Comments on: UKIP http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 01:13:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tom Grey http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32099 Tom Grey Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:37:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32099 Le Pen CORRECTLY identified a significant issue, immigration and the evolution of France from its history of tolerant-Christianity. And France seems to be moving towards a mix of Bush-hate/ America-hate/ and barely acknowledged Jew-hate, while accepting more Muslims. Big gov't Left & Big gov't Right, and France getting weaker. And the EU skeptics don't want big gov't France & big gov't Germany controlling the EU, making it bigger, and making the UK, or other countries weaker. The purpose of the EU is to make mutually beneficial agreements & treaties between the nation states. It should plausibly expand to protect the individuals FROM excesses of their nation states. Instead of EU regulations on business and people, ALL EU regulations should be on national gov'ts, starting with a naming & shaming campaign of transparent accountability. As long as overpaid, corrupt bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to create an 80 000 page regulation monster of gov't, more folk should vote for getting out of the mess -- to spur a clean up. Le Pen CORRECTLY identified a significant issue, immigration and the evolution of France from its history of tolerant-Christianity. And France seems to be moving towards a mix of Bush-hate/ America-hate/ and barely acknowledged Jew-hate, while accepting more Muslims. Big gov’t Left & Big gov’t Right, and France getting weaker. And the EU skeptics don’t want big gov’t France & big gov’t Germany controlling the EU, making it bigger, and making the UK, or other countries weaker. The purpose of the EU is to make mutually beneficial agreements & treaties between the nation states. It should plausibly expand to protect the individuals FROM excesses of their nation states. Instead of EU regulations on business and people, ALL EU regulations should be on national gov’ts, starting with a naming & shaming campaign of transparent accountability. As long as overpaid, corrupt bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to create an 80 000 page regulation monster of gov’t, more folk should vote for getting out of the mess—to spur a clean up.

]]> By: Dave F http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32098 Dave F Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:37:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32098 Surely everyone votes for some exotic alternative at the annual EU election arse-kicking contest? I voted Labour in British elections, but Green in the EU ones (just keeping em on their toes). Let's not get too serious about the faux-democratic charade that sits atop the giant Brussels lootocracy like a diseased cherry on a cream mountain. Surely everyone votes for some exotic alternative at the annual EU election arse-kicking contest? I voted Labour in British elections, but Green in the EU ones (just keeping em on their toes). Let’s not get too serious about the faux-democratic charade that sits atop the giant Brussels lootocracy like a diseased cherry on a cream mountain.

]]> By: Dan Hardie http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32097 Dan Hardie Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:20:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32097 'But surely there are far more German voters with broadly social-democratic views who wanted to give Helmut Schmidt a kicking, and took the opportunity in the EU elections.' Um- Helmut Schmidt was the German Chancellor from 1974 to 1982. So I suspect that not that many voters in the recent elections were too motivated by giving him a kicking. I think you may mean 'Gerhard Schroeder'. ‘But surely there are far more German voters with broadly social-democratic views who wanted to give Helmut Schmidt a kicking, and took the opportunity in the EU elections.’ Um- Helmut Schmidt was the German Chancellor from 1974 to 1982. So I suspect that not that many voters in the recent elections were too motivated by giving him a kicking. I think you may mean ‘Gerhard Schroeder’.

]]> By: Doug http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32096 Doug Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:42:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32096 Yes, but people vote in state elections for national parties based on national issues all of the time. At least here in Germany, state elections are thought to be something like a series of referenda on the national government. Local conditions have a certain degree of impact on both issues and expectations, but there is always more attention paid in the press to presumed national implications. If it's not wrong at the state level, why should it be wrong at the European level? Yes, but people vote in state elections for national parties based on national issues all of the time. At least here in Germany, state elections are thought to be something like a series of referenda on the national government. Local conditions have a certain degree of impact on both issues and expectations, but there is always more attention paid in the press to presumed national implications. If it’s not wrong at the state level, why should it be wrong at the European level?

]]> By: duaneg http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32095 duaneg Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:25:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32095 The UK independence party are either stupid, nuts or very nasty indeed. As always, the first seems the smart bet. Frankly I don't think they, or anyone, could "take Britain out of Europe" now, even if they somehow got into power. For a start they would only have one term, at most. The effects would become apparent within that timeframe. <blockquote>No doubt there are some supporters of, say, the German Social Democratic Party who would be less inclined to vote for the European Socialist Party</blockquote> I've heard wonderful stories of the byzantine factions and feuds of the Socialists of yore. It would be entertaining to see the same thing played out across modern Europe in the Internet age. Maybe the BBC could commission a new reality show? The UK independence party are either stupid, nuts or very nasty indeed. As always, the first seems the smart bet. Frankly I don’t think they, or anyone, could “take Britain out of Europe” now, even if they somehow got into power. For a start they would only have one term, at most. The effects would become apparent within that timeframe.
No doubt there are some supporters of, say, the German Social Democratic Party who would be less inclined to vote for the European Socialist Party
I’ve heard wonderful stories of the byzantine factions and feuds of the Socialists of yore. It would be entertaining to see the same thing played out across modern Europe in the Internet age. Maybe the BBC could commission a new reality show?

]]> By: p-trick http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32094 p-trick Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:48:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32094 You're right when it comes to the problem of national issues influencing European Elections. When looking at the situation in Belgium the problem is even worse. This year European and regional elections were held on the same day, and it clearly turned out to be based on a debate on federal (i.e. national) politics. <br />What makes things even worse is our system of effective candidates and successors, which means that someone who's elected as an effective candidate can be replaced by his/hers successor. <br />Result: our prime minister and lots of other national politicians were candidates for the European elections, but will never end up in European Parliament - they are immediately replaced by their less known successor. This system makes it really hard for people to keep distinct ellections really separated.<br /> I suppose I'm still pro-Europe. It seems to me that the problems with the European Union - and there are some really huge problems - can't be solved by a simple Eurosceptic position. Unfortunately pro-European parties are affraid to talk about those problems - even if eventually they will have to solve them. You’re right when it comes to the problem of national issues influencing European Elections. When looking at the situation in Belgium the problem is even worse. This year European and regional elections were held on the same day, and it clearly turned out to be based on a debate on federal (i.e. national) politics.
What makes things even worse is our system of effective candidates and successors, which means that someone who’s elected as an effective candidate can be replaced by his/hers successor.
Result: our prime minister and lots of other national politicians were candidates for the European elections, but will never end up in European Parliament – they are immediately replaced by their less known successor. This system makes it really hard for people to keep distinct ellections really separated.
I suppose I’m still pro-Europe. It seems to me that the problems with the European Union – and there are some really huge problems – can’t be solved by a simple Eurosceptic position. Unfortunately pro-European parties are affraid to talk about those problems – even if eventually they will have to solve them.

]]> By: pepi http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32093 pepi Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:39:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32093 I strongly disagree. What exactly is the issue the UKIP has been putting forward, other than complete rejection of any EU institutions? Meanwhile, their 12 anti-EU members will be taking home thousands of Euros each month, plus all the extra benefits, while they keep whining about the entire EU being a giant waste of money. How's that for coherence. What good can it possibly do when you have that kind of cheap anti-EU populists growing? I don't see how it's any better than the opposite wildly over-enthusiastic approach that worships the EU like a godsend and denies any problem, a la Prodi. I would like to see more of the reasonable in-between approach instead. I also disagree on the suggestion you make for the Parliament. I don't think it's a problem of simple "confusion" to change party names, it's about political identity. If I'm voting for a party that exists in my country, I know they'll work with other like-minded ones in the same group but I also know they'll have more specific agendas and a history I am familiar with and know I can rely on. I don't like alliances that stretch too far. I'm very biased in that sense because I come from the Italian experience, and I believe it's no good when parties with a long history disband and change names and you end up with christian democrats together with socialists and even communists in the same coalition, it's a mess. It's a betrayal of the voters, too. If they ever manage to go along, you just get these wishy washy groups that have no appeal. Which seems to be a bigger problem especially for the left. So, even in a Parliament that has less power such as the EU one, I still prefer political identities to be as separate and as nation-based as possible. If we want to give more power to Parliament, then you need to change the the way the EU institutions are organised - regardless of the parties and how they are grouped. I strongly disagree. What exactly is the issue the UKIP has been putting forward, other than complete rejection of any EU institutions? Meanwhile, their 12 anti-EU members will be taking home thousands of Euros each month, plus all the extra benefits, while they keep whining about the entire EU being a giant waste of money. How’s that for coherence. What good can it possibly do when you have that kind of cheap anti-EU populists growing? I don’t see how it’s any better than the opposite wildly over-enthusiastic approach that worships the EU like a godsend and denies any problem, a la Prodi. I would like to see more of the reasonable in-between approach instead. I also disagree on the suggestion you make for the Parliament. I don’t think it’s a problem of simple “confusion” to change party names, it’s about political identity. If I’m voting for a party that exists in my country, I know they’ll work with other like-minded ones in the same group but I also know they’ll have more specific agendas and a history I am familiar with and know I can rely on. I don’t like alliances that stretch too far. I’m very biased in that sense because I come from the Italian experience, and I believe it’s no good when parties with a long history disband and change names and you end up with christian democrats together with socialists and even communists in the same coalition, it’s a mess. It’s a betrayal of the voters, too. If they ever manage to go along, you just get these wishy washy groups that have no appeal. Which seems to be a bigger problem especially for the left. So, even in a Parliament that has less power such as the EU one, I still prefer political identities to be as separate and as nation-based as possible. If we want to give more power to Parliament, then you need to change the the way the EU institutions are organised – regardless of the parties and how they are grouped.

]]> By: harry http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/16/ukip/comment-page-1/#comment-32092 harry Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:55:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1731#comment-32092 What do you think of arguing to alter the voting system so that there is a single pan-European system? I'm not suggesting it would get adopted anytime soon, but it might be worth making the argument to highlight the non-nation-specificness of many European issues. What do you think of arguing to alter the voting system so that there is a single pan-European system? I’m not suggesting it would get adopted anytime soon, but it might be worth making the argument to highlight the non-nation-specificness of many European issues.

]]>