The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

jamesmorgan

Having just read the whole of this thread (a feat in itself), the major conclusions I would take are:

a) People vote UKIP for a wide variety of reasons. Trying to pigeon-hole them into a discrete group is unlikely to be useful.
b) A common underpinning reason is the feeling that they are not being listened to by major parties
c) Being listened to does not just meaning hearing what someone says and then going away and criticising them and working out strategies for how too get them to change their mind, it means actually changing your policies/thoughts based on what you hear (I suspect that Gordon Brown's 'bigot-gate' did as much good for UKIP as much of what Nigel Farage has done)

It is fairly clear that the EU changed from being a trade agreement into a process of political union a long time ago. This may or may not be good for the UK - in most areas I suspect we will still little change. However, one area that does concern me is the UK as a whole is a lot more racially tolerant that many countries within Europe. Freedom of movement of white Europeans across Europe seems fine in most countries, but there is lots of discrimination/prejudice associated with immigration of black/asian people from outside the EU. We are also now starting to see this within the UK, where in an attempt to control immigration, we start to block highly educated people coming into the UK from Commonwealth countries, but are quite 'happy' to see lots of poorly educated people from Eastern Europe. As we progress further with EU integration, I do fear that EU driven racism will increase. I'm not sure that this is the type of super-state I want to live in.

antrobus

jamesmorgan wrote: »

...It is fairly clear that the EU changed from being a trade agreement into a process of political union a long time ago. ....

The idea of creating a 'United States of Europe' has been there from the get-go, even as far back as when it was the European Coal and Steel Community, so I don't believe anything has actually "changed". What does change is the enthusiasm expressed by various parties towards taking the next step in the project, and the extent to which other parties believe anyone is actually serious about it.

And oddly enough, the kind of things that people complain about in relation to the EU - immigration, rules about straight bananas and the suchlike - relate to trade, rather than political union as such.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

...However, one area that does concern me is the UK as a whole is a lot more racially tolerant that many countries within Europe. ....

It has to be noted that UKIP appear to be quite un-extreme when compared even to the likes of the Front National, let alone the likes of Golden Dawn or Jobbik.

jamesmorgan

antrobus wrote: »

The idea of creating a 'United States of Europe' has been there from the get-go, even as far back as when it was the European Coal and Steel Community, so I don't believe anything has actually "changed". What does change is the enthusiasm expressed by various parties towards taking the next step in the project, and the extent to which other parties believe anyone is actually serious about it.

It may well have been there from the beginning, but I'm not convinced that politicians have been totally honest about it. Even now, many people seem to fail to understand that the only reason to be in the EU (rather than a trade agreement such as the EFTA) is to progress political union.

Generali

Seabee42 wrote: »

Its boring this argument, I completely understand why people want to seek a better life and I certainly do not blame them for coming and trying. What our MPs are meant to represent are the people of this country. Why after an enormous influx of extra people into this country is it wrong to say "hold on do lets take stock here". A net immigration freeze is probably sensible considering the housing situation alone. Oh of course I am racist because your getting rich by it.

What's interesting however is watching all these people who aren't racist but just hate foreigners jump through 11 pages of hoops to explain that they aren't racist, they just hate foreigners.

It'd be refreshing to have someone say, "Yeah, I'm racist. It's a free country and I can think what I like" rather than all this mealy mouthed crap.

Hypocrisy and sophistry of the lowest sort.

antrobus

jamesmorgan wrote: »

It may well have been there from the beginning, but I'm not convinced that politicians have been totally honest about it.....

Neither am I.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

... Even now, many people seem to fail to understand that the only reason to be in the EU (rather than a trade agreement such as the EFTA) is to progress political union.

The reason for being in the EU might well be because you then have at least some say in how the trade agreement known as the EEA actually operates. As opposed to just having to lump it, as EFTA-EEA countries are obliged to.

jamesmorgan

antrobus wrote: »

The reason for being in the EU might well be because you then have at least some say in how the trade agreement known as the EEA actually operates. As opposed to just having to lump it, as EFTA-EEA countries are obliged to.

Quite possible true at the moment, largely due to the imbalance of power between the non-EU EFTA members and the EU. Eventually the non-EURO members of the EU need to decide which side of the fence they sit on. Either they fully embrace the EU or they move back into the EFTA. If the latter, then a negotiating block of the scandinavian countries, UK and Switzerland could well have significant muscle to be able to negotiate the EFTA in line with their wishes.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

What's interesting however is watching all these people who aren't racist but just hate foreigners jump through 11 pages of hoops to explain that they aren't racist, they just hate foreigners.

It'd be refreshing to have someone say, "Yeah, I'm racist. It's a free country and I can think what I like" rather than all this mealy mouthed crap.

Hypocrisy and sophistry of the lowest sort.

I am most definitely biased.

I want more entrepreneurial, bright, driven people to come to the UK. I'm not that bothered whether they come from France, Poland, India etc.

I don't want or think we can afford masses of low skilled people. We have enough people to do those roles - we should enforce people already here to take jobs if they are economically inactive if you ask me. I'm sick of big state in general.

Bantex_2

kabayiri wrote: »

I am most definitely biased.

I want more entrepreneurial, bright, driven people to come to the UK. I'm not that bothered whether they come from France, Poland, India etc.

I don't want or think we can afford masses of low skilled people. We have enough people to do those roles - we should enforce people already here to take jobs if they are economically inactive if you ask me. I'm sick of big state in general.

Thank you.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for the difference betwen "not liking someone" and not wishing to live amongst a certain community.

I doubt many would choose to live in the middle of a traveller camp, as an example. Does that make them racist? Xenophobic? Or does it simply mean that other areas offer them something which is more relevant to them and their lifestyle?

Not wanting to live on a site with anti-social youths, rubbish strewn about, violent neighbours etc doesn't make you racist. Not wanting to live near a traveller camp because they're foreign would make you racist

I would choose not to live in an area that was boring and stale, which likely means I wouldn't live in a village full of old white people. However if there is a village full of old white people out there who aren't boring and dull then I'd happily live there.

antrobus

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Quite possible true at the moment, largely due to the imbalance of power between the non-EU EFTA members and the EU. ....

Well yes, even Norway, the largest of the EFTA-EEA members, only has a population of 5 million, versus 500 million for the EU, so it isn't much of a fight.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

....Eventually the non-EURO members of the EU need to decide which side of the fence they sit on. Either they fully embrace the EU or they move back into the EFTA. If the latter, then a negotiating block of the scandinavian countries, UK and Switzerland could well have significant muscle to be able to negotiate the EFTA in line with their wishes.

Obviously the UK is not going to become part of some European superstate until we embrace the Euro. That ain't gonna happen any time real soon. Ditto for Denmark, who also have an opt out. Sweden is supposed to be committed to joining the Euro, but is currently showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm, and hasn't even bothered to sign up for ERM II.

The capability to "negotiate the EFTA" is neither here nor there. It's the EEA that matters. It is what it is. Either you sign up to it, and accept the four freedoms, or you don't.