UK General ELection 7 May 2015

[peejaye]

Not sure why this post is on here but listen. If the Tories get elected; they will privatise the NHS for sure. There's absolutely millions and more to be made by these already multi-millionaire ministers and their fat greedy friends. YOU will pay; visits to the Doctors and hospital visits, in particular, will be astronomical!
Ask our friends in the USA. Watch Judge Judy(TV programme), $1,000 for an overnight stay in hospital! Half the cases are suing for medical bills! Why do you think Cameron as already announced he won't serve a 3rd term, he won't need to! Please, spare us from this barbaric behaviour. We're supposed to be a civilised nation?
Before anyone accuses me of being a Labour supporter, I don't think much of them either, more millionaire politicians! UKIP are just Tories who hate Europe, Rubbish!

[Laphroaig]

Also, do either of you support a referendum on EU membership? I genuinely appreciate the info.

A quick reply, I support the idea of a referendum, after all that is what democracy is supposed to be about. Which way I'd vote I'm not sure as I haven't looked into it in detail yet.

I voted yes in the Scottish referendum, mainly because, although I didn't buy into the "utopian" independent Scotland promised by the SNP, I don't like the current status quo. I felt it was worth making the attempt on the basis, if you don't try you'll never know. But, of course, according to the SNP at least, an independent Scotland would still have remained within the EU and there wouldn't have been an EU membership referendum in Scotland.

I may lean towards leaving the EU for similar reasons, but as I said, I'd need to do some research first before I come to a conclusion one way or the other.

[peejaye]

I would support a referendum on the EU Laphroaig but I cannot express how important it is to KNOW & understand everything you would be voting for. All the rhetoric xenophobic crap you hear on TV is only one side of things.
I follow politics but I have very little knowledge on how the UK would benefit from leaving or staying in the EU. Hopefully we will stay as we are and a referendum won't happen.
PS; If I were Scottish I would of voted YES without a doubt, 101% YES!

[Laphroaig]

peejaye, I agree completely that on issues as important as this, it is essential to make an informed decision. If there is an EU referendum (which I believe the Conservatives have promised if they are re-elected) then I'll look more deeply into it all. But, my point was that, in my current "uninformed" state I would be more inclined to vote for change.

[broncofan]

I thought Stavros gave a very good summary on three positions on a referendum. There are those who do not want a vote at all, those who support a vote but hope it does not result in change, and those that would like to leave the EU. The one question mark I had was over the type of threats that being a member of the EU poses to the UK's sovereignty. Without knowing what the specific directives are my uninformed guess would be that threats to sovereignty that result from following certain directives and conforming UK law to various EU standards might be overblown...it sounds like a position that could be based on fear-mongering...a foreign hand or culture meddling in domestic affairs (ie. my post).

Of course nobody wants their laws respecting human rights and health and safety to be dictated by a different governing authority. If the encroachment really is so significant, that could certainly outweigh any countervailing benefit. So is it?

I suppose I also don't understand the role that a referendum plays in your democracy (unfortunately it does not play much role in U.S politics). It is a more democratic process than picking a leader who in turn makes all decisions and is difficult to remove from power in the interim. But I would assume something has to have become contentious to begin with before it's brought to a vote?

As a post-script, if my questions are becoming annoying just ignore them. I am aware I could take more initiative on my own to figure these things out, but this has been a useful time saver.

[Stavros]

I thought Stavros gave a very good summary on three positions on a referendum. There are those who do not want a vote at all, those who support a vote but hope it does not result in change, and those that would like to leave the EU. The one question mark I had was over the type of threats that being a member of the EU poses to the UK's sovereignty. Without knowing what the specific directives are my uninformed guess would be that threats to sovereignty that result from following certain directives and conforming UK law to various EU standards might be overblown...it sounds like a position that could be based on fear-mongering...a foreign hand or culture meddling in domestic affairs (ie. my post).

Of course nobody wants their laws respecting human rights and health and safety to be dictated by a different governing authority. If the encroachment really is so significant, that could certainly outweigh any countervailing benefit. So is it?

I suppose I also don't understand the role that a referendum plays in your democracy (unfortunately it does not play much role in U.S politics). It is a more democratic process than picking a leader who in turn makes all decisions and is difficult to remove from power in the interim. But I would assume something has to have become contentious to begin with before it's brought to a vote?

As a post-script, if my questions are becoming annoying just ignore them. I am aware I could take more initiative on my own to figure these things out, but this has been a useful time saver.

It is a key part of the anti-EU policy of UKIP that '75%' of British law is 'made in Brussels', as it fits with their argument that by being a member of the EU the government of the UK has ceded sovereignty to 'another power' and that the laws and directives of the EU have damaged British business, our freedoms, and so on.

The UKIP claim is based on something European Commissioner Viviane Reding said, if not what she actually meant, and a debate then arose as to whether or not that 75% figure is accurate.

The UKIP claims are found here:
http://www.ukip.org/the_truth_is_out...viviane_reding

A rebuttal of the UKIP claims can be found here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_..._posters-31629

The problem with referenda is that they by-pass Parliament. We elect a Parliament to enact and scrutinise the law, and have elections to change it if we think it is not doing a good job. On toxic issues which regularly divide the House of Commons, division is usually the end result until and unless a different set of MPs decide otherwise. Because there are issues of sovereignty in the UK's relationship with Europe, and because of the claim that entry into the 'Common Market' as it was called at the time, was not explicit in the manifesto of the Tory Party which won the election in 1970 and took the UK in, it is argued that this important decision was never put to the vote. Harold Wilson, who succeeded Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath in 1974, thus decided to put the matter to rest with a referendum in 1975 which resulted in a positive vote for Common Market membership; but he also did it because his own party was divided on the issue and he wanted to end the squabbling in Labour with a decisive vote that would shut up the anti-Europeans (mostly on the left of the party).

But if you follow the argument about parliamentary politics. a referendum is actually an abdication of responsibility by government, which in effect -as happened in 1975- was the Prime Minister saying 'I can't decide -you do it for me' which rather begs the question -why have a government? There was a similar form of buck-passing in 1967 with the only other referendum I can think of that has taken place in UK territory -when the inhabitants of Gibraltar were asked if they wanted to remain full citizens of the UK or make an accommodation with Spain (which at the time was a military dictatorship under Franco). It was a political stunt with only one outcome -can you imagine the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands voting to become part of Argentina?
Opinion polls regularly claim that 'most people' want the death penalty restored, it gets more complicated when you drill into the issue, as some want it reserved for terrorists, child murderers, and killers of policemen, and few ever seem to believe the justice system can convict a person who is in fact, innocent. And if there is to be law made by referendum on the death penalty, why not have a referendum on whether or not we should elect the Head of State? On that basis alone, law-making is best left to legislators.

[Stavros]

peejaye, I agree completely that on issues as important as this, it is essential to make an informed decision. If there is an EU referendum (which I believe the Conservatives have promised if they are re-elected) then I'll look more deeply into it all. But, my point was that, in my current "uninformed" state I would be more inclined to vote for change.

I link below a UKIP pamphlet by William Dartmouth 'Out of the EU and into the World' which I think is a fair expression of the anti-EU position UKIP holds.

I do wonder how far UKIP have thought through their arguments, not least because detaching itself from the EU would take years, be expensive to administer, and be riddled with claims -some of them legal- related to business contracts, and that is just for starters. The magic formula, 'let's leave the EU' sounds like magic, but most magic practised by humans is, in fact, illusion, indeed, depends on illusion to work.

UKIP have not thought through the impact of withdrawal on those British citizens who work in the EU, or the EU citizens who work in the UK, a lot of them because of the EU nexus -London is the fourth largest French city in the world with more than 100,000 of them, many with families whose children are at school here - the same applying to the Germans and other EU member states if not always in the same volume. If it is the case that a substantial proportion of EU citizens leave the UK, how does this impact on property prices, and crucially, on employment?

UKIP argues that leaving the EU will not damage trade with Europe, but it doesn't take into full consideration the fact that British firms trading in the EU will still have to conform to EU regulations on employment practices, health and safety directives, while having no authority to question any of them because the UK government will have lost its ability to influence or change or initiate EU laws and directives.

UKIP also does not take into full consideration the view from outside the EU which may view a UK exit as a vote of no confidence in a market of 500 million, or an inflated view of itself as being in some way superior to that market. But while it may be viewed as part of the disenchantment with globalisation, how does any economy detach itself from the most inclusive economic phenomenon that has taken place in capitalism since the industrial revolution? Is globalisation for the UK thus an obstacle, or an opportunity?

Don't expect an answer for a party that has no vision, only complaints.

The UKIP pamphlet is here:
http://www.williamdartmouth.com/docs..._the_world.pdf

[peejaye]

I personally think UKIP are a bunch of fools who, as you say Stavros, have thought very little through. They play on the euphoria of, un-intelligent people and "Sun readers" who like to feel part of a gang, a bit like bullies, making out everything in the UK would be fantastic again if we sent all foreigners back home. We could even start leaving our front doors unlocked again as my folks did in the 1960's around here, because let's face it; We have no UK "born n bred" criminals, it's just Johnny foreigner who commit all the crimes.
Not my words, these are the idiots who like UKIP, very insecure un-educated people. They won't get to power because not everyone in this country is stupid just yet!
My personal opinion; We could even have civil war type incidents on our streets everyday if these clowns came to power, dangerous people indeed!
I'm not against leaving the EU but certainly not because of immigration. More for reason as the "Gravy train" some of these MEP's are riding on. They get £180,000 per year in expenses alone + their salary! Nice (work?) if you can get it.

[Jericho]

While they're a red mile from *my* Labour Party, they're still the only hope for the people of this country.

[Laphroaig]

Farage thoroughly burned UKIP's chances of getting any votes in Scotland with his comments about "too much of English taxpayers money heading over Hadrians Wall" in last nights live ITV debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2...tland-32171887

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...english-taxes/

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/new...s-block-grant/

So much for the "United Kingdom" in his party's name. He also needs a geography lesson, the border isn't at Hadrians Wall...