General election results 2015

[clive heath]

I'm sorry to hear that James, let us hope that such high spirits will be confined to music making. I've had a whiff of Gauloise-tinged Marxist smoke wafted my way elsewhere but no doubt with good intentions.

On the political side, my problem with an element of the election hustings was the glossing over of what seems to me to be a major stumbling block namely the anti-democratic and corrupt nature of the EU itself. Why would any UK political party that holds democracy and fairness as important values have kept faith for so long with an organisation that seems to embody at least in part the negation of these virtues. I agree that sending Brittain, Ashworth etc. indicates a degree of contempt but it is still playing the game.

[MrGongGong]

a major stumbling block namely the anti-democratic and corrupt nature of the EU itself.

You mean the EU that people vote for in elections by PR?

I'll believe those who object to the EU on grounds of "democracy" when they combine their concerns with their plans to abolish the unelected monarchy.
Was I alone in finding it a little hilarious that while banging on about "the will of the people" Nige instructed his minions to celebrate a woman having a baby.

[clive heath]

Some do, I agree

http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm

[clive heath]

If the consensus is that the EU is a worthy organisation to be a member of and agendas of further integration and possible collapse of the euro are of little concern, I'm fine with that. Sorry I spoke.

[ahinton]

True, although all the parties are coalitions in themselves with a wide diversity of views between the Tory right and the Tory left and, equally if not more so, between the Labour left and the Labour right. Each party contains a broad range of traditions, including the Lib Dems where economic liberalism sits side by side with social liberalism and social democracy.

True as this undoubtedly is, the fact that all parties seem closer together now than once they were, such internal factionalisations as you mention notwithstanding, might perhaps call into question the very existence of seven parties with agendas supposedly of sufficient differences to justify them being different parties in the first place - some might say seven parties with contrasting Tory agendas...

[french frank]

Some do, I agree

http://www.ukpolitical.info/european...on-turnout.htm

Low turnout doesn't necessarily make the organisation corrupt. We have similarly low turnouts for local council elections … In fact, what is the evidence that the "EU" is corrupt - rather than the (admitted by the Commission) corruption within the member states?

The Commission produced an anti-corruption report in 2014. It found that there was indeed widespread concern in the member states, but the onus is on them to stamp it out.

In the case of the UK, only 5 persons out of 1115 were expected to pay a bribe (less than 1%), showing the best result in all Europe; nevertheless, the perception data show that 64% of UK respondents think corruption is widespread in the country (the EU average is 74%).

Although the UK emerges well from the report, it by no means gets a clean bill of health. I remember discussing this with a friend from an old farming family who was convinced that only foreign farmers cheated and broke the rules. The best you can say is they probably do it less.

[Richard Barrett]

64% of UK respondents think corruption is widespread in the country

They might be thinking about things like this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...l-list-4646154 - which the EU report might not define as corruption... although what else do you call it?

[clive heath]

My take on the corruption is to do with the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for a while which raises suspicions to say the least. Wine Lakes and Butter Mountains also come to mind. The voting figures are not to be taken at face value because here, at least, you do not go to vote in a European election, you go to vote for your MP and/or local councillors and get given another voting slip. Captive audience. I guess the majority have never heard of their MEP or indeed any MEP apart from Nige and he remains a member of an organisation he wants the rest of us to leave. The traditional European ruling class ( as I have learnt to call them) decided to re-run more than one national vote that went the wrong way.

I found this quite interesting, as to how much MEP's cost and what they do ( a completely random choice of MEP)

http://www.alynsmith.eu/

[MrGongGong]

My take on the corruption is to do with the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for a while which raises suspicions to say the least.

I guess you are a Wagner enthusiast?
Myths are really wonderful don't you think?

"This is false. The European Court of Auditors gave a clean bill of health on our 2013 accounting books, for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for.
Where does the error rate the Court is constantly reporting come from?
When it comes to payments, the Court can confirm that the EU spending was in line with the rules only when the error rate is less than 2%. The Commission is working to move closer to this 2% threshold.
In the past years the Commission managed to keep the error rate under 5%. In other words, out of every 100 euro spent by the EU, at least 95 euro was free from error. While this is not enough to get the Court of Auditors' positive opinion, it does indicate the very high standard of management and control applied to taxpayers' money at EU level.
It is worth noting that the errors in EU spending are usually administrative mistakes, which are not fraud. According to Commission´s estimations only 0.2% of annual spending may be affected by fraud."

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

Careful though, the Brown Windsors really are lizards, so some "myths" are true ;-)

This perfectly illustrates why this whole referendum thing is going to be a pile of the usual.
People will believe all sorts of nonsense and the media are only interested in telling good stories
So informed decisions?
No chance

AND (again) just to remind those who voted in the last Refudrendum what you were sent to read before

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

So don't come over with the lies about how it was "just about trade" and nothing about bringing countries together.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

[James Wonnacott]

You see what I mean Clive, disagree with MrGG and you are wrong.
What I find amazing is that there are 54 pages of people agreeing with each other!

[MrGongGong]

You see what I mean Clive, disagree with MrGG and you are wrong.
What I find amazing is that there are 54 pages of people agreeing with each other!

He is WRONG about the EU budget not being 'signed off'

It really is either TRUE or FALSE
and in this case it's FALSE

I love a good myth myself at times

[french frank]

My take on the corruption is to do with the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for a while which raises suspicions to say the least.

It is possible, isn't it? that since you are fairly convinced that the EU is corrupt, that you're content to take the story at its face value and not investigate the 'Euromyth' aspect?

"UK media – for example the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Times – yet again reported that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has not signed off the EU accounts. Some media - this time including the Daily Telegraph – claim that UK taxpayers will be liable to pay back GBP 800 million. Both statements are simply false.

"The Court did in fact sign off as accurate the EU’s accounts for 2012 – as it has done each year since 2007. It stated this clearly in its press release http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/AR_2012.aspx."



"Many media neglect to emphasise that – while the Court makes clear the Commission also has more work to do – most of the errors take place at national level, including frequently in the UK, and concern decentralised programmes like agriculture and regional funding rather than money managed centrally in Brussels. Member States are responsible for managing 80% of EU funds."

Wine Lakes and Butter Mountains also come to mind.

Corruption?

The voting figures are not to be taken at face value because here, at least, you do not go to vote in a European election, you go to vote for your MP and/or local councillors and get given another voting slip.

You vote for the members of the European parliament - as you vote for the UK parliament.

I don't think you have provided evidence that the EU is corrupt.

[french frank]

Had not read MrGG's post, but it seems to cover the same ground.

[Beef Oven!]

He is WRONG about the EU budget not being 'signed off'

It really is either TRUE or FALSE
and in this case it's FALSE

I love a good myth myself at times

It's not a myth. There has not been complete sign off for coming up to 20 years. Material error rate too high.

Can't understand why you insist on defending this perfidious bureaucracy, jobs for the boys, big business rip-off.

[MrGongGong]

U

It's not a myth. There has not been complete sign off for coming up to 20 years. Material error rate too high.

Can't understand why you insist on defending this perfidious bureaucracy, jobs for the boys, big business rip-off.

Sorry mate it's a myth try reading