Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kettle, Jun 14, 2004.
Looks like we'll be hearing a lot more on Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Yay...morons in UK politics too...from what I know of Kilroy, he has made xenophobic comments about Arabs, immigrants and Irish(!)...had a son convicted of fraud, had a love-child when he was an MP prior to his inane BBC show...now is a MEP for the UKIP, who want to pull the UK out of the EU...any brits care to fill in the (many) blanks for me? The Tories must be hating this, as they are bound to lose more than Labour out of these developments...
His support will die out soon enough when the 'people' that voted him in realise his policies amount to nothing more than attention-seeking bigotry.
Still, at least the turn-out was up, which can only be good for democracy.... I think.
I think the UKIP party will prove themselves to be a total waste of space. What I wonder is how this party intends to conduct themselves in Brussels. They want us out of Europe so are they even going to go? And if they do what will their stance be? Vote against everything?
Kilroy seems to be perma-tan orange. Either it's fake or he spends a lot of time in Europe!
He also has that Rasputin-like glare that for some reason doesn't fill me with faith as to his motives.
I suppose I was foolish to expect someone to explain the existence of UKIP using reasoning based around the idea of the British Isles being ruled by Britain. I also suppose that's exactly why a ONE policy party has made such an impact on British politics.
Wondering if anyone wants to discuss this policy using clearer logic than so far in this thread or in fact anywhere in the world media.
What are people afraid of, worried that the U.K. will give the "Wrong" answer?
I think Britain may want to be ruled by Britain regardless of left right politics. I think people require a smaller, less prone to corruption political chess board, and I think this desire crosses all political groups.
I'm not sure I see the long-term viability of the EU. It seems to me there are too many disparate interests; some economic, some cultural. Myself, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of yielding sovereignty to a larger group which doesn't have my own best interests at heart.
To an outsider, it appears to be an effort to create a United States of Europe, but without the commonalities which made the USA possible.
It's always amusing, of course, to observe the slurs and slanders of those on a band-wagon toward those with reservations about the wisdom of the idea.
i totally agree, i think there is a place for UKIP and Euro Scepticism at the moment, im very concerned about labours stance on Europe!
hm after seeing the EU sceptical - right wing - conservative party FPÖ (jörg haider) going from 23, % to 6,4 % this weekend (losing a whopping 17 percent and 3/4 of their voters !)
and seeing the greens gaining multiple points up to 12,8 percent i have to admit that this elections where mostly used as "protest voting against some current governments.... (at least here) there are even the first comments about a new election and the Fpö is talking about consequences inside of the party
Kilroy to " wreck European Parliament"
Sounds like the reasonable, well though out policies of a party I would trust to get the best for my area from Europe. Or perhaps sounds like the extremest policies of an element who will only damage the reputation of those they represent.
I think you've got it wrong there 'Rat. The EU, NAFTA, the Arab League, the WTO, etc are the way to the future.
I think the EU is moving forward too fast and the next decade or two will be filled with growing pains but whether we like it or not, economic cooperation is what moves us forward and that is essentially what the EU is all about. The world is moving more and more towards Republicanism a la française with a healthy dose of American capitalism thrown in. Both work best when there are fewer physical and economic borders.
Ugg, insofar as economic cooperation is concerned, I'm not opposed, at least not in concept. The caveat is the ancient "The devil is in the details", of course. I see bits and pieces in the news, from time to time, for rules or suggestions that go beyond economic issues.
Short-term, the US is being hurt by a combination of jobs-loss and "consumeritis". The countries that sell to us, taking advantage of low- or no-tariff conditions, see a rise in economic status. There seem to be similarities--albeit of a lesser degree--in some of the EU countries.
While "The EU, NAFTA, the Arab League, the WTO, etc are the way to the future." may well be true, it won't be apparent for a good while as to whether this is as much of an improvement as some envision.
This is definitely not a "Like it or Not" situation. Why do people think that the default setting for this situation is all or nothing. Why is there a group of europhiles who believe that this "United States of Europe" is the way it's going to be,unless some "pesky kids" manage to put a spanner in the works.
If Britain was not part of the EU, why would the EU not want to trade with Britain? We're a very valuable customer and money is the bottom line to all this rubbish about everyone living in a happier more communal europe. MONEY - the bureaucrats don't even use a happiness column in their calculations.
Any more of that kind of talk and the only end for the EU is tears from tears.
A United Europe might be the proposed solution to a Europe of waring nations, but what will be the solution to Civil War amongst member states. If the Nations of Europe are dissolved into one, there will be nothing more to lose but a nation to save.
Trust me , Humans have wars, it's what we do best, the roads and goal of a one world government are a lovely ideal, but they have the one major flaw.
Absolutely. I'm not a 'europhile' per se, but I'm in a minority of one when I discuss this with friends; British people seem to resent (and rightly so) the nonsensical European directives and such, and this leads to a knee-jerk 'No way!' response. While the ludicrous expansionism of late has me baffled, I'm of the opinion that membership of a well governed EU would benefit us immensely - and the only way to go forward with this is by electing appropriate, able candidates. These UKIP morons will turn Britain into an impotent member of the European Parliament - I can see it now. NO! Why? Because we don't like you furriners. Ergo, nothing will get done, petty bickering will replace sensible debate, and the EU will spiral further out of control.
I find it scary, and quite disappointing to think that the British people are stupid enough to vote these one-policy wonders. The place to say no to the Euro is in a referendum, and not by stifling any remaining credibility of the Eurpoean Parliament.
well the UK has the advantage of being "isolated" for a long time ...it's hard to give that idea up... i understand that but for many other countries an isolated economic development is _not_ possible
you know how many trucks are driving through tyrol from italy to germany and back again each day ?..imagine a highway with the right lane truck after truck seperated by a few meters ...in both directions every day (except sunday ) ... on some days it is litarally like a train of trucks driving from munich to milano...
talk about 'giving in something': last time i made a small tour in the(smaller parts of a) mountain imagine what i was hearing all the time...the birds ? the small waterfall ? no it was the autobahn with it's uncountable amounts of cars and important trucks passing all the time... as soon as you leave the town you hear the autobahn...
edit: and of course the track has to be replaced twice as often because of the increased traffic paided by austrian tax payers (about every 5 years)
all austrian parties supported a regulation of the traffic through "special permisions" needed for heavy trucks (i think it was 32+ tons) ....but then the EU came in with a big "it's not gonna happen" and the heavy trucks are still rolling
austria has 18 seats in the new EU parliament.. and the people in the UK fear "being overruled"
It seems pretty simple to me. Our dear friends in the UK can decide to be the tail wagged by an American dog, with just as much say, or they can decide to be part of Europe in which they can have some say. Sorry, going back to an England of 100 years ago is not a viable option. The UKIP looks to be made up of folks who don't want to face up to that choice. Either that or they like the view from the tail.
I think this all comes down to how one chooses to look at the concept of the EU as related to various national identities. You can either accentuate the differences inherent between nations, or you can accentuate the many commonalities of European Culture, values and interests.
NATO succeeded as a security mechanism underpinned with common values, interests and philosophical assumtions of Western countries, and the EU is also a result of such natural commonalities. This in in contrast to the OSCE, which has been a relative failure, as it's membership is too diverse to function effectively.
Just as NATO's goal was military integration to more effectively mobilize security/military forces against common enemies, The EU's goal of economic integration, should prove equally pragmatic in the long-run...there are roughly 4 levels of economic integration:
1. Free-trade area (NAFTA, ASEAN)
2. Customs Union (Mercosur, Andean Pact)
3. Common Market
4. Economic Union (EU, just about)
It is intersting to note that Europe and Latin America, both containing states with much in common, have progressed further than those w/o. Regardless, economic integration is nearly always followed with Trade Expansion. Trade w/in the EU has expanded from 50% around 1980 to over 60% in 1990 (I could not find more recent figures)
Still, only an opinion...
Does the Terlingua city council (if there is such a thing) have Desertrat's best interests at heart? Does the State legislature of Texas decide things based on what the best interests of some old guy down in Terlingua are? When the US Congress gets together, are they making decisions based on what YOUR best interests are? Or have you already ceded sovereignty to some extent to other people who may or may not have your best interests at heart?
Personally I don't feel like the government of George W. Bush is acting in my best interests. I would imagine you felt the same way about the Clinton administration. I'm sure you felt like they were making decisions that were decidedly against the best interests of certain Americans.
I don't know were you find anyone other than yourself that has your best interests at heart. Unless you have enough money to lobby Congress effectively of course...
Sorry I didn't make it more clear, mac.
For the folks with a wary eye on something like the EU, they'd figure their own government--England, e.g.--would look out for their interests better than a group in Brussels. Were I an English citizen, I'd figure that Parliament more likely had my best interests at heart. "My" as in "all us citizens".
It's the usual deal: The larger the grouping of political subdivisions, the less concern by the whole for any one of them.
And, nope, Terlingua isn't incorporated. No public services, beyond a little county-provided road maintenance and a modicum of law enforcement. But we can talk to our county commissioners and often get positive results. As you go up the ladder of political subdivisions, you find little result from talking to legislators at the state level and even less at the national level.