E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Even Labour were showing concerns over our EU membership back in 1979, as their manifesto shows:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab79.htm

 

What does this have to do with a question about having an open discussion? "do i think that the current Government had handled relations with the EU badly" well we are not at war with them or have broken diplomatic ties so it can't be that bad. The question does not ask about the feeling of engagement.

UKIP exists because everyone who questioned the EU was banded as rebel and not good for us and put out of harms way, UKIP is a responce to 30+ years of not addressing the issue to start with.

Not true and you proved it: From your own source:

So yeah those people really did not want a say, all 58% of them did in 2002 only 14 years ago..... you can't argue that people did not want to be engaged in the debate or not give the correct number of hoots If anyone could get 58% of voters out to vote for them it would be classed as a landslide...... how then is it that you feel there was no public call for a debate?

I agree, it only took 30+ years of being ignored for them to decide on the nuclear option.

 

Even Corbyn showed concern in 1993 regards the EU, or more specifically the Euro. He was a confirmed Eurosceptic though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...bankers-europe-eurosceptic-ukip-10507381.html

 

The point that Corky42 makes is that not enough people were. The majority didn't care.

 

Well unless you have some evidence to back that up it can only be regarded as hearsay, I'm not doubting you knew people that were voicing concerns over the EU but given the population of the UK knowing a few people isn't exactly statistically noteworthy.

So Labour were pushing for an early welcome into the community of some countries and most importantly they opposed any move towards turning the Community into a federation, they had that in their manifesto and saw a 2.3% decline in their vote, lost 50 seats, and got booted out of government, i guess that goes to show how much the British public cared about not turning the EU into a federation.

When you compare the snippet from the Labour manifesto with what the Conservatives said on the EU in their manifesto from 1979 i think it's clear to see how the electorate felt about the EU.

Don't the two juxtapose position's and the fact that the electorate overwhelmingly supported one over the other tell you something? They do me and it's not the picture that aramil has been painting that we've never been given a choice when it comes to the EU.

In fact it tells me that the electorate overwhelmingly supported the then Conservative view on tighter integration within the EU, a view that would later see Mrs Thatcher signing away our veto on the single market along with other concessions just so she could claim getting the CAP rebate was a victory.

Indeed, elections do that, elections where people could vote for a pro-European Conservative party or a Eurosceptic Labour party, something they done for over a decade, they supported the pro-European Conservative party.

What you seem to be saying is that because people supported a pro-European Conservative party over the course of three elections that they weren't voicing their opinion, that there was no open debates, that there were no choices when that's simply not true.

What utter tosh, people who questioned the EU weren't branded as rebels and not good for us, at least not outside the Conservatives, UKIP is a direct result of the Conservative party trying to silence it's own members, it's the result of some right wing politicians not liking the pro-European view of other right wing politicians, its got nothing to do with 30+ years of not addressing the issue, if you wanted to address the issue all you had to do is look outside of right wing politics.

What on earth has a referendum on allowing new members to join the EU got to do with people being indifferent towards the EU, for all we know those people saying a similar referendum should have been held in Britain would have voted exactly the same way as the then government.

The only time someone wouldn't be indifferent is when something becomes a concern to them, when they don't agree with you to such an extent that they voice that disagreement.

Just not enough to bother voting for a Eurosceptic Labour party, the fact is the electorate supported a pro-European Conservative party over three terms.

 

You where alive in the 70's and 80's right. You remember not having power every week right? And the strikes, and the stopping of a country. You remember the toxic chocolate teapot that labour turned into right? Labour could of offered tax breaks to everyone who voted and it would make no difference. Not once sat in the dark did anyone think maybe I should revote these useless MP's back in because I agree with them on their EU stance....... you are saying the public did not care, I am saying that at the time power & food where more important, it does not mean they did not care.

Lol, you would ignore the fact that 58% of people wanted a say. How is wanting a say, irrelevant of the question of being indifferent? If they where as indifferent as you claim they would not want a vote. The result could well of been the same, but at least they would of had the say that they wanted. You keep arguing indifference yet ignore it when your own figures show that a majority asked wanted a say. How can you say people where not engaged?

And we all know labour was a mess of a party and no one wanted to got back to their outdated view of the UK. So yeah voting to ruin you own life to get an EU view you wanted........ When did I say the EU was the main policy people should be voting on?

You said there was no support for engaging the public in EU decisions and showed that on the treaty of nice and new member integration 58% would of liked a say. That's nothing to do with being pro/sceptic or anti Europe it's about the electorate wanting to be asked and not being. You cannot seriously be arguing that the public did not want to be asked about it when 58% said they did.

The whole vote for someone else does not work when all that they wanted was to be engaged in the discussions and decisions. It's not about being pro/anti EU, it's about engaging a public that wanted to be engaged, I did say that all parties failed in this.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

I was to young to remember the power cuts but i do know a little about the history of them and why they came about but i feel going into to much details (that it was a result of Tory anti-inflation policies that put strict limits on pay rises) is going a little off topic.

Suffice to say that no matter what the background was of those elections were people had a choice, three times, so for you to say the electorate has never been given a choice is a fallacy.

I'm not ignoring anything, you seem to be associating people wanting a chance to say yes or no as a difference in opinion, just because i want to say yes or no to having sugar in my tea doesn't mean i have a bias one way or the other, it doesn't mean i think having sugar in my tea is either good or bad, all it means is that it would be nice to be asked but either way is fine with me.

While you didn't say the EU was the main policy people should be voting on you have said that people have never been given the choice, and I've said people were given the choice but it wasn't important to them at the time.

I've also never said there was no support for engaging the public in EU decisions, it was you that claimed there was no support, you said people had never been given the choice, that no one asked us, what i said was that there wasn't wide spread support, that the majority of the UK electorate have been indifferent in the past when it came to the EU, that you were asked at every single general election and the majority were happy to go with the flow of the pro-European Conservative party.

 

Corky42, here's some evidence. As the evidence demonstrates in the graph regarding attitudes towards the EU on the page I've linked to, it was hardly a few people who wanted out of the EU in the 80's. It may have not been a majority but if the data is representative, then it certainly wasn't just me and my mates down the pub having a moan either!

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-explains-british-attitudes-to-the-eu/

You can view the whole paper here in PDF format:

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39024/euroscepticism.pdf

More evidence here too:

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...ve/2435/European-Union-membership-trends.aspx

Again, the evidence shows that concern over EU membership was much more than you are willing to concede. Both definitely show that at times over the last 30 years, there was majority concern over the EU.

Shall I continue?


As for the public showing their attitudes towards the EU because Anti EU labour lost and Pro EU Tories won in the 79 elections, I remember that period well and the EU was the last thing people were worring about as Aramil has already pointed out. People in the UK were fed up of Labour and their inability to control the trade unions, it was that and that alone that lost them the election! My own dad had to man the Green Goddess fire trucks in Woolwich as a soldier, due to the firemen striking. We had regular power cuts and all sorts to contend with as a result of Labour ineptitude.

 

That's not what i see in those polls, if we go back to 1992, the furthest back a more finite analysis goes, we see 40% of people supported either leaving the EU or reducing its powers (leaving with only 10%) and around 40% said they wanted to either give them more powers or work for a single EU government, the remaining percentage said leave things as are.

If anything the links you provide just prove how the negative reaction to the EU has risen as a consequence of UKIP coming to prominence and the increase in Euroscepticism within the Conservative party.

Indeed but I've never said it wasn't, people had more important things on their minds as i said here, but i also said "I'm also wise enough to know that if something wasn't important to me at the time then i only have myself to blame if that something turns out to be more important than i originally thought it was"

I've also highlighted that the so called Labour ineptitude was anything but, the 3-day working week was a direct result of the previous Conservative governments attempts to control inflation that rose from something like 6% to 20% during their term, a term that was brought to a swift end when Ted Heath called a snap election in the hopes of showing the miners that the public supported his offer of a 13% pay rise, support that wasn't as forthcoming as he'd hoped and it left the country with a hung parliament that had to deal with record levels of inflation right in the middle of a recession.

 

It could just as well infer that UKIP coming to prominence was a result of growing concern over EU membership within the general public. You sure know how to try and put a spin on things I'll give you that.

 

Maybe i could be an MP.

The point i was trying to make is that contrary to what aramil seems to have been saying, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what i gather aramil's supposition is that we are only going for the nuclear option because over the years the political system has forced us into that situation by never asking what our opinion was on the whole EU thing.

And because that political system has supposedly never asked what our opinion was on the whole EU thing and just done what they wanted, that this shows there's no chance of influencing the EU political system so we should leave.

Conversely i say it's not that the political system didn't listen to people, it's that we got out of it what we put in, that it's not the political system that's to blame but ourselves for being concerned with more pressing subjects to have noticed the elephant in the room, that if we wanted to we could've influenced the political system and as a consequence we can also influence the EU political system if we remain and more importantly if we chose to.

 

I think it's a mix of both angles you and Aramil are debating.

I think the British political system has failed us when it comes to the EU, there are just too many people who are disengaged from the political process and for that the system must take some blame. Reasons for this could be a lack of credible information being available, distrust in our politicians and a whole raft of other problems the system has had for many years. People do feel disenfranchised and that their vote won't really change anything. For that the system has to be accountable for at least some measure of blame. I'd say it's more than you I'm guessing, as would Aramil.

In the same breath though, I do also believe that no matter what, there are people who will ignore national issues because they don't affect them directly (or at least they have that perception, rightly or wrongly). Even locally there are people with the same attitudes. In our community we saw it ourselves. The wealthier parts weren't suffering the same problems as the less well off parts initially. Quite a few in the wealthier areas had quite bad attitudes towards those who were affected and spoke up about the problems. It wasn't until they were directly affected that they demanded action.

For people to regain trust and to begin engaging in our political system we need to see massive changes, regardless of whether or not we remain in the EU.

 

Well, what do Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn have in common?

Think about it. Both are political outliers who do not have the glib polish of career politicians; who do not play the game, who have strong views and are not afraid to express them.

People are disenchanted and disengaged from career politics. It doesn't matter what smart suit you vote for, they all have the same smooth talk and break the same promises. They all play the system for their own gain. They don't believe in anything. And people like Trump and Corbyn (and to an extent, Farage) are calling their BS and many voters feel inspired by that.

I think the same thing is happening in Europe. If you want the EU to change, I think this may be the time to stay put and just change the government.

 

No people (well at least some of us here) like you

To take a recent example 40k parents sign a petition about SATS, and from what has been said by MP's it looks like there will be a review of the process and tests between this and next years tests, but the tests still stand for this year, thats not even the 100k needed to get a debate in the house...... By the figures you where all using above around 40% of the electorate have "concerns" with the EU, have these concerns been in any way addressed? It's not like people and groups have not done the same concerning the EU?
I don't see how 40k voters can suddenly command the attention of MP's, but 25.64 Million can't. even if you say a tenth of them (10th of 40%) are actively seeking change, it would still be 2.564 million people, and thats me being consevative saying only 4% of the UK's total population are actively seeking some sort of change. Even @ 1% it would be 641K people.

It's not like those percentages have swayed massively over 30 years, so for 30 years they have watched interest groups with 40/60/100k effect change and debate, while being unable to do so for the EU, how can you say this has not made things worse?
Is it no wonder they did not want the debate when: Using your rough estimate of 40% of the population wants less/no EU, and 40% want more EU, with 20% wanting to stay the same, they would loose. Vote for more EU: 40% for more & 40%(less)+20%(same)=60% against more EU.

When talking about the EU, It's not like voting for "more or less state" "7 day NHS"/"benefit reform" or "reform of X", EU treaties effect lives in multiple ways wether its laws/rules/regulations, which will roll and change/adapt over time, they are just not as simple as UK policies used in elections. You could run a whole set of seperate election type votes just covering the basics of some of our EU treaties they are so complex. Add to this that they give away sovereign powers (that they use on behalf of you, they do not own them they are ours (they are our representatives not our masters)) and fail to ask the people they serve wether they can give the peoples power to someone else, and yet you feel the public are informed and involved and have a direct say on the EU every election.

I know what you are saying about elections, but then we are voting on policy in manefestos, ie "7 day NHS"/"benefit reform" etc, they are at least vaguely saying something. "Continuing our commitments to the EU"/"working towards a better EU" tells us nothing, better how? Continuing how? there is never a "working on this teaty which involves this and that".

[joke]OK I have got the little red book ready (for the names of "those" people), come the revolution brother Although we may have to check to make sure there is not an EU rule about it [/joke]
On a more serious note yes I agree.

*Sorry for the delay in answering busy day... "affairs of state must take president, over affairs of state"

 

Just a small correction: the 7-day NHS was not in the government manifesto (neither has the junior doctor contract imposition met with any support from the public). More concerning, Hunt has had to admit to the Public Accounts Committee that he has no idea what a 7-day NHS would cost, where amongst £22 billion budget cuts he is going to find the funds to finance it, or what it would even look like. Yet both are being driven through. So much for democracy in action.

 

To be fair though those 40k parents did have the weight of the media around them as well and if there's anything a politician doesn't like is unfavorable media coverage, take the migrant crisis for example, they only really bothered addressing the situation when they got media coverage, until them they were mostly being left to rot in migrant camps on the borders of Syria and the surrounding countries.

Also i think it maybe a little difficult to extrapolate that 40% into actual numbers when you look at the sample size they used, I'm not sure how statistically reliable a sample size of 1-2k people are?

Having said that 40% sounds a lot but when you consider the mix of voters within that 40% it soon starts to break down, lets say, to keep things simple, that there's an even split between left and right wing voters with that 40% if we assume that we end up with 20% of people that would never vote for the opposing team no matter what their stance is on the EU

If we extend that assumption to what, historically, each parties stance was on the EU we soon find that 20% keep voting the same, for a party that wants to curb the powers of the EU, yet the other half refuses to swap their vote for a party on the opposite side of the political spectrum, instead their either stuck supporting a party they only partially agree with or they have to swap to a party that lies on the same end of the political spectrum that gives them what they want.

Basically left and right wing voters will try to stick to political positions and ideologies that better reflect their view on the EU, when looking at the two major parties within UK politics we've had a right wing party that supported further EU integration and a left wing party that didn't, if a right or left wing voter is either for or against further EU integration what choices do they have?

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but the Conservative manifesto (PDF download at bottom of page) does say...

...

 

Ah, OK, I stand corrected. Put in the vaguest of words, of course, which probably explains why nobody can say what a 7-day NHS would actually constitute.

 

I'd agree. It's getting to the stage I think where politicians are slowly waking up to the fact that they are not liked and certainly not trusted. They bring it on themselves and deserve every ounce of flak they get

That's the problem, we can't force the changes we need as a nation as a member of the EU. I was hoping Cameron's promise to negotiate a better deal would result in something of substance but I felt let down and failed. I agree we need change in our government but to me, the EU is the most pressing issue right here and now.

Another problem is if we have another general election, I wouldn't know who to vote for with a clear conscience. Labour are just a watered down version of Tory but EU friendly. Tories are the same old tw#ts. Greens, don't make me laugh. UKIP, no thanks. Lib Dems, who are they again? I may see if any independent candidates stand for our constituency and what they have to say when the time comes

 

I think that it has also created an interesting feedback loop. Now Trump has effectively won the GOP Primary, Republican voters are burning their membership cards all over the US. Perhaps now they'll get a bit more engaged in the political process...

Same in Labour. The whole anti-Semite issue may sound bad but it has certainly prompted the party to purge the nutters (something Farage had to do when UKIP actually became a thing) and start taking a long hard look at themselves as an opposition. Do they want to be a Blairite 'Tory Light', a Militant Red Labour from the 70's, or do they want to be a serious alternative to the Tory party? It is now up to the electorate to make their opinions known.

As for Cameron's deal: I think he managed to get a good number of concessions under the circumstances. I also think that there is a mood in Europe as a whole to roll back on things a bit. Plenty of political levers --if people can be bothered to pull them.

 

You know when i read that i thought I'd take a closer look at the last Labour manifesto, were they really EU friendly? It turns out you're spot on as despite of few wooly words about protecting worker rights and a referendum if there was a transfer of power (however that's defined) it took a remarkable similar pro-EU stance as the Conservative manifesto, one interesting thing i did notice though is that it talks about a red card system, ring any bells.