NationStates

Dejanic wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:It's like the EU want UKIP to win.

I think the EU just wants Britain to stop fucking about and either integrate further, or leave, this "half in half out" crap that Cameron is trying to push makes no sense and just hurts Britains reputation.

Even as a Eurofederalist, I'd rather us just have the referendum and either become a fully functioning EU member, or leave, this middle ground stinks.

Let us think why we want this middle ground? We wan't economic integration but don't want a European superstate. The original reason for the EU of cooperation and economic liberalisation without putting up barriers to the rest of the world, a mass of regulations and an EU ruled by corporatism. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

The UK entered under one deal and an understanding of what the EEC would be. It's turned out not to be that and we wan't to try and get it back towards what people voted for in 1975. Just because a group of people or a nation has a different concept of what European integration should be does not make it half in half out crap.

This is why it will eventually all come crashing down, because of this idea there can only be one possible vision for Europe.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Dejanic wrote:I think the EU just wants Britain to stop fucking about and either integrate further, or leave, this "half in half out" crap that Cameron is trying to push makes no sense and just hurts Britains reputation.

Even as a Eurofederalist, I'd rather us just have the referendum and either become a fully functioning EU member, or leave, this middle ground stinks.

Let us think why we want this middle ground? We wan't economic integration but don't want a European superstate. The original reason for the EU of cooperation and economic liberalisation without putting up barriers to the rest of the world, a mass of regulations and an EU ruled by corporatism. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

The UK entered under one deal and an understanding of what the EEC would be. It's turned out not to be that and we wan't to try and get it back towards what people voted for in 1975. Just because a group of people or a nation has a different concept of what European integration should be does not make it half in half out crap.

This is why it will eventually all come crashing down, because of this idea there can only be one possible vision for Europe.

This is a very good post, and sums up my own feelings on the issue perfectly.

Celritannia wrote:Speaking of regional/Constituent Country politics, this is just my opinion, but if a government truly understands their citizens then why aren't the the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland automatically the Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales & NI?

Because they are leaders of separate devolved governments in those constituent countries, not members of the Westminster government. This means that they aren't bound by cabinet collective responsibility, they don't have to be MPs, and they are responsible do the devolved legislatures rather than to the Westminster Parliament. As such, they aren't under the control of the PM or the Westminster government, and are able to act independently of the Westminster government and to the full extent of the powers granted to them by devolution legislation. If they were members of the Westminster cabinet then none of the above would apply.

In any case, not everything is devolved. The Scotland Office, NI Office, and the Wales Office continue to deal with reserved matters - i.e. things that the Westminster government retains control over in relation to each Constituent Country, and they're generally a kind of go-between for the devolved administrations and Westminster.

In no way would it be suitable to appoint the First Ministers as Secretaries of State.

But then again, I am a technocrat/meritocrat and believe more power should be given to those who have the abilities, as well as removing a single party government.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Again, just my opinion.

Ah, "just my opinion" - the hallmark of people everywhere who have put no thought whatsoever into whatever shite they're spewing.

Celritannia wrote:But the UK Parliament still has the ability to amend or repeal the devolved legislatures.

Not really. Not unilaterally.

As I said, the post of SoS of the devolved countries should be removed, or actually have a member of the devolved governments as SoS of the respective countries.

No.

Another idea I had in mind was one quite a few pages back.

"Idea" implies some process of thought. I don't think you should use that word.

Oh Nad, how you lecture

And in actual fact, I have put thought into my ideas, but what I stated cannot be implemented due to the current UK political system.

Celritannia wrote:Oh Nad, how you lecture

Some people require extra special help.

Nadkor wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Oh Nad, how you lecture

Some people require extra special help.

I don't need help, I just like asking questions.

Gonna just copy pasta here something I said concerning Ukips popularity growth on another thread.

Can I just say, whilst atm it's cool to say "Lib/Lab/Con suck, go Ukip", I can guarantee that once Ukip get a taste of power it'll be "Fuck Lib/Lab/Con/Ukip", because trust me, Ukips growth just isn't sustainable, the party is trying to please way too many conflicting ideologies at the same time through broad populism and general anti establishment rhetoric, eventually it's all going to crash.

You can't continue to please your ex Tory Social Conservative core vote that wants abortion banned and gay marriage repealed, whilst trying to accommodate young Libertarian orientated people who want the nhs privatised and drugs legalised, and at the same time left leaning ex Labour voters who want more NHS spending, more welfare spending, etc, eventually Ukip will have to choose a group to focus on when it comes to actual policy decisions, and they're as a result going to alienate members of these other groups.

Dejanic wrote:Gonna just copy pasta here something I said concerning Ukips popularity growth on another thread.

Can I just say, whilst atm it's cool to say "Lib/Lab/Con suck, go Ukip", I can guarantee that once Ukip get a taste of power it'll be "Fuck Lib/Lab/Con/Ukip", because trust me, Ukips growth just isn't sustainable, the party is trying to please way too many conflicting ideologies at the same time through broad populism and general anti establishment rhetoric, eventually it's all going to crash.

You can't continue to please your ex Tory Social Conservative core vote that wants abortion banned and gay marriage repealed, whilst trying to accommodate young Libertarian orientated people who want the nhs privatised and drugs legalised, and at the same time left leaning ex Labour voters who want more NHS spending, more welfare spending, etc, eventually Ukip will have to choose a group to focus on when it comes to actual policy decisions, and they're as a result going to alienate members of these other groups.

It was so good, you had to say it twice, just so everyone got it
(On a serious note I do agree)

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Let us think why we want this middle ground? We wan't economic integration but don't want a European superstate. The original reason for the EU of cooperation and economic liberalisation without putting up barriers to the rest of the world, a mass of regulations and an EU ruled by corporatism. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

The UK entered under one deal and an understanding of what the EEC would be. It's turned out not to be that and we wan't to try and get it back towards what people voted for in 1975. Just because a group of people or a nation has a different concept of what European integration should be does not make it half in half out crap.

This is why it will eventually all come crashing down, because of this idea there can only be one possible vision for Europe.

This is a very good post, and sums up my own feelings on the issue perfectly.

why is everyone wanking off over freedom of movement then, given that was around in the 70's?

The UK in Exile wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
This is a very good post, and sums up my own feelings on the issue perfectly.

why is everyone wanking off over freedom of movement then, given that was around in the 70's?

I guess because the only nations involved back then were wealthier Western nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

Dejanic wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
why is everyone wanking off over freedom of movement then, given that was around in the 70's?

I guess because the only nations involved back then were wealthier Western nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

The UK in Exile wrote:

Dejanic wrote:I guess because the only nations involved back then were wealthier Western nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

It's Ukip, who knows? I just know the answer will involve Romanians and Communism somehow.

The UK in Exile wrote:they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

It's quote a simply process really. Let me explain...

If you are from northwestern Europe, you are good white.
If you are from anywhere else in Europe, you are bad white.
If you're not white, you're bad.

Simples

Britanno wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

It's quote a simply process really. Let me explain...

If you are from northwestern Europe, you are good white.
If you are from anywhere else in Europe, you are bad white.
If you're not white, you're bad.

Simples

Unless you're from Belgium, which means you're a non existent being who happens to reside on a supposedly hellish Anarchistic war-torn landmass which controls an entire continent.

Celritannia wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Because the remit of the First Ministers is only to deal with powers that are devolved. Westminster and therefore the party in government are responsible for the rest through the relevant secretaries and other government departments.

Perhaps then the SoS of each devolved country should be abolished.

You wouldn't be the first to suggest it.

Pesda wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Perhaps then the SoS of each devolved country should be abolished.

You wouldn't be the first to suggest it.

except they perform a crucial function.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Dejanic wrote:I guess because the only nations involved back then were wealthier Western nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

Please. It's a media stunt by the Conservatives to keep them in power. In terms of actual growth the UK isn't even in the top 15, if you take, say, the top 6 EU economies, then the UK is third and that's only because other economies are struggling, not that we are better.

To think that the UK is somehow a major growth market is a major delusion. Almost all the jobs for the last 500 days were given on the basis of a minimum wage. In terms of GDP, the increase in taxation is almost null. That means no extra spending. All of it is down to the private sector.

Southern Hampshire wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
they'd prefer the EU was without it's quickest growing economies?

Please. It's a media stunt by the Conservatives to keep them in power. In terms of actual growth the UK isn't even in the top 15, if you take, say, the top 6 EU economies, then the UK is third and that's only because other economies are struggling, not that we are better.

To think that the UK is somehow a major growth market is a major delusion. Almost all the jobs for the last 500 days were given on the basis of a minimum wage. In terms of GDP, the increase in taxation is almost null. That means no extra spending. All of it is down to the private sector.

That's...you've missed his point by quite some distance.

Nadkor wrote:

Southern Hampshire wrote:
Please. It's a media stunt by the Conservatives to keep them in power. In terms of actual growth the UK isn't even in the top 15, if you take, say, the top 6 EU economies, then the UK is third and that's only because other economies are struggling, not that we are better.

To think that the UK is somehow a major growth market is a major delusion. Almost all the jobs for the last 500 days were given on the basis of a minimum wage. In terms of GDP, the increase in taxation is almost null. That means no extra spending. All of it is down to the private sector.

That's...you've missed his point by quite some distance.

Not at all - it's a hundred and ten percent accurate.

Southern Hampshire wrote:

Nadkor wrote:
That's...you've missed his point by quite some distance.

Not at all - it's a hundred and ten percent accurate.

It is. But it's also nothing to do with the post you were replying to.

According to wikipedia the situation it's like this


One thing I'm surprised about it's that the UKIP can't even reach 20%, but they managed to win the EU elections. It's because in the UK people vote differently in EU elections and National elections?

Martean wrote:According to wikipedia the situation it's like this
(Image)

One thing I'm surprised about it's that the UKIP can't even reach 20%, but they managed to win the EU elections. It's because in the UK people vote differently in EU elections and National elections?

Yes.

they vote a lot less, specifically.

Martean wrote:According to wikipedia the situation it's like this
(Image)

One thing I'm surprised about it's that the UKIP can't even reach 20%, but they managed to win the EU elections. It's because in the UK people vote differently in EU elections and National elections?

It's because no one bothers to vote.

Many reasons why, no specific answers. Extends from young people being absolutely and inherently disconnected from politics to people not bothering to vote because all parties are too similar.
(as to why UKIP won)

As to voting differently, yes, European elections normally go to protest parties or parties which people are scared to vote for because they know it's a wasted vote in a national election (Lib Dems, Green, Respect, English Democrats, South East Independence Party)

@Nadkor
How so? It was an answer.

Martean wrote:According to wikipedia the situation it's like this
(Image)

One thing I'm surprised about it's that the UKIP can't even reach 20%, but they managed to win the EU elections. It's because in the UK people vote differently in EU elections and National elections?

This kind of supports my suspicions that we could see a Tory - UKUP coalition come the general election. I'll be honest. It worries me a little. UKIP are already influencing Tory policy. Say what you like about the Lib Dems, but I do believe they've held the reigns back on the Tories to some degree. No holding back if UKIP end up in Government.