General election results 2015

[Anastasius]

.... And what do you consider 'due process'?

....

You only have to dip in to any of the online endless mind-numbingly boring committee meetings where you see all manner of folk shuffling in, shuffling papers and then shuffling out again without making any contribution whatsoever (presumably so they can claim their daily attendance allowance or expenses/whatever) to appreciate that the whole point of the EU is self-serving and nothing whatsoever to do with the population that they are supposed to be representing. And why they waste all that money moving from City A to City B to City A each year shows it up for the charade that it is. Bring on the referendum, I say !

[Sir Velo]

Which of these great many hare-brained schemes did you have in mind? And what do you consider 'due process'?

"The problems the auditors have exposed have been with the "legality and regularity" of the transactions underlying those accounts.

Thank you for making my point!

[Richard Barrett]

on the referendum, I say !

But the referendum won't be about how the EU is run... if there were more participation in Euroelections the system could become more representative; if the UK leaves there'd be no chance any more of voting for or against policies which will end up affecting the UK anyway. It's a bit weird that people who say the EU is not sufficiently democratic (as I do) often think it should be made less democratic by removing UK voters' voices from it. Wouldn't it be better to take Euroelections more seriously and hold MEPs more accountable for what they do once they're elected, just as (theoretically) is the case in general elections?

[ahinton]

But the referendum won't be about how the EU is run... if there were more participation in Euroelections the system could become more representative; if the UK leaves there'd be no chance any more of voting for or against policies which will end up affecting the UK anyway. It's a bit weird that people who say the EU is not sufficiently democratic (as I do) often think it should be made less democratic by removing UK voters' voices from it. Wouldn't it be better to take Euroelections more seriously and hold MEPs more accountable for what they do once they're elected, just as (theoretically) is the case in general elections?

Correct in all particulars! The referendum will be about the question as to whether UK should remain within, or quit membership of, EU - no more, no less (unless changes are made to current proposals between now and when it's held). I have no idea why or on what grounds some people seem to assume that UK leaving EU will alone resolve or dispense with any problems that they perceive within EU (and of course EU is by no means without its problems) as an organisation in terms of what they appear to believe to be their specific impact upon UK, given that, as you rightly note, EU policies will continue to affect UK whether or not it remains a member.

Furthermore, severing its connections with EU will have no impact upon its quite separate continuing membership of the Council of Europe (CoE), a far larger organisation comprising all 28 EU member states + a further 19 others.

Those who favour UK's severance from EU seem to include a fair proportion who appear also to support call-me-Dave's latest regurgitation of a desire to rid UK of its 1998 Human Rights Act (as he wanted to do but was mercifully discouraged from doing in the run-up to the 2010 General Election); however, UK quitting EU will make no difference to its government's relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which falls within the responsibility not of the EU's European Commission (EC) but of CoE and to which it will accordingly remain a signatory and be subject to it as long as it remains a CoE member.

ECHR's terms and provisions are broadly similar to those of UK's Human Rights Act 1998 as well as to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), each of which is a United Nations (UN) document to which, again, UK government is a signatory. For UK to exonerate itself from any and all such Human Rights legislative responsibilties altogether, it would have not only to quit EU and CoE but also UN, which is hardly likely, although the prospect of a CoE and UN member state no longer having its own national Human Rights legislation would look to be a most peculiar one to say the least.

[MrGongGong]

I think what so many of us object to is that a great many hare brained schemes, while ostensibly aimed at eliminating inequalities, are approved without going through due process; all of which decisions are ultimately at the taxpayers' expense. It is this lack of transparency which is in part why the EU is so deeply unpopular, and why even its supporters find it hard to defend it as an institution.

And an example?

I'm not suggesting there aren't examples of this but it would be good to know exactly what you mean by "hare brained schemes". Having received EU funding for several "hare brained schemes" i would say that their processes are far more rigorous and exacting than ones that are domestic.

And as for "transparency" ??? I'm assuming this is a joke as the UK is hardly run in this way NOR is "transparency" always desirable.

[James Wonnacott]

As for the EU, I do feel myself to be 1st European, 2nd British and, probably Bristolian before English; so I see the poorer regions of Europe with as much concern as the economic blackspots in England.

I'm proud to be British and Cornish but I'm definitely not European or English.

[MrGongGong]

I'm proud to be British and Cornish but I'm definitely not European or English.

If you are British you ARE European my friend whether you like it or not :smile:

(of course mr Oven is a citizen of NSK these days )

[Beef Oven!]

If you are British you ARE European my friend whether you like it or not :smile:

(of course mr Oven is a citizen of NSK these days )

HaHa! Indeed.

Seriously, I am first and foremost a European. Then British, and it all takes place in the wider world. That's why I don't do the European fascist state thang. That's just a big boys club with overpaid needless jobs and platinum-plated pension schemes.

There's a whole world out there that we can strike out for. No need to huddle together as Europeans.

[Beef Oven!]

Why are you interested in a complete audit sign-off?
My point would be that people seem to develop certain views about the EU and its corruption, and that thereafter they don't really care what the facts are: they take their arguments to the extreme limits where reality is no longer important. But that's only the insignificant view of someone who values much more about the EU than economics/'my' money. I value the vital cooperation where it comes to environmental issues, and welcome EU directives which pressurise member states to conform. I value the cooperation in the fight against crime. I value the fact that belonging to the EU necessitates that member states take no sort of aggressive armed action against each other.

The fact that some bridge-building project in Slovenia, or a flood-prevention scheme in Gloucestershire, carried out with EU funds, infringed the EU procedures seems, to me, relatively insignificant. That was my point, elaborated.

And we don't need an unelected, undemocratic quasi-fascist European government to effect any of the benefits that you seek (most of which I want too).

[Beef Oven!]

There are strong arguments against the EU from the left also (though as I've said before, not things that are going to be solved for the UK or the rest by Britain leaving) - about the way EU structures are used to drive through austerity policies, the way it entrenches the dominant position of German capital, the way it unites the political and capitalist classes across the union while dividing workers against one another, the way it promotes free movement within its collective borders while erecting a fortress against immigration from outside, and so on. While looking superficially like an opportunity for promoting comfy liberal policies on the environment, criminal law, armed aggression etc. these policies don't do a great deal to address massive social problems especially on the southern periphery such as poverty, inequality, unemployment and so on. The EU overwhelmingly benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, as of course do most policies practised by its member governments (as well as those advocated by right-populist parties such as UKIP). Personally I have benefited from the existence of the EU in many ways, and this is especially clear now that I've relocated outside it, but people with the kind of life I have are of course in a small minority.

You can barely get a fag paper between Cameron's insincere reformist clap-trap and your post. The solution isn't helped by withdrawal? Reform from within? Dream on.

[Richard Barrett]

You can barely get a fag paper between Cameron's insincere reformist clap-trap and your post. The solution isn't helped by withdrawal? Reform from within? Dream on.

The situation is not helped by withdrawal. I did not say however that it can be reformed from within, since I don't believe it can, any more than "compassionate conservatism" is other than a disingenuous oxymoron. The solution would be for the EU to be dissolved in its present form and replaced by a truly internationalist structure based on very different principles. I hope that's clear now.

You must be using quite an unorthodox definition of "fascism" that is capable of encompassing the EU.

And I just don't get what this whole "national identity" thing is about, as in do I think of myself as Welsh or British or European or whatever. To me it has no relevance whatsoever. I wouldn't know how (or why) to answer such questions.

[Beef Oven!]

The situation is not helped by withdrawal. I did not say however that it can be reformed from within, since I don't believe it can, any more than "compassionate conservatism" is other than a disingenuous oxymoron. The solution would be for the EU to be dissolved in its present form and replaced by a truly internationalist structure based on very different principles. I hope that's clear now.

You must be using quite an unorthodox definition of "fascism" that is capable of encompassing the EU.

And I just don't get what this whole "national identity" thing is about, as in do I think of myself as Welsh or British or European or whatever. To me it has no relevance whatsoever. I wouldn't know how (or why) to answer such questions.

It's clear now that you have explained what you might've said in the first place.

Fascists don't have to wear brown shirts and walk in line to Ottomon drum beats.

Regarding 'the whole national identity thing', it's entirely down to how individuals see themselves.

[ahinton]

The situation is not helped by withdrawal.

No, indeed it isn't.

I did not say however that it can be reformed from within, since I don't believe it can

OK, so your only soluton to this issue would be

for the EU to be dissolved in its present form and replaced by a truly internationalist structure based on very different principles. I hope that's clear now.

Well, up to a point - but that would presumably very much depend upon what might be meant by such "a truly internationalist structure based on very different principles" and who would advocate and contrive to implement it how and for whose benefit, methinks...

any more than "compassionate conservatism" is other than a disingenuous oxymoron

In your view perhaps - but it could as well be a call to arms from someone who has sufficient vision to recognise that there is a substantial and understandable perception that "compassionate conservatism" is indeed as you describe it and in needs to change otherwise it will count for no more than it deserves.

You must be using quite an unorthodox definition of "fascism" that is capable of encompassing the EU.

As Sorabji used to say, "fascism" is everyone else's fascism except one's own.

And I just don't get what this whole "national identity" thing is about, as in do I think of myself as Welsh or British or European or whatever. To me it has no relevance whatsoever. I wouldn't know how (or why) to answer such questions.

Nor do I, really. You are Welsh and British and European just as I am Scottish and British and European but, as you ask, what does any of that really mean in the greater scheme of things? - and if whatever it might means to some people is something inherently divisive, we can surely all well do without any of it.

[Richard Barrett]

If you'd been paying attention to my oft-stated political position since I joined this forum you would have assumed that I would not think the EU could be "reformed from within". I think my position on such questions has been quite consistent.

Fascists don't have to wear brown shirts and walk in line to Ottomon drum beats.

No s**t, Sherlock. So what actually is your definition of fascism? Robert Paxton ought to know, he's dedicated his life to studying it. His Anatomy of Fascism has this as a definition: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Is that how you'd describe the EU?

[ahinton]

Regarding 'the whole national identity thing', it's entirely down to how individuals see themselves.

Yes, that's very true - yet sometimes in some cases it can also be a large part of the problem even though it has no cause to be so.