the amounts in question being millions of pounds here and a couple hundred million there.

We spend roughly £720,000,000,000 a year. £137,000,000,000 is spent on Healthcare (after claiming back from other countries). We spend about £200,000,000,000 on benefits, of which around £2,000,000,000 is spent on EU nationals. Now, given the fact that if they are on benefits long term and we don't think they will be able to find a job, we can get rid of them.

I should add here, pensions make up roughly £100,000,000,000 of the total benefit spend, with family benefits such as child tax credits, and child benefit at around £55m. The next is housing benefit coming in at around £23,000,000,000 and unemployment at £4,900,000,000. The rest are others (all figures are rough guides and not supposed to add up to anything above!)

The EU doesn't have a free movement of persons for the fun of it, it provides for free movement of workers - people who are economically active.

That is the reason why you cannot claim benefits in your first three months of being in the UK. No way around it, you cannot do it.

[Bibio]

people forget or dont realise that most of monies go back into the pot as people have to spend money to survive. for each £1 people spend the GOV will get back at a minimum 50% of that revenue in the way of VAT and DUTY on goods.

whats actually crippling this country is conflict. for every bullet fired its costing the public 100% of the price. if the UK withdrew all its troops and stayed out of other peoples business the UK would have a lot more money to spend on things better than killing people..

[Spank86]

people forget or dont realise that most of monies go back into the pot as people have to spend money to survive. for each £1 people spend the GOV will get back at a minimum 50% of that revenue in the way of VAT and DUTY on goods.

whats actually crippling this country is conflict. for every bullet fired its costing the public 100% of the price. if the UK withdrew all its troops and stayed out of other peoples business the UK would have a lot more money to spend on things better than killing people..
The government gets money back on the bullets too.

there's two words that explain the only way a country can lose economic power.

Trade deficit.

[punyXpress]

" family benefits such as child tax credits, and child benefit at around £55m. "

[ClunkintheUK]

We spend roughly £720,000,000,000 a year. £137,000,000,000 is spent on Healthcare (after claiming back from other countries). We spend about £200,000,000,000 on benefits, of which around £2,000,000,000 is spent on EU nationals. Now, given the fact that if they are on benefits long term and we don't think they will be able to find a job, we can get rid of them.

I should add here, pensions make up roughly £100,000,000,000 of the total benefit spend, with family benefits such as child tax credits, and child benefit at around £55m. The next is housing benefit coming in at around £23,000,000,000 and unemployment at £4,900,000,000. The rest are others (all figures are rough guides and not supposed to add up to anything above!)

The EU doesn't have a free movement of persons for the fun of it, it provides for free movement of workers - people who are economically active.

That is the reason why you cannot claim benefits in your first three months of being in the UK. No way around it, you cannot do it.


Thanks Dave, Interesting post. I knew we spent a lot on pensions, and that it is rising, but had no idea it was such a big figure. Where did you get these numbers from?

I am not massively clued up on the EU, though my missus is much more knowledgeable.

One thing I would like to add around the trade side, and I hope I can articulate it properly, is that an economy, and therefore generally all individuals within that economy, will benefit from more internal trade via the multiplier effect, assuming taxes are not too high. By being part of the EU we have a potential market of 740 million, rather then 63 million, which will lead to more trade and more wealth generation.

Now if that money is amassed and earned mainly by the economic powerhouses eventually they will have fewer people to trade with, this I believe, is one of the effects that got Greece into trouble. Rich Greeks were buying German cars, causing money to flow from Greece to Germany, without the Greeks earning that much of it back. This meant that certainly for a period, that the German auto manufacturers, despite having a huge pile of cash, saw a dip in sales, as no-one had the money to buy their cars, because the manufacturers had the money.

However with the free movement of labour the stronger member economies will initially see a cash outflow (trade deficit) to the weaker member economies. This is a good thing, as in a few years they will be stronger and will have the money to pay for goods and services from the stronger economies, meaning more trade and higher multiplier effect for everybody.

[pegasus]

My personal opinion is as follows :

> The politicians are sales people, they are employed by TPTB. They are not chosen by the public, they are groomed for their positions years in advance.

> These sales people are given targets and goals, just like any other sales position. If targets are not achieved, then they are ousted. Ready for the next Puppet.

> War is used as an economic pendulum, because it costs the taxpayer, so therefore at the end of the month if targets have not been achieved then of to war we go.

These are only a few snippets of the useless rubbish that fills my mind, I can not prove any of it, nor do I have the notion to explain it in any further detail.

P

[EssexDave]

The most interesting thing I found out was the UK's second biggest industry was weapons and war technologies. (10% of GDP behind finance at 11% - at the end of 2012).

War costs us? - Perhaps not so much.

The figures were a combination from the Office of National Statistics and the Beeb

[Bibio]

so part of our second biggest revenue is from British companies supplying the British forces out of the taxpayers money with weapons to kill people. let alone the weapons we sell to the middle east so we can have a conflict and take them all back again.

[davepreston]

ahhh dearest dave were you aware that all military weapons contracts to foreign countries are guaranteed by the government, so if india order 20 euro fighters at 20 million a piece and then turn round and say tell you want we don't actually want them now, the gov pays the builder for the full contract (and they don't even have to build them all they just stop at the point of cancelation

[Bibio]

that just goes to show what muppets we have running our country and weapons manufacture. if they had written the contract properly then thing like this would not happen but instead they hire inbred morons who dont have a fekin clue but wear the right tie.

[Spank86]

Can I have the weapons the Indians don't want?

[Grant66]

But India didn't buy eurofighter.
And they cost considerably more than £20 mill. That was the cost of a tornado in the early 90s.

Sent from a portable communication device.

[davepreston]

But India didn't buy eurofighter.
And they cost considerably more than £20 mill. That was the cost of a tornado in the early 90s.

Sent from a portable communication device.
no one wanted the euro fighter as you well know ;)
cost yes- worth .......... :)
showing your age with the tornado ;)