Languish.org

QuoteIt's no again to all things Euro: the rise of the new Eurosceptics
There are three groups Nigel Farage and Ukip must win over: the settlers, the prospectors and the pioneers. Can he do it?

BY MARK LEONARD PUBLISHED 28 FEBRUARY, 2014 - 08:08

Nigel Farage got into trouble last month for praising Enoch Powell, but his guilty secret is that the model for the insurgency by his UK Independence Party (Ukip) is the old SDP. It is, he tells me, "the most successful party in British political history". It may have disappeared, but not before it captured all three of the main parties ("We now have three SDPs").

If his analysis is right, Ukip may not need to win a single seat at the next general election to change the political weather. Many argue that it already has. Farage is setting the pace in a year that began with the end of transitional controls on migration from Romania and Bulgaria, and as the European elections in May threaten to up-end the old British party system. He concedes that he struggled for years to work out how to make Euroscepticism a popular cause before he got hold of immigration as the way to make it connect: "These things did seem to be rather intellectual debates rather than things that were affecting everyday lives."

Over the past six months, I've been talking to some of the most important figures inside the new Eurosceptic movement, trying to understand their arguments, the way they have shifted the debate and where Britain's unpredictable flirting with exit from the EU might lead. One big point stands out from all the interviews I have conducted. The Eurosceptics are accused of wanting to take the country back to the 1950s, perhaps the 1850s, but the uncomfortable truth is that they have done more to modernise their arguments and broaden their coalition than the pro-Europeans.

When the euro crisis struck, they seized their chance, rather as the neocons did over Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, the pro-European coalition has shrunk and failed to reinvent itself for a new world. What is so puzzling to the pro-European elite is that it is their proudest achievements – helping to create the single market, fostering a European trade agenda and championing the enlargement to the east – that are now being used as the most powerful arguments against the EU. But the story is not over: the profound shifts in the global and political environment give pro-Europeans a chance to evolve and strike back if they can articulate a credible reform agenda.

Three tribes

The genius of the new Eurosceptics has been their ability to turn the arguments of pro-Europeans on their head, so that each triumph has become an argument against the EU. Old-fashioned sceptics such as John Redwood and Bill Cash used to accept that the EU was good for the British economy but baulked at the loss of sovereignty. The new Europhobes put things the other way round: in place of old arguments about European superstates destroying British sovereignty, Eurosceptics have a narrative about Britain "tethered to the corpse" of the eurozone (the evocative phrase of the fiercely independent Conservative MP Douglas Carswell). They claim that the single market ties British business in red tape; the customs union holds Britain hostage to the protectionist lobbies of all member states; and the free movement of people unleashed by enlargement is flooding the British labour market with immigrants.

Adam Lury, the thoughtful former adman who once helped New Labour think about communications, says that Europe is one of those issues where public attitudes are motivated as much by identity and values as by the familiar metrics of class or financial interest. Following the work of the American "humanistic" psychologist Abraham Maslow, who wrote about a "hierarchy of needs" in the 1940s and 1950s, sociologists and pollsters usually segment the public into three main tribes.

First are the "settlers", who make up 30 per cent of the UK's population, according to the British Values Survey conducted by Cultural Dynamics. They are naturally conservative, focused on safety, security and belonging. Next are the "prospectors", who want to maximise their wealth and seek opportunities for personal advancement. They make up another 32 per cent of the population. Finally, we have the "pioneers", who make up the remaining 38 per cent. They have satisfied their material needs and are interested in self-actualisation and concerned about the big picture. Lury points out that the power of the pro-Europeans was that they developed a case for British membership of the EU that appealed to all three groups. For the settlers, it offered peace and stability. For prospectors, the single market promised jobs and prosperity. And for pioneers, it was exotic and exciting.

But today, it is the Eurosceptics that have found arguments against Europe that appeal to all three tribes.

Ukip, the settler's friend

"If you live in the east of England," Nigel Farage says, "you will have seen social change in your towns and cities over the course of the last ten years that is absolutely huge. And by and large people are very uncomfortable with it." That is why Ukip's mission statement opens not with the European issue but by saying: "As crisis has followed crisis our politicians are seen to be impotent in the face of the dangers rearing up all around us." It conjures up the spectres of violent crime, job loss, a tide of immigration, falling pensions and fear of old age.

A major study of public opinion by Michael Ashcroft last year confirmed that Europe is a secondary issue, even to potential Ukip supporters (only 7 per cent of the party's supporters said Europe is the single most important problem for them). In focus groups, they reeled off a litany of complaints, imagined and real, about the cultural and social state of Britain.

For instance: your school is not allowed to hold a Nativity play; you cannot fly the flag of Saint George; you cannot call Christmas "Christmas" any longer; you cannot be promoted in the police force unless you are from a minority group; you cannot wear an England team shirt on the bus; you won't get social housing unless you're an immigrant; you can't even speak up about these things, because you'll be labelled a racist. "All of these examples," Ashcroft says, "make the point that the mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority."

Ukip claims to talk for the settled majority, but it adopts the rhetoric and tactics of an oppressed minority. Farage claims that his goal is more about changing minds than capturing seats. "To some extent, the success or failure of Ukip is in the hands of the other parties. If, for example, the Labour and Conservative Parties came to those positions then the electoral appeal of Ukip will diminish."

However, Ukip would have changed the political agenda, as the SDP did before it. As Jon Cruddas, the MP leading Labour's policy review, says: "You have this shape-shifting political force that can move in and out of some of those visceral identities that are being generated in the context of austerity, massive generational change, crisis of political representation and generally a sense of anomie across the political landscape. And they have the electoral cycle on their side, with the European elections on the same day as the local government elections."

Fresh Start, the prospectors' grouping

Andrea Leadsom speaks with the clipped authority of a schoolmistress, bringing granular detail and concrete proposals to a debate that too often has been defined by bluster. As a former banker, she is perfectly cast to appeal to the material urges and pragmatic concerns of Britain's "prospector" class. Like the most effective Eurosceptics today, she claims to be in favour of reform rather than revolution. One of the leaders of the Fresh Start group of Tory MPs, she explains in a telephone interview with me: "There is a fundamental change that is not widely enough understood – the status quo is no longer an option."

For Leadsom, the euro crisis has set the members of the eurozone firmly on the path to fiscal union, inevitably changing the nature of Britain's membership of the EU in the process. Speaking with ever-increasing authority, she argues that British banks are already having to deal with decisions over which they have no control, such as the fate of Cyprus. More importantly, she fears that in the new EU the eurozone will act as a caucus that imposes unpopular decisions on the City of London. She cites the decision to limit bankers' bonuses as an early instance of the potential dangers.

The organisational and intellectual driving force behind Fresh Start's agenda is Open Europe, the think tank that used to be the No campaign on the single currency. Its director is a tall and brainy Swede, Mats Persson. He explains the core of the Eurosceptic case thus: "There is a feeling that the British voted to join a common market and got something different. This relates to trust in politics."

With its highly political campaigns over the cost of EU regulation and against EU powers on crime and policing, Open Europe has systematically undermined many of the conventional arguments in favour of the Union. In fact, the campaign has worked so well that Open Europe itself is on the verge of an identity crisis, because it is discovering – like David Cameron – that the debate has moved in such a sceptical direction that it may end up in the Yes camp in a referendum campaign.

Techno utopians

Douglas Carswell looks more like a cartoon villain than a romantic idealist, yet he is behind the most dramatic shift in Euroscepticism: its appeal to Britain's younger pioneers. A libertarian, self-styled radical and advocate of localism, he first came to prominence when he pleaded with Westminster to clean up following the expenses scandal. Since then, however, he has brought a technological utopian bent to Europhobia, making it seem more modern in the process, and so potentially appealing to younger people who are not natural Tories.

Carswell, who is the serving MP for Clacton, sees the crisis in the eurozone as a by-product of the modern, networked society. "The collapse in trust in hierarchy is a good thing," he said at an event at the European Council on Foreign Relations in April. "The internet is riding to the rescue. It dooms gigantism." He claims that elites are bad at public administration and are unaccountable. In the past, countries needed political parties to aggregate opinions, but new movements such as Italy's Five-Star, led by Beppe Grillo, show how people can use the internet to develop a common platform. "New parties can spring up out of nowhere," Carswell says.

He talks in grandiose terms about how the web will bring forth a world of networks, one where the natural liberalism of the individual will prevail. "At university, I used to study the conflicts between liberty and democracy. But one of the advantages of the internet is that the crowd is no longer a mob." Carswell is more specific about his endgame than some of the Fresh Starters. "Instead of thinking about how to reform the EU, we should be thinking about a post-EU Europe."

For Carswell, the EU is provincial and old-fashioned rather than modern and exotic. He sees it as a fossilised relic of the 20th century in a digital world. What matters to his brand of sceptics, as the conservative columnist Matthew d'Ancona argued in GQ magazine, is "not post-colonial reach or the ability to fight alongside America in military interventions, but the real freedom to trade globally". He concluded: "What's so bad about being a new Singapore off the shore of Europe?"

The Carswell sceptics think that the modern era transcends geography, uniting the world economically and politically in the cloud. The countries they admire the most – Australia, Dubai, Singapore – have successfully managed to carve out a global role without being hung up on trying to shape the world. The intellectual rationale for this move is that, even though Britain may enter a "new Elizabethan age", in which it retains a global outlook, it should refuse to be drawn into disputes about the shape of the European continent.

Behind the Ukip case, the fresh start and the technological dream is a modern-sounding argument that has a different tone from the blimpish isolationism of Euroscepticism past. Settlers are being targeted with the fear that their neighbourhoods are being transformed by a wave of migration from new member states. Prospectors are told of the economic threat of the euro crisis and the burdens of regulation. But it is the Europhobic pioneers who have potentially the most disruptive arguments. By claiming that Europe is a bureaucratic monolith in an age of global networks, they have the greatest ability to transcend the older, more conservative ghetto of traditional Euroscepticism and create a wider coalition.

A fragile, Europhobic coalition

Ed Miliband accused the Prime Minister of "sleepwalking" towards the EU exit, evoking the march of folly that led Britain into the First World War. Yet the more appropriate martial analogy is between those who are conspiring to push Britain out of the EU and the neocons who pushed for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Like the neocons, what Britain's Europhobes lack in numbers, they make up for in passion. They have a powerful intellectual framework, wealthy backers, and advocates in the press, the Commons and the cabinet. However, although the Europhobes have momentum, their coalition is vulnerable.

In this phoney war, the European question is framed as a subsection of the migration debate. But the subliminal question in an actual referendum, as Peter Kellner of YouGov argues, will be not whether people like the EU, but whether Britain should take the risk of going solo. And public opinion on the European issue is softer and more volatile than it is on the question of migration.

A Liberal Democrat close to Nick Clegg tells me: "The debate will shift very quickly if people think that a Brexit is really on the cards. There are a lot of businesses that will be very worried about being stuck outside the EU."

He points out how the Japanese government has already warned that many British people who work for Japanese companies would lose their jobs and argues that companies such as Nissan and Ford have to speak publicly about the matter as well as make these points to their staff.

The problem for the Eurosceptics is that few of their arguments will withstand the scrutiny of a campaign. Once the referendum is called, they will not be allowed just to argue against Europe: they will also have to say what they are for. Last summer, the Confederation of British Industry published a study of alternatives to EU membership. The main candidates are the models of Norway and Switzerland, countries bound by all EU laws but which have no right to make them. The Turkish model gives access to a customs union but not the greater benefits of the single market. Or there is a simple free-trade agreement, which would allow neither access to the market nor the influence of EU membership.

The CBI does not find any of the options very appealing. Rather than seeing a world of benign networks where everyone lives happily together in the cloud, it recognises that we have entered a cut-throat era of economic competition when size and power matter – and when new players such as China will seek to use their vast markets to create an unlevel playing field. A British government that stood outside the EU would struggle to have its voice heard.

Most economists reckon that Britain benefits from being in the single market, which is still the destination for most of Britain's exports and the lure for most of its overseas investors. They also argue that it is Europe that enables the UK to prise open new export markets from Beijing to Bangalore, by giving it the clout of being in a single market with 500 million consumers. In this way, the EU affords Britain a platform not only to shape its own future but to take part in writing the rules for global governance on everything from the regulation of banks to nuclear proliferation and human rights.

As the euro crisis subsides and the economic costs of Brexit become more pronounced, the Eurosceptic coalition is starting to fragment. There are already many Conservatives who worry about setting their party against the interests of the nation's biggest companies. It seems likely that a referendum campaign could drive many prospectors back into the pro-European camp, while a more optimistic case for a European future might reignite the support of pioneers. If this happens, the anti-Europe coalition will once again become so dominated by the traditionalist, anti-immigration argument that it will lose its breadth. For all these reasons, there is still a chance that the pro-Europeans can evolve and strike back. But who can lead the charge? And will it pay off electorally?

Cameron as leader of the pro-Europeans?

Nick Clegg is the only British party leader with a strong belief in the European project. His principled stance on Europe did him no harm in the leadership debates during the 2010 election and he seems determined to put the case against Brexit in the Lib Dems' Euro election campaign. However, his rational deliberation is no match for the monomaniacal passion of the Eurosceptic Tory MPs in the coalition. And with so little public support, Clegg is not able to shift the dynamics of the national debate.

That is not true of David Cameron. A YouGov poll in November showed that, in a referendum on EU membership, 37 per cent would vote for Britain to stay in, while 42 per cent would support the country leaving. However, in the event that Cameron renegotiated British membership and recommended a Yes vote, 52 per cent would vote to stay and 28 per cent would vote to leave. These sorts of polls have helped to cement a consensus that Cameron is best placed to win British citizens around to support membership of the EU. Yet he faces a dangerous trilemma: how to mobilise British voters, his European partners and his own party behind a common policy programme. The evidence suggests that he could bring any two of these groups with him, but not all three.

British public opinion looks fairly malleable. European leaders such as Angela Merkel are sympathetic to the need to keep Britain in, though none is keen to open up a major negotiation of the EU treaties. The trickiest challenge for Cameron is with his own party. One player at the heart of the government's European policy put it well: "Is there a realistic reform agenda that could persuade British people to stay in? I think the answer is yes. Is there a reform agenda that could satisfy Conservative MPs? Unfortunately, I don't think there is."

This points to the core of Cameron's difficulty: until the 2015 election he can pretend to be the leader of both the "better off in" and the "better off out" factions. After the election, he will have to choose.

What should Labour do?

Ed Miliband is the one party leader who has the ability to reframe the European debate, reconciling the demands of European partners, the British public and his own party. But he is also the leader who has most studiously avoided getting involved in the European debate.

So far Labour has had a largely tactical discussion about whether to match Cameron's referendum pledge and how to deal with the migration challenge, but in 2014 this discussion will take on strategic significance. Jon Cruddas says that debate about Europe is essential, because "it would allow us to think about how to confront Ukip in terms of party organisation, our approach to issues of voice and referendums and our reform agenda for Europe".

Unlike Clegg, who is associated with the old pro-European agenda, and Cameron, who is a prisoner of his party's obsessive Europhobes, Miliband has an opportunity to create a new European coalition.

The Labour election victories in 1945, 1964 and 1997 were secured not only by contesting the national story, but by showing how Britain would respond to a changed international landscape. Miliband has yet to develop a Labour narrative that can dislodge Cameron's talk of a "global race" or Ukip's story of Little England. This is his chance. Rather than defending the Europe of the status quo, he has an opportunity to offer a fresh reform agenda for Europe – a new approach to migration; a post-crisis economic growth and social policy; and an agenda of self-government in Europe.

The starting point is a defensive appeal to the settlers. Miliband must do much more to bring home the threats to jobs and prosperity from the uncertainty of Cameron's approach and the risk of a Brexit. Labour can also build on its current agenda on migration – including the idea of boosting the living wage and addressing pressures that new migrants place on public services directly – by suggesting that the EU budget could be used to help lessen the impact on services from intra-EU migration.

To appeal to prospectors, Labour must set out an account of Europe as a multiplier of growth in a multipolar world, rather than a conveyer belt for austerity. It can describe how the EU can underpin a strategy for reindustrialisation by extending the single market to the services, digital and energy sectors, as well reforming the EU budget to make investments in research and development, infrastructure and energy. In order to get access to global markets, it should pioneer a new generation of trade agreements with countries such as the United States and Japan to drive up standards in the global economy and attempt to level the playing field with China.

To reach the pioneers, Labour must reclaim the mantle of self-government. There is a chance to reframe the debate so it is not just a question about a single, one-off vote about being in the EU, but rather about the ability of governments to be sovereign over their own affairs. In this regard, it is worth talking again about the example of Norway, whose own parliament labelled its non-membership of the EU as "a democratic disaster". Because Norway cannot afford economically to be excluded from Europe's single market, it is bound to pay into the EU budget and to adopt nearly all EU laws, yet it has no role in making them.

But before he can do any of this, Miliband will need to resolve the referendum problem. He has been right to resist calls for an immediate referendum and to criticise Cameron's strategy of renegotiation followed by a vote in 2017. However, very few people – even in the shadow cabinet – believe that Miliband will be able to stick to his present policy through the rigours of a European election, let alone a general election campaign.

Labour should commit to holding an in/out referendum at such a time as there is a new treaty that transfers sovereignty from the UK to the EU. By doing this, Labour would put itself on the side of public opinion and be in a strong position to go after the Conservatives mercilessly for putting party before country and for being rendered frozen and incapable by their divisions.

And yet, looming over Miliband is the shadow of Farage, who threatens to beat Labour into second place in the European elections in May. With his paeans to traditional values, Farage seems to be mourning a lost world; nonetheless, he realises that he is the biggest beneficiary of its passing. "There was a degree of deference towards our leaders," he tells me. "That deference has died. Because of that, people are now open to different ideas and are open to vote in ways they would never have imagined."

It is this anti-elitist sentiment that Ed Miliband must try to embody, but the way to do it must be to stick clearly to Labour values, rather than opportunistically joining a Eurosceptic arms race. As Douglas Alexander says: "Our challenge is not to deny Ukip's challenge or merely insult them. The solution is not to be a better Ukip, but to be a better Labour Party."

Given that the contest for the European Parliament will take place only a year before the general election, the stakes are high. If Miliband finds his voice on Europe, he will look more like a prime minister-in-waiting and have a stronger platform from which to fight the 2015 election. If, however, he flunks the challenge, the chances are that a low-turnout European election could lead to the smiling Farage doing what even the SDP never managed to achieve: emerging as the poll-winner in a nationwide election.

Mark Leonard is the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations . He writes here in a personal capacity.

I'm not convinced on the solution, but I think the description of the three Eurosceptic trends is accurate. Watching Open Europe slowly shift from being on the Eurosceptic to the pro-EU side of the debate's been fascinating.

Edit: And it's the libertarian, anti-state, free-wheeling, free-trade angle of Euroscepticism that I wondered about Tamas's view on.

The problem with the debate for pro-Europeans is that a lot of the Eurosceptic positions are based on distortions of reality or outright falsehood. Redwood's objections about sovereignty were at least factual: there is no doubt that the EU does reduce the action-freedom of individual states, in the name of other benefits. Whereas if I try to debate with a Eurosceptic now, they'll bang on about the mythical red tape and such, drawing on a whole host of apocryphal anecdotes. And none of them have an answer as to why the French and Italians seem to have more success doing business in India, China and the rest of Asia than we do - despite the fact that we're all in the same market.

UKIP and anti-Europeanism in the UK, in my view, is more a reflection of the kind of populist sentiment you get in any time of economic crisis. Which is usually a combination of legitimate grievances coupled with ill-thought-out solutions. I agree it was wrong to ignore the immigration debate for so long, but it is not solved by closing British borders.

The political establishment (Labour and Conservative) have not helped things by indicating it is the perceptions that matter in the immigration debate, rather than facts. (So if people think there is a UK awash with foreigners stealing jobs, then immigration is a problem - nevermind if it is *actually* the case.) You also have a bizarre situation whereby many Tories rail against the unelected, unaccountable EU institutions while at the same time stifling attempts at House of Lords reform, a moribund chamber stuffed full of unelected, unaccountable political favours.

QuoteThe problem with the debate for pro-Europeans is that a lot of the Eurosceptic positions are based on distortions of reality or outright falsehood.

Yeah, this is all there is to it.

99% of EU-scepticism is about ignorance, illiteracy, xenophobia, and racism. It is a set of beliefs, not rational arguments.

QuoteHe explains the core of the Eurosceptic case thus: "There is a feeling that the British voted to join a common market and got something different. This relates to trust in politics."

A fairly common plaint among my extended family (at least, those who were old enough to and voted in 1975.)

Given my known Euroscepticism (and the oft mentioned Euroscepticism of the rest of my family) it may surprise people to know that most of them voted "Yes" in 1975; it was only in the 1990s that opinions started to harden in the other direction (IIRC.)

IIRC the campaign leading up to that referendum saw a strong swing towards a YES vote. The realities sank in and some of the myths were exploded.

I would expect a similar swing if we had another referendum.

The Red Tape argument is probably legit---the problem is there's no guarantee that UK red tape won't replace it, and the odds are it will.

Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2014, 08:29:00 AM

99% of EU-scepticism is about ignorance, illiteracy, xenophobia, and racism.

:yes: The EU is horrible.

Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2014, 01:28:57 PM

Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2014, 08:29:00 AM

99% of EU-scepticism is about ignorance, illiteracy, xenophobia, and racism.

:yes: The EU is horrible.

:lol:

One of your best

 :lol:

the article needs to decide if these people are sceptics or phobes.

Farage?  A farcical farrago of farfetched fantasies.
Far more foolish than five fantastic farrucas.

It's hilarious/sad that the EU gets so much shit thrown at it over immigration. If you look at the statistics the eu really isn't a very big net contributer to migrants, particularly ones that stay a log time and take from the social welfare system.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 10:50:19 AM
The Red Tape argument is probably legit---the problem is there's no guarantee that UK red tape won't replace it, and the odds are it will.

The EU cuts down on red tape.
Rather than having dozens of different regulations and hundreds of different bodies to make rules about every minute thing you instead have one body creating universal rules.
If you didn't have the eu making rules about the straightness of bananas you would have the European banana federation doing the same, only less efficiently

Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2014, 08:29:00 AM

QuoteThe problem with the debate for pro-Europeans is that a lot of the Eurosceptic positions are based on distortions of reality or outright falsehood.

Yeah, this is all there is to it.

99% of EU-scepticism is about ignorance, illiteracy, xenophobia, and racism. It is a set of beliefs, not rational arguments.

As long as you people still have all your ethnic hangups over shit like Walloons, Saxons, Who's-A-Slav, a not-so-unreasonable fear of anybody that speaks German and all your historic fruity bullshit over trying to murder every Jew in sight for 1,200 years, that continent will never get its shit straight.   The English, who are the only fucking grown ups in the room, have their ethnic shit but at least it's on a low simmer.  Your entire continent sucks ass.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 05, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
the article needs to decide if these people are sceptics or phobes.

What about phobes of Turkey who want to use the sceptic argument as an excuse?

There are many reasons to reject Turkish membership. In fact we should postpone any new accession until we figure out what the hell the EU should be. things are unwieldy enough as it is with all the current members.

If we could add Texas, you guys should be able to handle Turkey.  :P

Quote from: Iormlund on March 09, 2014, 12:51:09 PM
There are many reasons to reject Turkish membership. In fact we should postpone any new accession until we figure out what the hell the EU should be. things are unwieldy enough as it is with all the current members.

We should continue to add the Western Balkan nations at least. The EU will not be more or less functional no matter if we add Serbia or Albania. They are insignificant.

It is important to keep Serbia on the outside, and make them feel unwelcome.  They ruined civilization, and they retain loyalty to the Russians.

I'm not a Euro, but can be skeptical of Europe?

Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2014, 03:27:59 PM
I'm not a Euro, but can be skeptical of Europe?

Welcome to the club.

I don't like using the word "skeptic" in this way. it makes it sound like Euroism is a religion.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2014, 10:50:15 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 05, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
the article needs to decide if these people are sceptics or phobes.

What about phobes of Turkey who want to use the sceptic argument as an excuse?

Most UK europhobes used to be pro-Turkey in the EU to dilute the EU.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 10, 2014, 02:38:38 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2014, 10:50:15 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 05, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
the article needs to decide if these people are sceptics or phobes.

What about phobes of Turkey who want to use the sceptic argument as an excuse?

Most UK europhobes used to be pro-Turkey in the EU to dilute the EU.

:nods:

[Didn't we used to have a head-nodding smiley for agreement?]

Well, apart from that, there's also the issue that before Erdogan's antics a lot of people here thought that the delays and hurdles Turkey was being put through by the EU were grounded in both racism and hypocrisy.

Quote from: Agelastus on March 10, 2014, 03:35:58 AM
[Didn't we used to have a head-nodding smiley for agreement?]

:yes:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2014, 05:47:03 AM

Quote from: Agelastus on March 10, 2014, 03:35:58 AM
[Didn't we used to have a head-nodding smiley for agreement?]

:yes:

Ah.

There it is.

I thought it was probably a case of my declining eyesight rather than a case of my declining memory.

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 09, 2014, 01:52:59 PM
If we could add Texas, you guys should be able to handle Turkey.  :P

Texas was pretty heavily colonized by Yanquis before independence, let alone statehood. If anyone is up for colonizing Anatolia I'd be up to it, but the odds of it going Alamo would be 100%.

Quote from: Queequeg on March 10, 2014, 10:13:57 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 09, 2014, 01:52:59 PM
If we could add Texas, you guys should be able to handle Turkey.  :P

Texas was pretty heavily colonized by Yanquis before independence, let alone statehood. If anyone is up for colonizing Anatolia I'd be up to it, but the odds of it going Alamo would be 100%.

Isnt that a good thing?  Founding myths are important after all.

Quote from: Queequeg on March 10, 2014, 10:13:57 AM
Texas was pretty heavily colonized by Yanquis before independence, let alone statehood. If anyone is up for colonizing Anatolia I'd be up to it, but the odds of it going Alamo would be 100%.

Well if by pretty heavily you mean relatively.  There were something like 35,000 Yanqui types and 5,000 of them were slaves.  But since there were only about 7,000 Tejanos that relatively really important.  I shudder to think how many Americans would have to move to Anatolia to get a similar ratio...possibly all of us :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2014, 07:52:13 PM

Quote

"If you live in the east of England," Nigel Farage says, "you will have seen social change in your towns and cities over the course of the last ten years that is absolutely huge. And by and large people are very uncomfortable with it." That is why Ukip's mission statement opens not with the European issue but by saying: "As crisis has followed crisis our politicians are seen to be impotent in the face of the dangers rearing up all around us." It conjures up the spectres of violent crime, job loss, a tide of immigration, falling pensions and fear of old age.

A major study of public opinion by Michael Ashcroft last year confirmed that Europe is a secondary issue, even to potential Ukip supporters (only 7 per cent of the party's supporters said Europe is the single most important problem for them). In focus groups, they reeled off a litany of complaints, imagined and real, about the cultural and social state of Britain.

For instance: your school is not allowed to hold a Nativity play; you cannot fly the flag of Saint George; you cannot call Christmas "Christmas" any longer; you cannot be promoted in the police force unless you are from a minority group; you cannot wear an England team shirt on the bus; you won't get social housing unless you're an immigrant; you can't even speak up about these things, because you'll be labelled a racist. "All of these examples," Ashcroft says, "make the point that the mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority."

The woe is me being white argument is prevalent among several political groups, most of them being at least skeptical about the EU. Which is strange, because the EU is something of a bastard when it comes to borders and control.

Again with the silent majority, which basically is a very vocal minority in most places. The silent majority doesn't screech like broken brakes.

That aside, it's only natural that questions are asked about the EU. It has for the most part been a failure in foreign policy outside of the union itself. The cashflow from north to south is a reason to worry, as the southern rim is basically just a black hole of debts and can't take care of itself.

Those are the negatives. However, Europe would not have had such a good late 20th century without the EEC and the EF/EU.
The EU in my humble opinion does more good than bad. Yes, there are Eurocrats that probably just walk around like zombies in Brussels, doing a workshop in how to write a good report about how reports should be written.
Without the EU, Europe would be even further up Shit Creek than it already is, and who knows, maybe things are turning for the better in some ways.

Ahh!  A Bee!

Quote from: Tyr on March 09, 2014, 09:01:29 AM
It's hilarious/sad that the EU gets so much shit thrown at it over immigration. If you look at the statistics the eu really isn't a very big net contributer to migrants, particularly ones that stay a log time and take from the social welfare system.

The EU is a big contributor to net migration. Immigration to the UK is now roughly 50-50 EU and non-EU.

I think EU immigrants are also more visible because they're overwhelmingly coming to work (lots of non-EU migrants are here to study). As well as less students there's less family reunion (Britain's got one of the lowest rates in Europe) and fewer established communities, so unlike other migrants who are clumped around existing communities or universities EU migrants have been more likely to travel all over the country.

There are very few immigrants who are on the welfare system. It always strikes me as mad that people think it because by definition the people who are willing to move across continents/the world to improve their lives are entrepreneurial. They don't want to sit and do nothing.

Generally I think immigration's a great thing for the UK and it's a good sign that people want to live here (I often think the theory about the welfare sponging is because British people are so miserable we assume the only reason someone would travel to live here is because we'll give them free money). It's a shame there's no politician willing to stand up for immigration.

But there are costs and people who lose out, it has an impact on the wages of the low paid for example (though if we enforced the minimum wage that may help). My own problem with EU free movement is that a consequence of it is that we're making it more and more difficult for non-EU migrants to move to the UK. I'm not convinced that's worth it.

QuoteThe EU in my humble opinion does more good than bad. Yes, there are Eurocrats that probably just walk around like zombies in Brussels, doing a workshop in how to write a good report about how reports should be written.

I don't know how I'd vote in a referendum at this point. At the minute I think the costs and benefits are sort of equal and I've not got much faith in the direction the EU's going in.

And frankly if the Eurozone is the vision of Europe's future then I think we should running not walking to the exit.

Anyway, another interesting article on Ukip:

QuoteWhite face, blue collar, grey hair: the 'left behind' voters only Ukip understands
Farage's core voters are not EU-obsessed Tories, but working-class men. Labour cannot afford to ignore their real concerns
Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford
The Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2014 18.51 GMT

For more than a century our politics has been dominated by three parties, thanks in no small part to a first-past-the-post system that stacks the deck against new challengers. Confronted with this almost insurmountable barrier, those who dream of remaking British politics often remain just that – dreamers. More than 400 challengers to the "big three" are registered with the electoral commission, and virtually all will sink without trace.

This is one reason why the rise of the UK Independence party is so remarkable. It is the most successful new party in a generation: the first since the Social Democratic party in the 1980s to attract double-digit support in national polling. In fact, Ukip's revolt is more impressive as the SDP's earlier challenge was orchestrated by people who already sat at the top table of British politics. Ukip has come from below; a genuine insurgency from outside the established party system. It might not yet have won a seat in Westminster, but it has attracted more than one voter in 10 and upended the agenda. This is an extraordinary achievement for a party that for much of its 20-year history has been comically disorganised, eccentric, and paralysed by infighting.

But Ukip is also remarkable because of the extent to which its support is misunderstood. Nigel Farage and his party, we are repeatedly told, are a byproduct of unresolved Conservative divisions over Europe; a second home for disgruntled Tories who are pushed into its arms by their anger at Brussels and hostility towards a Conservative prime minister who supports gay marriage and climate change. Ukip, in short, is a Tory problem.

This conventional wisdom is understandable given that the party began as a pressure group of anti-Maastricht rebels, but it is no longer accurate. In fact, Ukip raises as many questions for Labour as for the Tories.

"This is all Fleet Street," Farage said during one of our interviews at Ukip's headquarters near Bond Street. "This is their obsession and they can't get out of it. But the numbers are perfectly clear: there is now a huge class dimension to the Ukip vote." Farage was drawing on private polling and his experience on the doorstep. He might be regarded as a gadfly and bon vivant, but he has a keen understanding of his party's working-class appeal.

Farage's observations about Ukip's support closely match what we have found over the past year while probing the backgrounds, beliefs, concerns and motives of almost 6,000 of these rebel voters. Much of this directly challenges everything we thought we knew about the roots of this revolt. Forget David Cameron's unpopularity among grassroots Tories; forget the furore over EU migrants; forget single-issue concerns over the EU or the charisma of Farage.

To truly understand Ukip's appeal you need to go much deeper. The roots of this revolt can be traced back over decades. Divides in the social and economic experiences of voters have appeared, their values and priorities have been widening, and a new electorate of "left behind" voters has grown up. These voters are on the wrong side of social change, are struggling on stagnant incomes, feel threatened by the way their communities and country are changing, and are furious at an established politics that appears not to understand or even care about their concerns. And it is these left-behind voters who have finally found a voice in Farage's revolt.

Farage is no catch-all populist; his appeal is concentrated in specific groups and is utterly alien to others. Ukip has virtually no support among the financially secure and the thirty- and fortysomething university graduates who dominate politics and the media. Support is weak among women, white-collar professionals and the young. Ethnic-minority voters shun the party totally.

Make no mistake, this is a revolt dominated by white faces, blue collars and grey hair: angry, old, white working-class men who left school at the earliest opportunity and lack the qualifications to get ahead in 21st-century Britain. That Ukip's core voters are middle-class Tories animated by the single-issue of Europe is the biggest myth in Westminster. In fact, Ukip is the most working-class-dominated party since Michael Foot's Labour in 1983. They struggle financially, worry about the future, and loathe the political class, not just Cameron and the Conservatives.

Don't think of Ukip as just a party; think of them as a symptom of far deeper social and value divisions in Britain. Farage is winning over working-class, white male voters because they feel left behind by Britain's rapid economic and social transformation and left out of our political conversation; struggling people who feel like strangers in a society whose ruling elites do not talk like them or value the things which matter to them.

This should ring loud alarm bells on the left. In a time of falling incomes, rising inequality and spending cuts, such voters should be lining up behind the party that traditionally stood for social protection and redistribution. Instead, they are switching their loyalty to a right-wing party headed by a stockbroker and staffed by activists who worship Thatcher. Those who are getting hit hardest by the crisis and austerity are turning not to Labour, but to Farage for solutions.

One reason for this is that for those left behind, politics is no longer about economics. These voters are not backing Ukip because of their economic concerns; they are backing the party because they see Farage as representing an identity and set of values they cherish but do not see expressed anywhere else. These voters have been left behind not just by wider trends, but the rise to dominance of a university-educated, professional middle-class elite whose priorities and outlook now define the mainstream.

The dramatic nature of this shift is often missed because it has been accomplished over decades. Yet in only 50 years Britain has gone from a society where working-class voters with little education decided elections to one where such voters are now only spectators, and the crucial and decisive battle is fought between middle-class graduate candidates seeking middle-class graduate votes. When Harold Wilson was elected in 1964, working-class voters outnumbered professional middle-class voters two to one; by 2010 the professional middle classes had a four to three advantage. Both Tony Blair and Cameron have sought to revive their party's prospects by appealing to the rising middle classes. Neither has shown much interest in the struggling, left-behind voters, and since 1997 these voters have made their feelings about being marginalised clear: turnout from these groups has collapsed, and dissatisfaction with politics has increased. Ukip's deputy leader, Paul Nuttall, captured this sense of exclusion in a 2013 speech: "In the days of Clement Attlee, Labour MPs came from the mills, the mines and the factories. The Labour MPs today go to private school, to Oxbridge, [then] they get a job in an MP's office."

These changes have been accompanied by a major transformation in the values that dominate the country. Across Europe it is no coincidence that radical right parties similar to Ukip win support from the same working-class voters, and accomplish this by targeting the same issues: national identity; immigration; Europe; and resentment of political and social elites. This is because there is now a deep and growing divide in the values of the left-behind and the professional middle-class mainstream.

The radical right in Europe is making a similar pitch, and for the same reason: the emergence of a large section of the electorate who feel the world they grew up with and valued is fading away, that what is replacing it is alien and threatening, and that no one in the mainstream understands their desire to turn back the tide of change. You cannot just ignore these voters – you need to have a conversation.

When thinking about Ukip, those around Ed Miliband must think beyond the next 12 months to a time when Labour may be in power with a small majority, or as part of a coalition. The party will then face many of the same challenges as the current government: an ageing population; straining public services; high migration from poorer EU states; persistent inequality; and the economic and fiscal overhang of the worst crisis for 80 years. By 2015 Ukip will be a known alternative. After European, local and general elections, it will have consolidated its support and be well positioned to make inroads in Labour-dominated areas by winning votes from those who will inevitably feel disappointment with what a Labour government can achieve.

At this point Labour will be exposed to serious and sustained competition for support in its northern, working-class fortresses. The largest concentrations of core Ukip supporters are not found in Tory seats in the shires but in Labour fiefs like Miliband's Doncaster North. We identified the 10 most Ukip-friendly seats in the country, and eight are Labour. Strategists on the left need to ask themselves – are your local councillors and activists in these areas ready for the first serious challenge they have ever faced? They may be laughing now, as Ukip drive their Tory opponents to distraction, but after May 2015 the men with purple rosettes may be knocking on Labour's doors.

• Revolt on the Right: Explaining Public Support for the Radical Right in Britain, a new book by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, is published next week. For a 20% discount, order direct from the Routledge website using the code RTR14

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/world/europe/british-view-of-europe-faces-a-test.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=WO_BVO_20140506&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=1

QuoteBritish View of Europe Faces a Test

LONDON — Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, recently unveiled a campaign poster he hopes will help his anti-European message win the European elections later this month: An outsize index finger points at onlookers under the headline: "26 million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose job are they after?"

And so it was with some embarrassment that Mr. Farage faced questions about employing his German wife as his secretary. "You've warned about Europeans taking British jobs," said Nick Robinson of the BBC. "Is your wife taking someone else's job?"

The two-minute video of Mr. Farage's fumbling response (he has to employ his wife, he says, because no one else could possibly toil such antisocial hours so close to him) has been widely mocked. But it is unlikely to change polls suggesting that UKIP, which wants Britain to leave the European Union, could beat both Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party in elections for the European Parliament.

European elections tend to have a low turnout and little impact on domestic politics here. But with a possible referendum on European Union membership in 2017 — Mr. Cameron has promised one if he wins re-election next May — this year's result matters, not least in the way the government responds to it, said David Hannay, a former permanent representative of Britain in Brussels and now a member of the House of Lords E.U. Select Committee.

"When the results come in, which I suspect will not be a very happy day for the prime minister, he should not try to appease UKIP because it is impossible to achieve," he warned.

How did it come to this?

A popular answer is that as an island and former empire, Britain has always had fewer physical and psychological links to the Continent, still referred to as "Europe" here as if Britain was not actually part of it. Britain was not a founding member of the European project in 1957. It only joined in 1973.

After the Eurostar started operating two decades ago, one lawmaker quipped: "I am glad that the Continent is no longer isolated."

But as Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at the University of Oxford, points out, you don't have to go back very far to find a pro-European Britain — and a pro-European Conservative Party.

Winston Churchill spoke of a "European dream" as early as 1948. It was a Conservative government that eventually took Britain into the European Union, and when the Labour Party called a referendum on membership in 1975, Margaret Thatcher campaigned in favor, sporting a sweater featuring a collection of European flags. As prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1987, which created the internal market and still constitutes the single biggest surrender of sovereignty since Britain joined.

In the three decades since then, Britain has become only more European. Britons take advantage of Europe's low-cost airlines and high-speed trains. Many study, work, marry and retire across European borders. When it comes to Europe's social model, an attachment to the welfare state that sets Europeans apart from other regions in the world, Britain's National Health Service, celebrated with much pomp and national affection during the Olympic opening ceremony two years ago, "is surely Exhibit A," Mr. Garton Ash said.

The irony, says Ulrich Beck, a German sociologist affiliated with the London School of Economics, is that as Britain has become more Europeanized, it has also become more euroskeptic. Mrs. Thatcher did change her tune radically late in her political life. That later legacy still shapes the narrative of the tabloids and the politicians that depend on them such that, as Mr. Beck puts it, "The most pro-European voices in Britain today are business and the Obama administration."

But the arguments Mrs. Thatcher once put forward for staying inside the Union are even more relevant in the 21st century, Mr. Garton Ash said: A united Europe brings economic benefits and greater political say on the world stage from climate change to Russian aggression. "The emotional narrative won't get you very far with the EasyJet Europeans," he said, "but reduced mobile roaming charges might."

Quote"The most pro-European voices in Britain today are business and the Obama administration."

The business angle is less true than it used to be. The EU Financial Transaction Tax and some EU regulations seem to have people worried. We'll see after the ECJ have ruled on some of these issues.

The Eurosceptic argument would be that business voices were also the loudest in saying we should join the Euro which I think everyone would agree would've been catastrophic for all involved :lol:

I hate to steal from the FT but they're starting a series on Eurosceptic populist parties round Europe with a very good article on Ukip:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb9a8cec-d11a-11e3-bdbb-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#slide0

It's hardly stealing when we can't see it.  :P

Indeed. It prompted me to check if the subscription rates for The Times have come down, but it's still GBP 26.- per month for their digital sites.

QuoteAnd so it was with some embarrassment that Mr. Farage faced questions about employing his German wife as his secretary. "You've warned about Europeans taking British jobs," said Nick Robinson of the BBC. "Is your wife taking someone else's job?"

:lmfao:

It is amazing how all of these people around the world are hypocrites.

His wife is German? :lol:/ :bleeding:
Just...wtf?


He gets his foreign wife and now he's happy to lumber the rest of us with Brits? Grr....

Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2014, 08:29:00 AM

QuoteThe problem with the debate for pro-Europeans is that a lot of the Eurosceptic positions are based on distortions of reality or outright falsehood.

Yeah, this is all there is to it.

99% of EU-scepticism is about ignorance, illiteracy, xenophobia, and racism. It is a set of beliefs, not rational arguments.

Add self interest. There are political interests in norway which would lose economically by replacing norwegian rules on fishing, forestry and farming with european ones.

The full transcript is even better:

Quote'Nick Robinson: You've warned about Europeans taking people's jobs. Your wife is German. She's your secretary. She's paid for by the British taxpayer.

Nigel Farage: Yes. She came here as a highly skilled person earning a high salary, paying a very large amount of tax. It all goes to show nobody must think....

NR: Is your wife taking someone else's job?

NF: No, because I don't think anyone else would want to be in my house at midnight, going through emails and getting me briefed for the next day. And actually if you look at Westminster one in four MPs at Westminster, all right, employs a close family relative, and actually what's happening in the last two weeks, of the 73 British MEPs I'm the one that is being singled out and saying "Goodness me, Mr Farage, you're costing the taxpayer a great deal of money." Don't forget, I am the turkey that will vote for Christmas. I want to get rid of British MEPs and all the expenses.

NR: You see, you try to turn everything into a joke. You have a campaign which says Europeans are taking British jobs. You employ a German woman to work in your office. She happens to be your wife. She happens to spend many hundreds of thousands of British taxpayers' money. How do you justify that?

NF: No she doesn't. She earns a very modest salary for working extremely unsociable hours for me and being available up to seven days a week. It's a very different situation to a mass of hundreds of thousands of people flooding the lower end of the labour market.

NR: Why hasn't she taken a British person's job?

NF: Because nobody else could do that job.

NR: No British person could work for you as your secretary?

NF: Not unless I married them

NR: You don't think anyone's capable of doing that job?

NF: What, of marrying me?

NR: No. Of doing the job of your secretary.

NF: I don't know anyone who would work those hours, no.

NR: So that's it. It's clear - UKIP do not believe that any British person is capable of being the secretary of their leader?

NF: That's nonsense and you know it.

NR: You just said it!

NF: I said I need someone who can help me work at midnight, at one, two o'clock in the morning, unsociable hours. For seven years she did the job unpaid, for the last few years she's done the job on a monthly salary and from May she'll be doing it unpaid again.

:lol:

Clearly he knows nothing about the type of jobs bottom rung immigrants take if his defence is that no British person would do it

 :lmfao: priceless

Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2014, 04:54:38 AM
Clearly he knows nothing about the type of jobs bottom rung immigrants take if his defence is that no British person would do it

That is the point. His official line is that all foreigners working here are taking a Brit's job, then it turns out that his personal secretary is a German employed by taxpayer's money, and then declares that the reason for that is the Brits (who by official line could do all the jobs foreigners do at present) are incapable of being a secretary.

The video is here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27115043

My English colleague said recently that she's against immigration. I pointed out to her that she's an immigrant, too. She said she meant the immigration from places outside the EU. I asked if she meant Canada and the U.S., then. She explained that she meant places that were culturally very dissimilar from the UK.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 04:57:26 AM
are incapable of being a his secretary.

FYP. His "defense" is that she's there for him 24/7 and no Brit would be willing to do that.

It was funny, but as with the Times story on his expenses, UKIP went on the attack saying it showed the establishment was rattled. Since then they've been doing very well in the Euro polls, over 30% for the most part.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 05:10:23 AM
It was funny, but as with the Times story on his expenses, UKIP went on the attack saying it showed the establishment was rattled. Since then they've been doing very well in the Euro polls, over 30% for the most part.

I guess I must just accept that rampant dumb populism is the flavour of the era and I shall not find refugee from it.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 05:12:49 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 05:10:23 AM
It was funny, but as with the Times story on his expenses, UKIP went on the attack saying it showed the establishment was rattled. Since then they've been doing very well in the Euro polls, over 30% for the most part.

I guess I must just accept that rampant dumb populism is the flavour of the era and I shall not find refugee from it.

A recent poll in Austria revealed that while 85% agreed that democracy is the most preferable form of government, 30% think that a strong leader not tied down by parliament and procedures would be a good thing to have. This preference was much higher among the less educated and FPÖ voters.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 04:32:34 AM

QuoteAnd so it was with some embarrassment that Mr. Farage faced questions about employing his German wife as his secretary. "You've warned about Europeans taking British jobs," said Nick Robinson of the BBC. "Is your wife taking someone else's job?"

:lmfao:

It is amazing how all of these people around the world are hypocrites.

She married a Briton; in my book that qualifies her as British. It doesn't matter that she was born German or, no doubt, still holds a German passport. And I rather suspect that I'm not alone in this opinion.

That someone thought that attacking a man for employing his wife in a society that's supposedly still based around families would lead to a big hit on his political support just shows how stupid some of his detractors are. Especially as employing family members is a habit members of all the major parties have.

They'd have been better off hunting down more unacceptable candidates/party members etc. to pillory - although as recent weeks have shown that's not a problem only affecting UKIP.

 :rolleyes:

At any rate, I am trying to avoid being a smartass about UK politics (for now).

If I wasn't living here I would be inclined to see the UKIP have their way and lead the country out of the EU, for all the ensuing schadenfreude I could have.

Most countries in the world would do everything to have their own London, this great magnet for talented and hard working people from across the world, who (as in London en masse) then proceed to carry the British economy on their back. What the Brits do? Moan. :P

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 11:00:35 AM
:rolleyes:

I echo your sentiment. :hug:

It is fascinating how part rhetorics/methods, and supporter attitudes/reactions match between UKIP and Jobbik. Only difference is that UKIP is not making thinly veiled racist and anti-Semitic remarks as part of party communication.
But clearly they grow out of the same general sentiment (and I only partly mean the racism)

My favorite criticism of the EU by skeptics is that the EU is undemocratic.  Well that is true to a large extent, the EU is a league of sovereign states not a government of people for the most part.  But of course they are not interested in it becoming democratic, that is the last thing they want.  If it was democratic it would have a shitload more power and legitimacy.  The primary way to keep the EU from becoming too intrusive and less powerful to make sure it remains undemocratic so I find it a weird criticism.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 11:00:35 AM
:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes if you wish; I've got no problem with immigration, nor with people marrying Britons and becoming British. I just want my government to be in charge of it not somebody in Europe who I feel no emotional or practical connection to.

And if you will recall UKIP was the first party to say we should take in Syrian refugees.

There is, I cannot deny, an unfortunate trend for some of the less desirable elements of British society to vote UKIP; but on the other hand this means they're not voting for the BNP which is a plus in anyone's book.

QuoteMost countries in the world would do everything to have their own London, this great magnet for talented and hard working people from across the world, who (as in London en masse) then proceed to carry the British economy on their back.

Those of us who appreciate it tend to be worried that France and Germany (who possibly don't really understand it but would still love to have some of it in their own countries) are trying to destroy it.

I don't happen to subscribe to the more extreme versions of this fear, but there's certainly been some unfortunate moves by the EU in the last few years.

QuoteWhat the Brits do? Moan. :P

Be fair, Tamas...Brits moan about everything!  Take the weather - it can never be just right, it's always "too hot", "too cold", "too dry", "too wet", "not like it was when I was a kid". etc. etc.

Moaning is our national pastime. :D

Fair points, however I believe that it is a recurring historical error of the right (side of political spectrum) to be acceptable to the fringe elements of their own supporter base. The lunatic ones. They always think they can control them, but they can never. Just look at how they are destroying the Republicans in America.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2014, 11:12:34 AM
It is fascinating how part rhetorics/methods, and supporter attitudes/reactions match between UKIP and Jobbik. Only difference is that UKIP is not making thinly veiled racist and anti-Semitic remarks as part of party communication.
But clearly they grow out of the same general sentiment (and I only partly mean the racism)

Surely the lack of racism and anti-semitism is a pretty important distinguishing feature though :P

I'm surprised you're so anti-Ukip. Their leadership and activist base are probably the most libertarian party around. They want to deregulate everything even more, start introducing charges for the NHS, limit the welfare state. Nigel Farage claims to be the heir to Thatcher.

It'll be interesting if the Revolt on the Right guys research is interesting because you'll have Ukip voters who are pretty left-wing but an activist base and leadership that's very laissez faire. Maybe the Labour campaign attacking Ukip as more Thatcherite than the Tories could work.

QuoteMy favorite criticism of the EU by skeptics is that the EU is undemocratic.  Well that is true to a large extent, the EU is a league of sovereign states not a government of people for the most part. 

The EU is substantially more than a league of sovereign states. That's the point of Europe.

I think context matters with the anti-democratic problems. It seems to me that criticism comes most from the UK, where there's a tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty so the idea that something could overrule Parliament's a big shift to our constitution, and Germany where I think there's a worry the Constitutional Court have mentioned about the power and responsibilities of the EU without a sufficient democratic element.

Personally I think they're overblown, but Europe's in a difficult place. On the one hand I think there needs to be more democracy as the EU develops - especially with the steps needed in the Eurozone. On the other hand there's still no European demos so people don't vote in EU elections, when they do it's about domestic politics and often full of protests votes which is partly why we could see up to 30% of the European Parliament being Eurosceptics. I don't know how you get around that, maybe more involvement of national Parliaments?

QuoteMost countries in the world would do everything to have their own London, this great magnet for talented and hard working people from across the world, who (as in London en masse) then proceed to carry the British economy on their back. What the Brits do? Moan. :P

Yeah, so surely increasing Euro-regulation of the City is part of the argument for leaving? For example the EU power to ban short selling, the Eurozone financial transactions tax and the ECB clearing house location policy are all worrying signs (though the last two haven't fully been settled by the courts).

I think there's a lot to David Owen's argument:
http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-2/the-path-not-taken/

Yeah, that's the scary part about UKIP. It's not that they're racists, it's that they hide behind their populist sort of acceptable brand of anti-immigration pseudo-racism, some pretty disturbing Thatcherite policies. That's what common people need to be made aware of.

 :lol:  In the same that Hitler, behind his semi-acceptable wars of conquest and genocide, hid some dangerous statist economic policies.

 :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2014, 09:11:26 PM
:lol:  In the same that Hitler, behind his semi-acceptable wars of conquest and genocide, hid some dangerous statist economic policies.

:lol:

Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2014, 09:06:36 PM
Yeah, that's the scary part about UKIP. It's not that they're racists, it's that they hide behind their populist sort of acceptable brand of anti-immigration pseudo-racism, some pretty disturbing Thatcherite policies. That's what common people need to be made aware of.

So having racist supporters and being intolerant in their campaigning is a-ok, as long as they mix that with socialism

The opposite of Thacherite is Socialist?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2014, 01:10:12 PM
The opposite of Thacherite is Socialist?

what else is the opposite of fiscal responsiblity then?

I don't think Thatcher was particularly noted for her fiscal responsibility, and socialism definitely isn't the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2014, 01:47:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2014, 01:10:12 PM
The opposite of Thacherite is Socialist?

what else is the opposite of fiscal responsiblity then?

Fiscal irresponsibility? 

Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2014, 09:06:36 PM
Yeah, that's the scary part about UKIP. It's not that they're racists, it's that they hide behind their populist sort of acceptable brand of anti-immigration pseudo-racism, some pretty disturbing Thatcherite policies. That's what common people need to be made aware of.

I think this is it. A bunch of Oxbridge educated journos and politicians shouting 'racist' at UKIP doesn't work.

The people who are likely to think they're racist already does (this is why, seeing the rise in support they get more and more alarmed and accuse them more and more loudly of racism). Most people evidently don't think they're racist and UKIP supporters who hate the political establishment become even more convinced that they've got them rattled and stick ever closer to UKIP.

Attacking them for their economic views which go against a lot of their voters' could be more productive. Or maybe not, maybe they'll just carry on hoovering up protest votes to the Euros. This was the last Westminster election poll I saw, after a month of pretty bad news stories for UKIP:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F5%2F10%2F1399744777629%2Fgu_state_of_parties-01resize.jpg&hash=9515d829c8a9c5036030f6a1462aae1c809f385d)

Also I think these two articles get to something despite their very different views on the Labour election broadcast. I think if this one's right then I'd guess UKIP could be better placed to benefit from that sort of populist mood than Labour. Even if Labour win the next election imagine the vote in 2019 when everyone's disappointed by Ed Miliband. I've always thought there's an element of UKIP as an English SNP they could provide a catch-all opposition (once provided by the Lib Dems) to the dominant parties. I can't imagine the North ever voting Tory, I could see some seats voting UKIP:

QuoteThe rebirth of class war holds perils for the Tories
By Matthew d'Ancona6:00PM BST 10 May 2014

Crass, negative, divisive, childish... and, in all likelihood, rudely effective. Labour's party election broadcast last week was an infantile pastiche of Fifties science-fiction B movies, with Nick Clegg cast as "The Un-credible Shrinking Man".

Shot in black-and-white, the campaign spot depicted the Lib Dem leader growing ever smaller, as the cartoonishly wicked Tories around the table empathised with the rich: "In these times of austerity I think we should spare a thought for the wealthy... Haven't our brave bankers suffered enough?... I have a friend who's down to his last two yachts." As Clegg – or "Claggie" as the horribly caricatured Prime Minister addressed him – scuttled across the Cabinet table, one of his supposed Coalition colleagues asked: "Can we hunt him?" So much for the New Politics.

This weekend, Labour sources are vehemently denying that their purpose was to reignite class war. The inspiration, apparently, was not Engels but Enfield: specifically, Mr Cholmondeley-Warner, Harry Enfield's much-missed character who presented spectacularly reactionary "Public Improvement Films" with titles such as "Women Know Your Limits".

Ed Miliband, I am further assured, has repeatedly vetoed the slightest shuffle towards a renewal of class war, and often says to staff: "It's not where you're from, it's what you do" (spookily similar to Cameron's mantra: "It's not where you come from, it's where you're going"). Make of that what you will. Whatever its intention, the broadcast was almost universally interpreted as a sortie in the class war. As such, it was widely declared a tawdry failure, an embarrassing exercise in retro-rhetoric, its script drowned out by the screech of the barrel's bottom being scraped.

I am not so sure. The "politics of envy" does not stir the soul or help to build the new Jerusalem. But that does not mean it is wholly pointless. Cameron certainly fears this form of attack, especially when his schooling becomes an issue. In March, he was genuinely furious with his friend and ally Michael Gove, for remarking in a Financial Times interview that the number of Etonians in the Cabinet was "preposterous".

All the same, many – perhaps most – Tories think that the PM need not worry: class politics (they insist) died with the oppressive communism that it spawned, euthanised by the spread of prosperity and property ownership in the Eighties and the surrender of New Labour to the realities of globalisation. According to this analysis, Cameron's own ascent to political stardom showed that background was no longer destiny. What voters cared about was not where the Tory leader had been educated, but what plans he had for their own children's schools; what they cared about was not his wealth, but his ability to fix the economy.

There was, and is, enough truth in this thesis for it to have achieved considerable traction. But it errs in two essential respects: first by declaring class politics dead rather than dormant; second by underestimating the capacity of all political paradigms to adapt to fit new environments. Class politics is not extinct: far from it. Instead, it has mutated from its Cold War form to fit the very different context of the post-crash world.

Of all Cameron's advisers, Steve Hilton – now on sabbatical – grasped this most clearly. In May 2008, Labour's by-election campaign in Crewe and Nantwich portrayed the Tory candidate Edward Timpson as a "toff" and "Lord Snooty", and was a disastrous failure. Timpson's victory and the swing away from Labour of 17.6 per cent were enough to convince many Tory strategists that class was now officially dead as a political issue. Cameron and George Osborne were not so sure. Hilton was certain that class could still be a big problem for his party and was dismayed by the complacency of some of his colleagues.

Crude attacks such as last week's broadcast punch the darkest and most livid bruise of Tory vulnerability: the perception that the party is a club representing the few rather than a movement for the whole nation. This has traditionally been a problem for Conservatives. But it has new resonance with the raw, jagged resentments of the post-crash world, and the global sense that, as I wrote last week, the secular religion of capitalism is in need of a Reformation.

Labour's new celebrity adviser, David Axelrod – who helped Barack Obama win two presidential elections – is in town this week. His long conversations with Miliband have been moored in this shared conviction that the crash changed politics fundamentally, and that victory belongs to those who address contemporary anxieties about the ability of globalised capitalism to spread prosperity, as well as to enrich a tiny oligarchy.

It is not enough to declare such fears economically illiterate and to slam Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom on the table. Indeed, this is a big part of the problem. The centre-Right has forgotten how to explain why capitalism serves people, rather than vice versa. Voters sense this impatience.

The new class politics is not about the class-consciousness of the proletariat. Frankly, it has more in common with the muttering of the tricoteuses beside the guillotine or the loathsome "spoiled monsters" of Truman Capote's Answered Prayers. It feeds on a hostility to the oligarchies – imaginary and real – that run the system and have been found wanting (bankers, expense-cheating politicians, sleazy journalists, corrupt coppers). And it is this toxic sentiment that Labour's broadcast ruthlessly fed upon.

Douglas Alexander and Spencer Livermore are running the party's campaign with greater acuity than has yet been appreciated. They know perfectly well that "going negative" is not remotely sufficient (though it is often necessary). Accordingly, this week's election broadcast is about the NHS, with footage of Miliband alongside the staff at Watford General Hospital, returning to terrain that (his allies admit) he has not quarried enough.

But there was method in the juvenile madness of last week's broadcast, too. Bashing Clegg is an essential part of the party's strategy for the local and European elections in 11 days' time and the main event next year. Labour believes it can win 14 seats from the Lib Dems in 2015 and has noticed that in 86 of its 87 Conservative-held target constituencies, the Lib Dem share of the vote four years ago was larger than the Tory majority. The destruction of Clegg may yet hand No 10 to Miliband.

But not without an almighty fight. Cameron walks tall beside his Labour opponent, with the stride of a prime minister, under the banner of a recovery that could yet deliver the Tories their most impressive comeback victory since Michael Foot, the SDP and Falklands-mania helped Margaret Thatcher win in 1983. If Cameron can keep his head when all about him are losing theirs two weeks hence – as Ukip celebrates its achievement in the European election – he can still win.

It is no accident that his aides have taken to quoting from "If ": Kipling warned of truth "twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools". Tories are good at deceiving themselves. Miliband is good at persuading Tories to underestimate him. Last week's broadcast was an attack on Clegg – but its principal impact at Westminster was to cheer up the Conservative Party. In politics, as in life, it is rarely safe to gloat. At this stage of a brutal battle just beginning, it is positively reckless.

Also this on why it may be serious come the Westminster elections:

QuoteEd Miliband is blundering about on a 'crutch' provided by disillusioned Lib Dem voters
So why did he think it was a good idea to attack Nick Clegg in an election broadcast last week?


As Ed Miliband and David Cameron hobble towards next year's general election, one is helped and the other held back. I owe this image to an internal briefing document for the BBC written by David Cowling, the corporation's polling expert, which is called "The Crutch and the Wound".

The crutch, in Cowling's analysis, is what Miliband is leaning on. It consists of those Liberal Democrat voters who defected to Labour when Nick Clegg went into coalition with the Tories. Miliband's hope of becoming PM depends on these new recruits staying loyal.

The wound, which is holding Cameron back, is another group of voters who have changed loyalty since the last election: those Tories who defected to Ukip. Cameron's hope of staying on as prime minister depends on the wound healing, or at least getting no worse.

Both leaders have struggled to deal with their disability. It was, possibly, a misunderstanding of the importance of his "crutch" that persuaded Miliband that last week's Labour election broadcast, attacking Clegg as the Un-credible Shrinking Man, was a good idea. Even if it had not been one of the worst political broadcasts I have seen, being rude to Clegg was never likely to be effective with Lib Dem defectors. As Cowling comments, their attitudes are "generally less harsh towards the Lib Dems" than those of other Labour voters. Why any responsible adult thought it was a sensible use of Labour's resources to aim fire at a party already ruined is beyond me.

Cameron, meanwhile, has tried different approaches towards Ukip. He has insulted it. He has tried appeasing its supporters with Eurosceptic poses. He has tried ignoring it. Now that Ukip seems poised to win the most votes in the European Parliament elections, he is trying to engage with it.

None of which has made much difference, and Cowling's analysis explains why. It looks at polling carried out in January by Michael Ashcroft, the Tory peer and truth-seeker. This tested the line that the Tories hoped would work for them, asking people if they agreed with the statement: "A vote for Ukip at the next general election makes the prospect of Ed Miliband becoming prime minister more likely."

This is a tactical consideration that Miliband understands. As we report on page 8, Labour is putting up a token effort in the Newark by-election hoping to help Ukip at the Tories' expense.

But half of Ukip voters disagreed with the statement in Ashcroft's poll. It is not a good start if half your target audience will not accept the premise of your questions. Even among the minority of Ukip supporters who agreed that a vote for Ukip would help Miliband, most said it wouldn't change how they would vote in the general election. As Cowling comments, "How on earth does Lynton Crosby put the fear of God into atheists?"

New research published last week by the British Election Study confirms this analysis. It casts doubt on the assumption, which I admit I shared, that a huge Ukip protest vote in the European election this month will fall to single figures (mostly in the Tories' favour) in next year's general election. People who intend to vote Ukip on 22 May are more likely to say they will vote the same way in the general election than Ukip voters were before the 2009 European election. Ukip won just 3 per cent of the vote in 2010, but, if the same relationship holds, Nigel Farage's party could win 14 per cent next year.

Ukip voters are like punks. They don't care. They don't care if their votes help Miliband because Cameron is just as bad. And they don't care if their votes fail to elect a single Ukip MP because they are simply voting against "the establishment". We know that Ukip is the anti-politics protest party, yet there is something strange about it, because the party depends to a remarkable extent on the personality of Farage.

Cameron must wonder sometimes about his would-be nemesis. Farage became Ukip leader the year after Cameron became Tory leader. The Ukip leader is the anti-Cameron, personifying the reaction to Tory modernisation. When Godfrey Bloom, the rogue ex-Ukip MEP, accused Farage last year of doing a secret deal with the Tories, I bet the Prime Minister half-wished he had. Imagine if he could have bought him off with a peerage a few years ago: suppose Ukip had been led by Tim Congdon, the economist Farage beat to return to the leadership after a one-year gap in 2010, or by Paul Nuttall, currently Farage's deputy.

However, I come back to a point I have made before. Despite his crutch, Miliband is only three points ahead in the opinion polls and, despite his wound, Cameron is only three points behind. And Ukip is on about 14 per cent, so if that is its share of the vote next May, it wouldn't make Cameron's position worse.

A three-point lead with a year to go is not enough for Labour: despite his open wound, Cameron can overtake.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
I don't think Thatcher was particularly noted for her fiscal responsibility, and socialism definitely isn't the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.

Yeah. If anything I think the 80s are seen as a wasted opportunity. We found gas in the North Sea and instead of using that finite gain to set up a national pension fund or hiving it off for something useful like that, Thatcher used it to reduce the deficit (without having to cut spending too much) and to fund tax cuts.

In retrospect a mistake.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2014, 09:11:26 PM
:lol:  In the same that Hitler, behind his semi-acceptable wars of conquest and genocide, hid some dangerous statist economic policies.

I think that's an unfair characterization of what Tyr said and Shelf posted about the "lack of racism and anti-semitism " being quite important.

I personally do think a significant part of their electoral base is immigrant focused as an issue and in private probably do espouse some racism. That doesn't make them nazis or at all likely to start pogroms against Blacks, Asians or muslims if they ever came to power.

Sheilbh, I suspect the UKIP will do very well in the European elections and then quite poorly (less than 10%) in the Westminster elections.

If the UK public is roughly split 50-50 on a euroskeptic opinion, the 50% anti has to be to a certain extent fired up to vote UKIP. Even the Tory voters. Why vote for a moderate and reasonable version of conservative into a body you vaguely want to leave when you can send a raving lunatic? The 50% pro--I have to think turnout will be less. Short of voting to send kamikazies into the EU parliament (ie, the UKIP), I don't see how anyone could be excited to vote in a European election.

That is totally different from a national election. Just as the lib dems faded to a very poor showing last time, I am sure the UKIP will fade as well, and Cameron has stolen a lot of their thunder by promising a referendum.

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2014, 12:01:18 PM

Quote from: Tyr on May 10, 2014, 09:06:36 PM
Yeah, that's the scary part about UKIP. It's not that they're racists, it's that they hide behind their populist sort of acceptable brand of anti-immigration pseudo-racism, some pretty disturbing Thatcherite policies. That's what common people need to be made aware of.

So having racist supporters and being intolerant in their campaigning is a-ok, as long as they mix that with socialism

To appeal to the kind of people they're targeting- yes.
Especially since it is these lesser policies that they're more likely to get through should they come into a bit of power

Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
Sheilbh, I suspect the UKIP will do very well in the European elections and then quite poorly (less than 10%) in the Westminster elections.

I'd be amazed if they got as much as 10%. But I think 6%, double last time and a couple of million votes, may not be enough to win them a single MP. But it could be enough to stop the Tories from winning which is why they matter.

While that's a risk the Tory instinct will be to tack right. The trouble is it's difficult to do that without losing centrist votes and, because of coalition, with actual policies. That reinforces the impression that it's just a lot of hot air (further strengthening UKIP) and makes the government look like they're bickering and in-fighting which again turns off centrist voters. I think all parties expect UKIP to win the Euro-elections so we probably won't see much panicking but depending on how badly the Tories or Lib Dems do either could have a bit of a nervous breakdown.

Because of our system, UKIP don't need to do that well to have a big impact. If there are more hard core UKIP voters than last time, which there probably certainly are and they aren't willing to vote tactically in marginal seats to keep Miliband out then that's a big problem for the Tories. I think it's possible we could end up with the Tories winning most votes, but Labour winning most seats.

QuoteI don't see how anyone could be excited to vote in a European election.

This is a shame as the results will determine the Commission President which is one of the most important figures in the EU, but you're right.

QuoteThat is totally different from a national election. Just as the lib dems faded to a very poor showing last time, I am sure the UKIP will fade as well, and Cameron has stolen a lot of their thunder by promising a referendum.

They lost seats, but gained votes and that poor showing was still one of their best ever. The Lib Dems are in a peacetime government for the first time (in a way) since the 20s. They didn't do as well as the polling said during the height of Cleggmania, but they've played a major part in breaking two-party politics in this country. In addition, to repeat, the Lib Dems are in government. They used to attract a lot of protest votes. That's more difficult when you're in a ministerial Jag.

It's striking that Farage says he's consciously modelling UKIP right now on the Lib Dems thirty years ago. Build your local party networks up through Euro and Council elections (they're on the same day). When there's a by-election swarm into the place so it's absolutely full of UKIP activists and then try and target seats cannily at a general election - for example the Lib Dems lost votes from 1992 to 1997 but more than doubled their seats because of tactical voting.

There's an upcoming by-election in Newark. The mainstream press were full of talk over whether Farage would run and he declined. They then spent the next few days saying that he'd wimped out and UKIP had peaked.  But Farage got to spend all that time saying he didn't think he'd run because he didn't have any connection with that area and basically that he didn't want to carpetbag. I think that message will have had far more traction than the 'he's bottled it' version. There's also rumours Labour are going to semi-deliberately lose in the hope of UKIP winning causing the Tories to go insane.

UKIP get most of their support from immigration, not Europe (I think even UKIP supporters only rank Europe as the third most important issue), and, according to the polls, their strong supporters (including ex-Tories) loathe Cameron. They don't see a difference between him or Miliband. They hate them all. As Rentoul says, it's an anti-politics party.

The UK's not that different from other Euro-countries which have seen a populist/anti-politics right emerge: our political class is hated (especially after expenses) the usual beneficiary (the Lib Dems) are in office, the opposition are uninspired and the ones who presided over the crash. They won't do well because of our voting system, but because of that they could tilt the balance.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2014, 05:52:30 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
I don't think Thatcher was particularly noted for her fiscal responsibility, and socialism definitely isn't the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.

Yeah. If anything I think the 80s are seen as a wasted opportunity. We found gas in the North Sea and instead of using that finite gain to set up a national pension fund or hiving it off for something useful like that, Thatcher used it to reduce the deficit (without having to cut spending too much) and to fund tax cuts.

In retrospect a mistake.

IDK man. Venezuela and Iran channelled the oil wealth to the poor in form of various subsidies. Much good it has done.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
That is totally different from a national election. Just as the lib dems faded to a very poor showing last time, I am sure the UKIP will fade as well, and Cameron has stolen a lot of their thunder by promising a referendum.

:yes:

I haven't decided whether or not to vote UKIP in the Euros (mentally it's surprisingly hard to make a change after so many decades of voting Tory) but Cameron's got my vote in the next General Election for two reasons.

(1) He's promised me what I want - a referendum (and despite the fact I like several of UKIP's policies towards Defence and the NHS etc. I'm one of the odd UKIP voters where Europe is the most important issue to me.)

and

(2) If I vote UKIP I risk letting Milliband in - and the thought of Labour being in charge again when still run by most of the people who literally pissed money up the wall during the Blair premiership is personally revolting to me.

Of course, if Cameron wins and then weasels out of his 2017 promise (presumably on the grounds of "I haven't got a deal I want to put to the vote" which seems the most likely outcome) then I don't know who I'll support in future.

----------

Sheilbh I'm not sure I entirely agree with you that our political class is hated; I think even before the expenses scandals broke that there was more of a sense of resignation concerning them. That's why the attack on Farage for employing his wife didn't work since it was simply what we expect of our current politicians ("employing a family member - so what? They all do it. Fiddling expenses? What's new?") It's also why I'm not convinced that the "protest vote" proportion of UKIP's support isn't a tad overstated.

I do think it'll be interesting to see what the turnout figures are for the next General Election; I've got the nasty feeling it'll be a record low.

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 04:06:03 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2014, 05:52:30 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
I don't think Thatcher was particularly noted for her fiscal responsibility, and socialism definitely isn't the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.

Yeah. If anything I think the 80s are seen as a wasted opportunity. We found gas in the North Sea and instead of using that finite gain to set up a national pension fund or hiving it off for something useful like that, Thatcher used it to reduce the deficit (without having to cut spending too much) and to fund tax cuts.

In retrospect a mistake.

IDK man. Venezuela and Iran channelled the oil wealth to the poor in form of various subsidies. Much good it has done.

At the time I thought it was fine; now I wish we'd diverted at least a proportion of it into a Norway style sovereign wealth fund. Some of it had to be used to cushion the effects of the various reforms of the Eighties but not all of it.

So I take I have until 2017 here then? A lot of you Brits seem to have serious doubts about the merits of not being closed off from Europe via tariff zones and the like. If the UKIP can gain such popularity on that issue alone, who knows how that referendum will go.

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 04:17:16 AM
So I take I have until 2017 here then? A lot of you Brits seem to have serious doubts about the merits of not being closed off from Europe via tariff zones and the like. If the UKIP can gain such popularity on that issue alone, who knows how that referendum will go.

Tamas, why are you so convinced that it automatically goes "UK votes out, I get kicked out"?

Do you think Hungarians are suddenly going to become "persona non grata"?

Are you uncertain that you would meet Visa requirements (assuming they are imposed, which is actually a fairly big if despite the rhetoric)?

Do you expect lynch mobs on the streets or something?

Immigration's such a big issue because the Labour government totally screwed the pooch in estimating how many people would come in - why do you assume that we're going to slam the doors completely shut in the face of immigrants if we leave the EU? Were our doors slammed shut before Free Movement of Labour was implemented?

Anyway, ignoring the above, a UK vote of "out" wouldn't shift our status within the EU immediately - any withdrawal would probably take months at the least; eligibility for naturalisation (if that's the way you want to go) is only five years.

Well who knows what kind of requirements you will have. Plus, what is the point of leaving if you just leave everything as it was? Not to mention that if the EU has any kind of survival instinct, they will impose tariffs and restrictions against the UK. Not out of spite, but to discourage other members from leaving.

By the way one would think that the administrative nightmare it would entail is reason enough to vote against leaving the EU.  :D

BTW, honest question: what is the UK economy doing that is going to just fly even better without the EU? I understand some of the EU idiocy may hurt the financial sector, but I can't imagine it hurting more than the ensuing uncertainty after a breakup with the Union.

Most anti-EU folk aren't anti-EU for logical economic reasons.

Was the expenses scandal that big of a deal? Seems like a rather small thing to turn against the political class, it's so small scale after all. Did you expect them to be saints before that? Aren't there more outrageous things around?

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 04:06:03 AMIDK man. Venezuela and Iran channelled the oil wealth to the poor in form of various subsidies. Much good it has done.

And Thatcher channelled hers into tax cuts for the rich.

Norway set up a sovereign wealth fund to help pay for pensions which now owns almost 2% of all European stocks.

I think in the case of new oil discoveries countries are advised to follow the Norwegian model, not use it to pay for domestic politics.

QuoteSo I take I have until 2017 here then? A lot of you Brits seem to have serious doubts about the merits of not being closed off from Europe via tariff zones and the like. If the UKIP can gain such popularity on that issue alone, who knows how that referendum will go.

I think the most likely result would be EU members who are already here would be granted indefinite leave to stay and we'd still offer visa free short-term stays etc.

The Eurosceptic argument is that it's not about being closed off from Europe but closed off from the rest of the world - as they put it being in the EU with the Eurozone is like being shackled to a corpse. Some of them want to abolish all British tariffs if we were to leave. Others, at the very least, expect us to try and get free trade deals with China and Brazil and the US.

QuoteBTW, honest question: what is the UK economy doing that is going to just fly even better without the EU? I understand some of the EU idiocy may hurt the financial sector, but I can't imagine it hurting more than the ensuing uncertainty after a breakup with the Union.

As I say the Eurosceptic view is that we'd be able to negotiate some sort of trade deal with the EU (they might try and punish us but I think it's unlikely), but also spend the time getting trade deals with the rest of the world and new deals on FDI which are broadly EU level since Lisbon. I think their view is that there's much potential in dealing more with emerging economies - like India and China - or with other developed economies the EU doesn't have a free trade deal with - like Australia or the US.

They're very liberal so they think abolishing lots of European legislation - like the working time directive, parts of health and safety laws, the law requiring 20% of energy be renewable by 2020 etc - would help boost the economy too. And they're mostly on the right so they'd probably also argue we should cut various business taxes.

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 06:15:27 AM
Was the expenses scandal that big of a deal? Seems like a rather small thing to turn against the political class, it's so small scale after all. Did you expect them to be saints before that? Aren't there more outrageous things around?

It wasn't small from a British perspective. But I think so. I mean a cabinet minister had to resign over it last month and David Cameron's generally not had that many resignations.

But the general mood politically seems pretty febrile to me. I think there's just a weird general collapse of trust in all sorts of institutions/the establishment. The banks had the crash, Parliament had expenses, the press had phone hacking, the BBC had Jimmy Savile. There seems to be a lot of anger out there, especially outside London.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 06:40:05 AM

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 04:06:03 AMIDK man. Venezuela and Iran channelled the oil wealth to the poor in form of various subsidies. Much good it has done.

And Thatcher channelled hers into tax cuts for the rich.

Norway set up a sovereign wealth fund to help pay for pensions which now owns almost 2% of all European stocks.

I think in the case of new oil discoveries countries are advised to follow the Norwegian model, not use it to pay for domestic politics.

QuoteSo I take I have until 2017 here then? A lot of you Brits seem to have serious doubts about the merits of not being closed off from Europe via tariff zones and the like. If the UKIP can gain such popularity on that issue alone, who knows how that referendum will go.

I think the most likely result would be EU members who are already here would be granted indefinite leave to stay and we'd still offer visa free short-term stays etc.

The Eurosceptic argument is that it's not about being closed off from Europe but closed off from the rest of the world - as they put it being in the EU with the Eurozone is like being shackled to a corpse. Some of them want to abolish all British tariffs if we were to leave. Others, at the very least, expect us to try and get free trade deals with China and Brazil and the US.

QuoteBTW, honest question: what is the UK economy doing that is going to just fly even better without the EU? I understand some of the EU idiocy may hurt the financial sector, but I can't imagine it hurting more than the ensuing uncertainty after a breakup with the Union.

As I say the Eurosceptic view is that we'd be able to negotiate some sort of trade deal with the EU (they might try and punish us but I think it's unlikely), but also spend the time getting trade deals with the rest of the world and new deals on FDI which are broadly EU level since Lisbon. I think their view is that there's much potential in dealing more with emerging economies - like India and China - or with other developed economies the EU doesn't have a free trade deal with - like Australia or the US.

They're very liberal so they think abolishing lots of European legislation - like the working time directive, parts of health and safety laws, the law requiring 20% of energy be renewable by 2020 etc - would help boost the economy too. And they're mostly on the right so they'd probably also argue we should cut various business taxes.

Little Englanders who want to make us like Big Corporate America ?

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 06:45:39 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 06:15:27 AM
Was the expenses scandal that big of a deal? Seems like a rather small thing to turn against the political class, it's so small scale after all. Did you expect them to be saints before that? Aren't there more outrageous things around?

It wasn't small from a British perspective. But I think so. I mean a cabinet minister had to resign over it last month and David Cameron's generally not had that many resignations.

But the general mood politically seems pretty febrile to me. I think there's just a weird general collapse of trust in all sorts of institutions/the establishment. The banks had the crash, Parliament had expenses, the press had phone hacking, the BBC had Jimmy Savile. There seems to be a lot of anger out there, especially outside London.

I'd have guessed that big finance would have been more hurt by their rate fixing scandals. They must have paid billions in fines at this point. Compared to that a MP claiming a few hundred or thousand quid for a duck house is peanuts.

How is punitive action against the UK from the EU in case of the UK leaving is unlikely?

No punishment would mean the UK getting all the good stuff the EU offers (free trade and free roam of skilled workforce) without having to sacrifice anything. Who would not leave the EU then but the poorest who still receive grants? (and then they wouldn't as nobody would stay but them).

I think Sheilbh you underestimate the Europe-rattling consequences of the Brits pulling a Cartman.

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 06:51:35 AM
I'd have guessed that big finance would have been more hurt by their rate fixing scandals. They must have paid billions in fines at this point. Compared to that a MP claiming a few hundred or thousand quid for a duck house is peanuts.

Rate fixing's complicated and doesn't have a direct effect on people's lives. The actual crash and, I think, mis-selling of PPI to normal consumers had a bigger effect on how finance is perceived. Rate fixing just became another example of what they're all up to.

Also the duck house is just a nice detail. Most of the stuff that annoys people was with MPs shifting the designation of their 'main home' from London to their constituency to pay off their mortgage, cover their tax bill and renovate the place. This country's obsessed with property so it was almost designed to grab attention and cause outrage :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:02:00 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 06:51:35 AM
I'd have guessed that big finance would have been more hurt by their rate fixing scandals. They must have paid billions in fines at this point. Compared to that a MP claiming a few hundred or thousand quid for a duck house is peanuts.

Rate fixing's complicated and doesn't have a direct effect on people's lives. The actual crash and, I think, mis-selling of PPI to normal consumers had a bigger effect on how finance is perceived. Rate fixing just became another example of what they're all up to.

Also the duck house is just a nice detail. Most of the stuff that annoys people was with MPs shifting the designation of their 'main home' from London to their constituency to pay off their mortgage, cover their tax bill and renovate the place. This country's obsessed with property so it was almost designed to grab attention and cause outrage :lol:

So you're saying Brits are a bunch of petty small minded provincial Daily Mail reading cheapstakes?  :P

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 07:01:54 AM
How is punitive action against the UK from the EU in case of the UK leaving is unlikely?

Because Europe's rational. The UK's the third largest export market for Germany and France, it's even more important for Ireland and the Low Countries. They might choose to have punitive action but I think it's unlikely, especially if the UK's pragmatic in negotiations as we leave and because there's still relations we have I don't think we'd suddenly stop our military deals with the French for example.

QuoteNo punishment would mean the UK getting all the good stuff the EU offers (free trade and free roam of skilled workforce) without having to sacrifice anything. Who would not leave the EU then but the poorest who still receive grants? (and then they wouldn't as nobody would stay but them).

Well I think the EU means a lot more to most European countries than to the UK. The sacrifices countries are willing to endure to stay in the Euro are, to my eyes, incredible and ridiculous. But I think that's partly because it's tied up in their identity, there's an ideological belief in Europe that just doesn't exist in the UK.

But you're right there'd be compromises. I don't think the UK would be in the single market, or have a deal on agriculture, or have (or want) free movement of labour.

But my view is it's in neither sides' interest to have the UK in the same position as Russia in terms of economic relations so both sides would be reasonably pragmatic and reasonable in negotiations to avoid it.

IDK... After such a precedence of carefully painless separation from EU burdens while maintaining most of the achieved benefits would look pretty sweet for countries like Spain or Italy, would it not?

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:05:10 AM
So you're saying Brits are a bunch of petty small minded provincial Daily Mail reading cheapstakes?  :P

Maybe :P

I think it's entirely right to be outraged by the whole expenses scandal even if it wasn't much money. I think in total 6 MPs and Lords have been jailed for false accounting and theft over their expenses.

We're a country with almost Scandinavian levels of corruption, but according to polls Italian levels of suspicion and belief in corruption. Which isn't sustainable and makes for explosive overreaction when actual corruption is uncovered :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:19:14 AM

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:05:10 AM
So you're saying Brits are a bunch of petty small minded provincial Daily Mail reading cheapstakes?  :P

Maybe :P

I think it's entirely right to be outraged by the whole expenses scandal even if it wasn't much money. I think in total 6 MPs and Lords have been jailed for false accounting and theft over their expenses.

We're a country with almost Scandinavian levels of corruption, but according to polls Italian levels of suspicion and belief in corruption. Which isn't sustainable and makes for explosive overreaction when actual corruption is uncovered :lol:

Ok, I need to add paranoid to the list of adjectives for Brits.  :lol:

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 07:16:42 AM
IDK... After such a precedence of carefully painless separation from EU burdens while maintaining most of the achieved benefits would look pretty sweet for countries like Spain or Italy, would it not?

There would be pain though. I think we'd almost certainly have a recession and would lose trade in Europe. But I don't think the EU or the UK government would be going out of their way to make it any worse than it had to be. The question is whether the long-term justifies that.

I don't think most countries would want out because they believe in Europe in a way that Britain never has - it's always been about an economic cost/benefit for us rather than a project we're committed to. Maybe for that reason we shouldn't have been let in. I think at worst Scandinavia and maybe even the Dutch would have a rethink. Allowing Britain to renegotiate, a la Cameron, would perhaps be a worse precedent (but then I think that's partly because Cameron's framed it in a very stupid way).

Personally I think Spain (expected to return to the 2007 peak by 2029) and Italy (2020) would both be far better off if they left the Euro. I think Europe as a whole needs a euroscepticism of the left because the social damage that's being done in the name of Europe is awful.

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:21:38 AM
Ok, I need to add paranoid to the list of adjectives for Brits.  :lol:

:lol:

But the sad thing is it turned out to be true. MPs were on the take. Journos were scum. The bankers were spivs with long words. Whenever there's a controversy the Met version will normally last a week at most before being discredited. The BBC and Savile story is just awful in all ways - and, allegedly, Rolf Harris too!

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:25:20 AMPersonally I think Spain (expected to return to the 2007 peak by 2029) and Italy (2020) would both be far better off if they left the Euro. I think Europe as a whole needs a euroscepticism of the left because the social damage that's being done in the name of Europe is awful.

There's no way in hell we're leaving the Euro, the moment we do that is the moment everybody's savings get wiped out by rampant inflation.

That said, there is euroskepticism on the left, more of it the more extreme it gets, it's not as if everybody is on board over here after the last few years. The "We want a Europe for the people, not for the markets" has been parroted more and more. Then again, I think that lefties are more into working to reform the EU than outright abandoning it. We direct our knee jerk anger at Merkel, not at the EU.  :P

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:31:46 AMThat said, there is euroskepticism on the left, more of it the more extreme it gets, it's not as if everybody is on board over here after the last few years. The "We want a Europe for the people, not for the markets" has been parroted more and more. Then again, I think that lefties are more into working to reform the EU than outright abandoning it. We direct our knee jerk anger at Merkel, not at the EU.  :P

Fair :P

There's euroscepticism on the far left - in the UK the Greens are very anti-EU and Tony Benn fumed about it. But I'm surprised more hasn't happened given the consequences from Euro-policy - cutting the welfare state, emigrating youth etc. I was thinking of this piece, which I totally agreed with:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/left-progressive-euroscepticism-eu-ills

I still find it somewhat strange that the economic 'winners' of the EU and the Eurozone are the ones more likely to have anti-EU parties. I thought this from Yougovs European Parliament poll was interesting:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnbbkqECcAACJgY.png:large)

They don't want brown pipple inmigrating there looking for better economic opportunities.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:25:20 AM
[I don't think most countries would want out because they believe in Europe in a way that Britain never has - it's always been about an economic cost/benefit for us rather than a project we're committed to. Maybe for that reason we shouldn't have been let in.

In 1971, was it really the project it turned out to be? I mean, there were only six member countries when we applied - the real driving force behind modern Euroscepticisim/phobia is freedom to migrate combined with a huge expansion of the EU

Are there any statistics hinting at migration becoming a burden for UK, or it is just a fear of too much third worlders getting in?

It seems intuitively obvious that migration (for all its benefits) exacerbates housing shortages and represses wage growth. It's interesting that the narrative on the anti-immigrant side has moved away from benefit scroungers/bogus asylum seekers from the 3rd world to competition for jobs and houses from Eastern Europeans.

I can perhaps see the argument against immigration as far as low grade jobs are concerned (in a depressed economy anyway). But housing? That just seems utterly wrong to me. The only way the housing shortage could be related to immigration is welathy foreign land holders.

Also the EU is actually very little to do with immigration in the UK, the net migration numbers from the EU are a fraction of the non-EU numbers. I guess the EU just makes for an easier target.

I predict the UK will still be an EU member in 2023 - celebrating half a century of EU membership.  :bowler:

Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
I can perhaps see the argument against immigration as far as low grade jobs are concerned (in a depressed economy anyway). But housing? That just seems utterly wrong to me. The only way the housing shortage could be related to immigration is welathy foreign land holders.

Isn't it obvious that fewer people and the same number of houses means a less severe housing shortage?

QuoteAlso the EU is actually very little to do with immigration in the UK, the net migration numbers from the EU are a fraction of the non-EU numbers. I guess the EU just makes for an easier target.

That's just not true. The majority of migrants are from the EU (298K v 244K). And while the numbers of  non-EU numbers are declining those of  EU migrants are rising fast Here's the last ONS summary


•There was an estimated net flow of 212,000 long-term migrants to the UK in the year ending September 2013, a statistically significant increase from 154,000 in the previous year.
•532,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending September 2013, not a statistically significant difference from 497,000 the previous year. 60,000 more EU citizens and 25,000 fewer non-EU citizens immigrated to the UK than the previous year.
•320,000 emigrants left the UK in the year ending September 2013. This is not a statistically significant difference from the 343,000 in the previous year. 12,000 fewer British citizens, 6,000 fewer EU citizens and 5,000 fewer non-EU citizens emigrated.
•209,000 EU citizens immigrated in the year ending September 2013, a statistically significant increase from 149,000 the previous year. 40,000 more EU citizens arrived for work than the previous year, another statistically significant increase.
•65,000 EU15 citizens arrived to work in the year ending September 2013 - a statistically significant increase of 23,000 compared to the previous year.
•National Insurance number registrations to adult overseas nationals entering the UK increased by 19% to 617,000 in the year ending December 2013. Highest increases were for citizens of Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
•There was a statistically significant increase in immigration of EU2 (Romanian and Bulgarian) citizens to 24,000 in the year ending September 2013 from 9,000 in the previous year. An estimated 70% arrived for work and 30% for study.
•Immigration of non-EU citizens saw a statistically significant decrease to 244,000 in the year ending September 2013 from 269,000 the previous year. This is due to fewer New Commonwealth citizens migrating to the UK for formal study.
•In 2013 there were increases in grants of work visas (+9,750, including + 4,777 short term skilled workers) and of study visas (+9,024, with increased applications for the university sector). There was also a fall in family visas granted (-7,202).
•There was an 8% increase in asylum applications in 2013 (23,507) compared with 2012 (21,843), although well below the 2002 level (84,132). The increase in 2013 was particularly driven by rises from Syria (+681), Eritrea (+649) and Albania (+507).

Quote from: Gups on May 12, 2014, 08:54:11 AM
Isn't it obvious that fewer people and the same number of houses means a less severe housing shortage?

Not to a significant degree no.  For people who have money houses can always be built and bought.
Far more pressing an issue is the government selling off all of its stock and leaving it entirely up to the private sector to build more (whilst keeping in place planning restrictions that stop many flats being made).

Quote

That's just not true. The majority of migrants are from the EU (298K v 244K). And while the numbers of  non-EU numbers are declining those of  EU migrants are rising fast Here's the last ONS summary

According to the last ONS figures for year end September 2013 the EU had +131,000. Non-EU +141,000.
And those numbers are the closest they come. In previous stastistical years the gap is much bigger.

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 04:17:16 AM
So I take I have until 2017 here then? A lot of you Brits seem to have serious doubts about the merits of not being closed off from Europe via tariff zones and the like. If the UKIP can gain such popularity on that issue alone, who knows how that referendum will go.

The UKIP looks towards Norway and Iceland, don't they? Norway isn't an EU member, but a signatory to the Schengen agreement.
Shows how much those cocktards know.

Norway and Iceland also both have freedom of movement for workers, so that can't be the model for UKIP. More like what Switzerland now needs to negotiate with the EU following their recent referendum on abolishing freedom of movement for workers.

I'm kind of surprised that anyone would find it strange that Tamas is edgy about the rise of the "throw out the immigrants" party.

Quote from: Gups on May 12, 2014, 08:31:04 AMIt's interesting that the narrative on the anti-immigrant side has moved away from benefit scroungers/bogus asylum seekers from the 3rd world to competition for jobs and houses from Eastern Europeans.

Isn't it basically the standard "be annoyed at whatever is the most recent and visible group of immigrants and use 'common sense' to connect them to some issue that bothers people" approach? And it's just that East Europeans are the most recently visible group of immigrants, and the 'scrounger' narrative clearly doesn't fit, so they have to find some other "logical" reason to wrap up their antipathy in?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2014, 12:34:12 PM
I'm kind of surprised that anyone would find it strange that Tamas is edgy about the rise of the "throw out the immigrants" party.

I've noticed that their rise has coincided with Tamas' arrival in the country.  :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2014, 12:36:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2014, 12:34:12 PM
I'm kind of surprised that anyone would find it strange that Tamas is edgy about the rise of the "throw out the immigrants" party.

I've noticed that their rise has coincided with Tamas' arrival in the country.  :hmm:

It is kind of interesting to see Tamas' grappling with the political and philosophical implications of his new existence. Liberal cosmopolitanism is, of course, the outlook tailor made to his new situation, but it is antithetical to his beliefs and political inclination. It'll be interesting to see how he solves the contradiction.

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 12:41:47 PM
It is kind of interesting to see Tamas' grappling with the political and philosophical implications of his new existence. Liberal cosmopolitanism is, of course, the outlook tailor made to his new situation, but it is antithetical to his beliefs and political inclination. It'll be interesting to see how he solves the contradiction.

I don't know...Even back when I used to post under Dorsey and was one of the more conservative members of the forum, I was rather hard line pro immigration. I haven't seen any evidence that Tamas was ever against immigration, and I don't think that is incompatible with a conservative worldview.

I suspect there are many people with such a viewpoint among the Tories.

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 12:35:06 PM

Quote from: Gups on May 12, 2014, 08:31:04 AMIt's interesting that the narrative on the anti-immigrant side has moved away from benefit scroungers/bogus asylum seekers from the 3rd world to competition for jobs and houses from Eastern Europeans.

Isn't it basically the standard "be annoyed at whatever is the most recent and visible group of immigrants and use 'common sense' to connect them to some issue that bothers people" approach? And it's just that East Europeans are the most recently visible group of immigrants, and the 'scrounger' narrative clearly doesn't fit, so they have to find some other "logical" reason to wrap up their antipathy in?

Sure but the key point is that the Government could do something or say they would do something about asylum seekers and benefit scroungers 9if they really existed). Thye can't do anything about free movement of labour within the EU.

And that's why they are getting stuffed by UKIP. The latter has a simple message which (like it or not) resonates with a significant portion of the electorate. And the Tories and Labour have no response, at all.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2014, 12:51:31 PM
I don't know...Even back when I used to post under Dorsey and was one of the more conservative members of the forum, I was rather hard line pro immigration. I haven't seen any evidence that Tamas was ever against immigration, and I don't think that is incompatible with a conservative worldview.

I suspect there are many people with such a viewpoint among the Tories.

I didn't mean to imply the Tamas was anti-immigration in any shape or form; it was a more general observation.

Why would he need to alter his outlook? Hardcore libertarianism and open borders policies go hand in hand.

Quote from: Gups on May 12, 2014, 12:54:08 PM
Sure but the key point is that the Government could do something or say they would do something about asylum seekers and benefit scroungers 9if they really existed). Thye can't do anything about free movement of labour within the EU.

And that's why they are getting stuffed by UKIP. The latter has a simple message which (like it or not) resonates with a significant portion of the electorate. And the Tories and Labour have no response, at all.

Fair point. That's how it played out in Denmark with the Danish People's Party.

Well, what response would be possible?

The Progress Party went to the 2013 elections promising to throw out every gypsy beggar. Then they found out that there are treaties and stuff.

The electorate will eat up any sort of suggestion.
I hope the UKIP, the NF and the Progress Party all end up in a huge fucking plane crash with the GOP.

Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2014, 02:40:27 PM
with the GOP.

:angry:

That would have to be a pretty big plane. Or alternately, many planes hitting each other; possibly over a convention centre.

:(

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
That would have to be a pretty big plane. Or alternately, many planes hitting each other; possibly over a convention centre.

I expect the NSA to print this thread soon.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2014, 01:09:54 PM
Why would he need to alter his outlook? Hardcore libertarianism and open borders policies go hand in hand.

A place like London could not come into existence or continue to function within a hardcore libertarian framework.

Like I said, I wasn't speaking about immigration but more generally. And in general, when someone moves from the place where they developed their political framework to somewhere else with very different but still relatable politics, culture, and general social expectations, to a place where they are a minority rather than part of the majority, that usually results in a slow but measurable change in their outlook.

I don't expect Tamas to come around to looking at things my way at all, but I do expect his views on things will evolve differently over the next few years compared to how they'd have changed had he stayed in Hungary.

Quote from: Zanza on May 12, 2014, 08:40:37 AM
I predict the UK will still be an EU member in 2023 - celebrating half a century of EU membership.  :bowler:

...while still whining about it.  :bowler:

Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 02:49:40 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
That would have to be a pretty big plane. Or alternately, many planes hitting each other; possibly over a convention centre.

I expect the NSA to print this thread soon.

For anyone reading this thread -  Garbon did it

Did what? The Charleston?

Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2014, 03:37:35 PM
Did what? The Charleston?

I wish. :(

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 03:14:26 PM
A place like London could not come into existence or continue to function within a hardcore libertarian framework.

Probably not, but neither could Budapest. London was definitely built on capitalism though.

I don't want to sound too combative; I'm sure Tamas's views will change in some manner. I just wanted to note that he seems like he'd feel more at home now, at least so far as political views go. Possibly even moreso if he were to come to America.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-bnp-has-attacked-ukip-for-being-racist

QuoteUKIP's immigration policy discriminates against white Europeans, whereas our immigration policy is non-discriminatory. We don't pick on white people from Europe: we don't care where you come from, black or Asian or white, we don't want you. We think that is a non-racist position.

QuoteAre there any statistics hinting at migration becoming a burden for UK, or it is just a fear of too much third worlders getting in?

We could do with more 3rd worlders. This may be my lack of European identity but I don't like that we're tightening the rules and making it more difficult on the rest of the world to get student, work, business or whatever other visas while there's free movement for anyone who happened to be born in the EU.

I'm pro-immigration but I think a consequence of free movement, for the UK, is a far less open and welcoming system for the rest of the world which I don't really think is worth it.

QuoteIn 1971, was it really the project it turned out to be? I mean, there were only six member countries when we applied - the real driving force behind modern Euroscepticisim/phobia is freedom to migrate combined with a huge expansion of the EU

True. But the free movement of labour and ever closer union were already in the Treaty of Rome. It was clear then that for EEC countries this was a political project which it never was for most British politicians and people. Though obviously it was for some - Jenkins, MacMillan, Heath and Blair were true Europeans.

It is mad that when 10 new countries with 75 million people would join and we were the only big country to immediately apply free movement (with Sweden and Ireland I think) the government really thought that only about 50 000 people would migrate here :lol:

Edit: Also:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/support-labour-drops-tories-lead-guardian-icm-poll

QuoteICM also asked more specifically about voting intentions for next week's European elections. With only 37% of electors suggesting they are certain to cast their ballot, such projections inescapably depend on fewer respondents than those for Westminster.

Even so, the news is again encouraging for the Conservatives, and worrying for Labour.

The Tories are up two on April, which puts them on 27%, and in a virtual dead heat with Ukip, which has bounced up four in the European stakes to stand at 26%. Labour sinks by 12 points on April, to 24%, with appreciable proportions of the party's 2010 votes moving to Ukip and the Greens.

Together with Lib Dem defectors –Clegg's party languishes on 7% – this helps push the Greens up four and into a clear fourth place, on 10%. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists are on 2% each, and assorted independents and others notch up 3%.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 05:53:36 PM
We could do with more 3rd worlders. This may be my lack of European identity but I don't like that we're tightening the rules and making it more difficult on the rest of the world to get student, work, business or whatever other visas while there's free movement for anyone who happened to be born in the EU.

I'm pro-immigration but I think a consequence of free movement, for the UK, is a far less open and welcoming system for the rest of the world which I don't really think is worth it.

And once again I concur with your position nearly 100%.

You know, a few years ago I didn't think we'd be in agreement anywhere near as much concerning politics.

It is alarming.

Nationalise AstraZeneca!

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 05:53:36 PM
Edit: Also:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/support-labour-drops-tories-lead-guardian-icm-poll

QuoteICM also asked more specifically about voting intentions for next week's European elections. With only 37% of electors suggesting they are certain to cast their ballot, such projections inescapably depend on fewer respondents than those for Westminster.

Even so, the news is again encouraging for the Conservatives, and worrying for Labour.

The Tories are up two on April, which puts them on 27%, and in a virtual dead heat with Ukip, which has bounced up four in the European stakes to stand at 26%. Labour sinks by 12 points on April, to 24%, with appreciable proportions of the party's 2010 votes moving to Ukip and the Greens.

Together with Lib Dem defectors –Clegg's party languishes on 7% – this helps push the Greens up four and into a clear fourth place, on 10%. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists are on 2% each, and assorted independents and others notch up 3%.

Fascinating.

Digging in to that article it does seem that Farage may have been more damaged by the recent "scandals" than I had thought - but only among people who weren't going to vote UKIP anyway. Still, it may have shored up the main parties support a little even if UKIP have climbed in the polls.

Why would be being more open to EU citizens moving to the UK mean being less open to people from 3rd countries?  :huh: It's not a zero sum game.

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:19:34 PM
Why would be being more open to EU citizens moving to the UK mean being less open to people from 3rd countries?  :huh: It's not a zero sum game.

Presumably they aren't just opening the floodgates. Like how it is harder to say...get a job in the UK if you aren't a UK citizen or EU citizen as they have priority.

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:19:34 PM
Why would be being more open to EU citizens moving to the UK mean being less open to people from 3rd countries?  :huh: It's not a zero sum game.

Of course it is. Unless a country has totally open borders there's always going to be a limit according to whatever their immigration policy is and other factors like culture, language and economy. If there's a large population with the right to move somewhere then as that increases as a proportion of immigration chances are the number of other visas being issued will reduced.

So here, opposition to immigration has been increasing since the 90s and the government has taken action to reduce it. It can't do anything about European migrants so the only thing they can do is clamp down on all other types of legal immigration. Which leads to the perverse situation of the Home Office boasting how much tougher they've made it to get a student visa and the Business Office pleading for more student visas to be issued. Meanwhile despite that really negative action immigration can still actually increase (as happened significantly this year) reinforcing the popular impression that the government doesn't have control over it.

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 03:14:26 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2014, 01:09:54 PM
Why would he need to alter his outlook? Hardcore libertarianism and open borders policies go hand in hand.

A place like London could not come into existence or continue to function within a hardcore libertarian framework.

Like I said, I wasn't speaking about immigration but more generally. And in general, when someone moves from the place where they developed their political framework to somewhere else with very different but still relatable politics, culture, and general social expectations, to a place where they are a minority rather than part of the majority, that usually results in a slow but measurable change in their outlook.

I don't expect Tamas to come around to looking at things my way at all, but I do expect his views on things will evolve differently over the next few years compared to how they'd have changed had he stayed in Hungary.

Wasn't London a constantly growing metropolis well before governments started hand-stearing everything?  :huh:

At any rate, while my position is usually on the extreme of course, I am actually encountering the views and opinions of pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship attitude here. Which are of course still not necessarily close to libertarianism, but it is a marked difference from the accross-the-board socialist and anti-individualist Hungarian climate. Even if this country has raised communists like Tyr :P

Now of course one change is obvious: I was eager to jump ship from the sinking failed welfare state of Hungary. I have much more tolerance for a not (yet?) sinking welfare state like the UK :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:41:27 PMSo here, opposition to immigration has been increasing since the 90s and the government has taken action to reduce it.

Government could have also ignored opositors to inmigration for being close minded bastards, or at least tried to educate society on the benefits it gave. It wasn't forced to reduce it.

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 07:44:02 PM

Wasn't London a constantly growing metropolis well before governments started hand-stearing everything?  :huh:

At any rate, while my position is usually on the extreme of course, I am actually encountering the views and opinions of pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship attitude here. Which are of course still not necessarily close to libertarianism, but it is a marked difference from the accross-the-board socialist and anti-individualist Hungarian climate. Even if this country has raised communists like Tyr :P

Now of course one change is obvious: I was eager to jump ship from the sinking failed welfare state of Hungary. I have much more tolerance for a not (yet?) sinking welfare state like the UK :P

I don't think there is a city recorded where London is now before the Romans built one.  Can't think of anything more "Hand-Steered" as a town built by government fiat.

Quote from: Tamas on May 12, 2014, 07:44:02 PM
Wasn't London a constantly growing metropolis well before governments started hand-stearing everything?  :huh:

Ish. Historically it peaked in the 30s. Then the government started hand-steering everything. In between London was bombed to shit for several years.

So part of the hand-steering was to build a better London, the Germans having conveniently destroyed many slums, government started to destroy/improve the rest. Also the government decided to build new towns - I'm sure there's a few near you - and suburbs and a few dreadful housing estates that are now mostly being demolished/fetishised by middle class aesthetes willing to pay £400 000 for a flat in Trellick Tower.

London's population kept declining through the boom Thatcherite years except for a few exceptional areas. It's now peaked again. It's been growing since the 90s, but especially since London got a Mayor and a lot of government money sloshing around on things like public transport and the arts which make it an attractive place to live.

Edit: Actually apparently we're near the 1930s peak, but not quite there yet.

I dread to think how much worse London would be if the government hadn't started taking a bit of interest, setup the green belts, etc...
It truly would be a cyberpunkesque mega city. Tokyos negative sides amped up to the nth degree.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2014, 01:09:54 PM
Why would he need to alter his outlook? Hardcore libertarianism and open borders policies go hand in hand.

Only with no welfare state. Otherwise immigration should be banned.

Unless you bill the originating country for the expenses incurred.

A lot of welfare in Germany is (or was? haven't followed the developments of last 15 years too closely) paid for by the states. If a person moved from state A to state B and required welfare in his new place within 6 months (I think), then the bill went to his state of origin.

Slightly related, a major Hungarian online news sites has got a recording from last year from Jobbik's then-treasurer being royally pissed off at the workings of the far-right EU party-alliance in general and the leader of the British National Party in general, as the party finances were apparently a total mess and the BNP guy had "wanted me to help him steal money" as he put it, also complaining how everyone in his family and their dog had fake jobs in the alliance, and how he shipped his family everywhere he went, on EU-party money, and so on.

Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2014, 03:46:28 AM
Unless you bill the originating country for the expenses incurred.

A lot of welfare in Germany is (or was? haven't followed the developments of last 15 years too closely) paid for by the states. If a person moved from state A to state B and required welfare in his new place within 6 months (I think), then the bill went to his state of origin.

That would be lovely on a European level.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:41:27 PM

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:19:34 PM
Why would be being more open to EU citizens moving to the UK mean being less open to people from 3rd countries?  :huh: It's not a zero sum game.

Which leads to the perverse situation of the Home Office boasting how much tougher they've made it to get a student visa and the Business Office pleading for more student visas to be issued.

How is clamping down on non-work visas being of any help here?  :huh:

There were a number of bogus institutes securing student visas for immigrants who had no intention of studying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26024375


Of course, babies were thrown out with bathwater.

Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2014, 04:21:39 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2014, 03:46:28 AM
Unless you bill the originating country for the expenses incurred.

A lot of welfare in Germany is (or was? haven't followed the developments of last 15 years too closely) paid for by the states. If a person moved from state A to state B and required welfare in his new place within 6 months (I think), then the bill went to his state of origin.

That would be lovely on a European level.

That is already done, at least for health related expenses. Spain bills Britain and Germany lots of money each year for all the retirees that live here.

Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 04:39:08 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2014, 07:41:27 PM

Quote from: The Larch on May 12, 2014, 07:19:34 PM
Why would be being more open to EU citizens moving to the UK mean being less open to people from 3rd countries?  :huh: It's not a zero sum game.

Which leads to the perverse situation of the Home Office boasting how much tougher they've made it to get a student visa and the Business Office pleading for more student visas to be issued.

How is clamping down on non-work visas being of any help here?  :huh:

Apart from the fraud issue it's also an easy target - it reduces the headline figures so it looks like your doing something to the general public while not actually having to make much effort (or be forced to admit that in the current circumstances you can't do very much about the level of immigration anyway.)

It's no different in form to the way Labour tackled anti-poverty targets by mainly fiddling with the tax system to lift those who were closest to the poverty line above it rather than by tackling the issues of those in genuine poverty (note: this is the opinion of an accountant in my family.)

Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2014, 04:21:39 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2014, 03:46:28 AM
Unless you bill the originating country for the expenses incurred.

A lot of welfare in Germany is (or was? haven't followed the developments of last 15 years too closely) paid for by the states. If a person moved from state A to state B and required welfare in his new place within 6 months (I think), then the bill went to his state of origin.

That would be lovely on a European level.

Austria does it differently. In 2006 they changed their law, so that if you don't have the means to support yourself, you have to leave after three months, even if you're a EU citizen. Not sure how tightly this is enforced in practice, though, or how much you can drag out that deadline. A bigger focus in recent years here has been tightening the rules for family members of currently resident non-EU foreigners moving to Austria (mandatory German courses, for example).

I really hate the current UK government's immigration policy. They're determined to reduce immigrant numbers at all costs, so they can proudly proclaim to be tough on immigration....but all they're doing is making it a complete pain for those with valid reasons to move to the UK.
I recall an article a few months ago about a British woman married to a Japanese guy but they couldn't move to the UK since he was the main wage earner (and he earned a lot) and the laws required the British person to earn a certain amount. It was just silly.
They've also recently disallowed the TOEIC test as proof of English skills after they found out some people taking the test online were faking it- except woops, TOEIC is the standard go-to test for East Asians wanting to prove their English skills. I know one guy who has been working to build up his score for years so he can get a job in the UK.

QuoteAustria does it differently. In 2006 they changed their law, so that if you don't have the means to support yourself, you have to leave after three months, even if you're a EU citizen. Not sure how tightly this is enforced in practice, though, or how much you can drag out that deadline. A bigger focus in recent years here has been tightening the rules for family members of currently resident non-EU foreigners moving to Austria (mandatory German courses, for example).

I'm pretty sure when I lived in Sweden that I officially had to register and prove I had the money to support myself in order to stay there for over 3 months, I recall one or two European students did this....I never bothered to do that though. There would have been no point in the authorities nabbing me as I could legally re-enter right after being deported anyway.
Is it not the same in Austria?
Somewhat brings to mind the deportation merry-go-round scam that some Romanians had going in France IIRC.

Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2014, 07:23:53 AMIs it not the same in Austria?

I honestly don't know, as I've not heard of any such case.

And that's how Danes encourage young voters to vote in the EU Parliament elections.  :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25I3qM26J9M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25I3qM26J9M)