How many people actually care about Europe?
We await the next political opinion poll - hopefully tomorrow’s Guardian will have one from ICM, though until Ming Campbell is replaced by a new Liberal Democrat leader we are once again in a sort of polling interregnum with a known unknown bearing down on us.
There were a couple of polls over the weekend. Firstly a Populus poll for the BBC’s Daily Politics showed us what we already knew, that the overwhelming majority of people say they would like a referendum on the new European Treaty, in this case 73%.
67% of people also told Populus that “the issue of Europe is important in the way that I will vote at the next election”. This is somewhat misleading - if you ask people if they think an issue is important or if they care about an issue they will nearly always say yes, to be meaningful they need to pick it out as more important than other issues. In measuring the importance of Europe (or any other for that) as an issue, the best measure is that offered by Ipsos MORI’s monthly tracker of what issues people say are important to the country. Other pollsters ask this of course, but MORI’s stands along because it is regularly done, month in, month out, and more importantly it is unprompted - people aren’t given a list of issues to choose from, they say whatever they think.
In their September poll a whopping 4% of people said that Europe was one of the most important issues facing the country, compared to 43% for immigration, 41% for crime, 36% health and 22% defence and international terrorism. That isn’t to say Europe doesn’t have the potential to be a salient issue - back in 2000 and 2001 when William Hague was banging on about “Saving the Pound” Europe was regulary cited as a major issue facing the country by around 25% of people, it went as high as 43% in 1997. It’s just that, right now, very few people see it as an issue of importance when compared to things they really care about, like immigration, health and crime.
Meanwhile, an ICM poll for the Guardian found that 89% of people thought they were still judged by their class, only 8% thought it was unimportant in shaping the way they were viewed. 53% considered themselves to be working class, 41% middle class - proportions largely unchanged since the late 1990s.
Filed under: Europe, ICM, Populus
“That isn’t to say Europe doesn’t have the potential to be a salient issue ”
Much like Inheritance Tax. I doubt if more than 1 or 2% in September would have listed IHT as a salient issue, yet George Osborne’s announcement had a huge impact on Conservative fortunes.
My guess is that it wasn’t IHT so much that boosted the Conservatives, as the signal that the Conservatives would be looking to got taxes on aspirational voters.
If the Conservatives can link the refusal to have a referendum in with doubts about Gordon Brown’s character, then I think the saliency of this issue could rise.
I think the inheritance tax has such a big effect not just because it was a popular issue itself (tax is a problem in things like this, people don’t like saying tax because it makes them look like greedy bastards. It’s one of the areas where there is a noticable difference between polling using a human interviewer and self-completed surveys), but because by setting out policies on inheritance tax, stamp duty, etc the Conservatives addressed what the polling suggested was a major weakness - that they didn’t stand for anything, had no policies and no one knew what they would actually do.
I don’t think it was so much what the meat was (though a cut in inheritance tax was a particular popular and the method of funding it would also have resonated), merely that they were offering some meat.
I’m curious as to why the Eurobarometer polls are never mentioned–is this because of their methods, or something else?
One thing that this doesn’t pick up is the extent to which Europe can be a factor in other more salient issues, the most obvious one being the likes of immigration, asylum and EU open borders.
The classic perfect storm for the Tories would be a crime committed by an immigrant who was here illegally from eastern europe after comming from France.
I am not saying that as an attack on Tories as xenophobic or cynical but rather because it links all the issues where the public percieve them to be strong.
Peter.
Cllr. Peter Cairns,
The golden scenario for the Conservatives would be if this treaty were passed, and then one or our unions managed to use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to have the ban on secondary picketing overturned (and the unions will be bringing test cases).
Peter - Europe isn’t necessarily a good issue for the Conservatives. It’s taken as read that it is, but unlike crime and immigration, which they pretty much own, it’s not an area where they invariably lead Labour.
Nicholas - there is no good reason, they are perfectly sound polls. They are just outside the sort of media polling machine so I tend to forget they exist. I shall try harder to remember.
The expressions of relative importance on “Europe” are very odd.
There appears to be a complete disconnect between the very high numbers of people who want a Referendum on The Treaty/ Consitution, and the vanishingly small number for whom “Europe” is an important issue in the IPSOS tracker.
Presumably the former are expressing a desire for the government to keep it’s word-the actual topic could be almost anything. It seems that this is the vein which the Conservatives are trying to mine in their desire for a Referendum.
…and yet the details of this Treaty are so impenetrable to the non-legal mind I can hardly imagine how a comprehensible Referendum which actually addressed the issues could be framed.
For me the issue of “Europe” is extremely frustrating. I know that trade agreements make sense. I know that there are pan-European issues which which can benefit from a combined approach-like Environmental protections, or Energy policy say.
But I also observe that attempts to muster unanimity on Fisheries, Agriculture, Foreign Policy , and Military matters have been a fiasco of self interest….and yet I see an ever larger beauracracy being formed, reporting to an unelected executive, all of whom seem hell bent on greater political integration.
How do I get to vote on these aspects?
How can I express reservations about Federalism, lack of Democracy , and the dead weight cost of it all without being called “anti-european”?
When was I asked to express a view on the change from a European Economic Community-to a European Union?
I can’t and I wasn’t
I have to take it all or not at all it seems.
The questions on “Europe” being asked of the British public -both by our politicians, and our Pollsters are, in my view far too simplistic. They cannot be answered sensibly. Perhaps that’s why only 4% of us think it’s important. Perhaps that’s the way our politicians like it?
Now if we were asked questions like-”Which of these aspects of our life do you think should be decided by the Westminster Parliament , and which by the European Commission-Defence, Home Security,Foreign Policy,Human Rights, Working Hours……etc etc etc”-we might get some interesting answers-and actually have an informed debate on “Europe”
Colin,
If you are worried about an ever increasing beauracracy and an unelected execuitive, try looking hard at our own country.
The number of civil servants has been rising for years and when have we ever elected a mandarin let alone a police chief, come to think of it when did we last have an elected head of state… Cromwell.
I am not sure of the actual numbers but I think of you compare the number of EU empolyees per EU citizean it beats any member states Civil Servant to public ratio hands down.
You could argue that we could administer all the things the EU does with fewer people, but the biggest waste is the moving EU parliament and all attempts to change that have been frustrated by elected MEP’s including the ones from this country.
The “unelected” commission cannot initiate or pass legislation. That can only be done by the Council of Ministers all of whom are elected in their own countries.
It’s a bit like blaming the civil service for all those terrible policies they impliment for no better reason than they were in the manifesto of the party that one a general election.
For all the talk of unelected, this our that, the real power lies with the politicians and they tell the commission to do. If you don’t like it take it up with Gordon Brown, your MP or MEP, they have the power to change it.
I really don’t have a lot of time for the “It’s Europes fault” line, when they are implimenting policies that we have agreed to.
As to self interest, well it’s a bit hard to complain about it when no matter where they are in Europe if a politician starts flying the flag and saying they’re going to “Fight our Corner” their poll ratings go up.
There is a lot wrong with the EU, particularly where it tries to micromanage and industry like the CAP or CFP rather than just regulate the market as with competition.
We should learn from that and look to it as an arbriter more than a provider, but that’s the job of the politicians to reform the institutions and mechanisms, you can’t blame the public officals for following the current policy.
Peter.
Peter-thanks. It’s always illuminating to hear a different slant on things.
I repeat that my main concern-fear even-is a Federal Europe. It seems to me that Giscard & his ilk have always intended it to be so. They just didn’t tell us until The Constitution made a few people sit up & smell the coffee.
I repeat-when were the citizens of Europe consulted about which “competencies” ( great word that-so EU!) their own Governments would surrender to Brussels?
Europe is not a country, but it is being governed as though it is.I don’t complain about self interest. That wasn’t my point at all-simply that across such a huge group of disparate Nation States self-interest and some disagreement is inevitable.THerefore the welter of legislation aimed at forcing these multi-faceted tensions into a straight jacket of conformity is bound to be a veneer-and yes a very very expensive one .
I agree that we need less top-down government in UK too-I absolutely agree with ideas like elected police chiefs.
As to “reform”-yes indeed….where have I heard that one before?
I am not at all sure that the balance of power in EU lies as you describe it-well not in practice anyway.And what of the powers wielded by The European Court? But-I’m not a constitutional lawyer -just an ordinary citizen-so what chance do I stand?
I wonder how many UK voters even know who their MSP is-let alone what they do.
I feel that there is a massive gulf between the administrators of the supra-national quasi-state called The European Union, and it’s citizens.
..perhaps there has been an opinion poll on the subject?
Anthony Wells,
I think you are wrong in your assessment. If a pro-European were to try and claim this I would say they were being disingenuous.
Comparing the EU and lets say Immigration as you do is not a ‘like for like’ comparison.
One is a ’strategic issue’ and the other is an ‘operational issue’. It is always the case that operational issues will take precedent in people’s minds because they experience them on a day to day basis.
It’s like comparing a symptom of a disease with the disease itself.
If I can give another example if someone cannot access this web-site they are likely to say ‘There is something wrong with my PC’ not ‘There is something wrong with my USP’ or with ‘UK Polling Reports server’. The reality is it could be any one of the three.
Similarly, when people refer to immigration many probably do not realise that one of the main obstacles to fully controlled immigration is the EU (and therefore by inference in stating immigration is their key issue they are actually also saying that the EU is also).
Consequently, I suggest the opinions on the EU are judged purely on polls specifically related to the EU rather than trying to compare them falsely with stock issue polls of day on day issues.
I found a Poll on attitudes to Europe in UK :-
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/01/23145439/5
I would have been in the majority in Tables 3 & 4-which is comforting.
Its interesting to note that from Table 5 ,81% thought Unification was either “about right” or had already “gone too far”…mind you that was three years ago!
I note in to-day’s Times that William Rees-Mogg is suggesting that Alex Salmand should hold a referendum in Scotland on the EU Treaty. He is scathing of the Brown decision to let parliament approve/disapprove the Treaty rather than the people. If the Scots were to reject the Treaty in a referendum, Brown could be in a difficult situation. Perhaps Peter Cairns could enlighten us on such a dilemma?
There are problems for the Conservatives also on the issue of a referendum. In last week’s PMQs the PM read out a savagely critical diatribe on the notion of a referendum by one high profile ex-Cabinet Minister - Kenneth Clarke. There are other keen Europeans in the Conservative Party, notably Michael Heseltine and Ian Taylor. There are Labour MPs demanding a referendum - Austin Mitchel and Kate Hooey amongst them. A protracted debate on this issue will show fissures on both sides of the party divide.
I think most of the prominent pro-europeans in the Tory party are considered to be rather over-the-hill now. I think saying that Kenneth Clarke disagrees with the party line on Europe was similar to saying that Diane Abbot disagrees with the war in Iraq- e.e it’s been said so much it has little impact.
Is there a particular reason why there should be absolute unanimity of view within parties on this issue?
I think Cameron has made a mistake in committing to a referendum if the Treaty is ratified & Conservatives regain power.Labour will say this is tantamount to pulling out of Europe.
This is yet another example of the dreadful “take it all” or “get out “attitude we are presented with.
Cameron should be taking newspaper ads. explaining in detail how The Treaty passes more powers to EU & what it’s effects will be. This should be followed up by forensic questioning in the debate which Brown ( in fairness to him) has committed to.We could then see who wins the argument.
John H,
I haven’t heard anything about it, but that doesn’t mean much as I am just back from Canada.
The Scottish parliament can I believe hold consultative referendum on issues, but they are only “for information”. As the SNP is pro the EU and fairly relaxed on much of the treaty I am not sure if we would.
Havig said that it would set a nice precident for an Independence referendum, and as Tories are in favour of one, their MSP’s could hardly object without appearing to be hypocrits.
That leaves the LibDems who would be in the position of being traditionally pro referendum voting against one.
So far both leadership candidate have attacked the tories saying they really want to pull us out of europe, but I think that’s more about the leadership contest and appealing to the majority of pro europe LibDem members who fear a kicking from the Tories than a considered position.
The SNP has long camapaigned against the CFP ( Well with restrictions on our fisherman when we have nearly half of the EU’s fish, it’s hardly surprising), so that could be an issue depending on what the treaty says about it.
I know the SNP thought the original constitution proposals were close to a reason for rejecting it.
Given that Alex has written to all signatories to the NPT for observer status for at the next round of international disarmament talks we do seem to be spreading our wings a bit.
I don’t know how much coverage it got in England but David Cairns the Scotland Office Minister accused us of joining up with the likes of iran, on the basis that they were one of the 144 countries we contacted about it.
That was compounded by a Scotland Office spokesperson saying that Salmond was trying to make common cause with the likes of “Iran and South Korea”…. Yes “South”. I am sure he meant North but it raised a laugh….
In the long term this isn’t just about annoying Brown or grand standing, but actually has a deeper purpose.
At every election one of the anti independence arguments is that we would lose our seat at the top table and that we would have no influence.
Being seen on the News at the UN stating our case would undermine that argument, and besides opposing Trident is popular in Scotland so it puts the Labour party in the position of saying
” The SNP is wrong to try to get rid of weapons Scots don’t want”.
So far the tactic has been avoid that trap ( they’re not completely stupid…) and to argue that the SNP is wasting time on things it has no power over and should concentrate on what matters at home within the remit of the parliament.
But again until we get a decent poll that asks whta people think of these ideas and whetehr we should be doing it, we really won’t know who’s tactics are best.
Peter.
Colin,
There is no reason why there should unanimity in a political party; indeed it seems healthy to have reasoned debates and disagreements. All political parties are in effect coalitions. We electors, if we think carefully how we should vote, will favour the party which most closely believes in the principles and policies which we hold dear. It is unlikely that we would agree wholeheartedly to every policy and idea of one party or another. As in most aspects of life, we compromise.
However,apparently disunited parties do less well in polls than those who appear to be united - hence the grammar school issue for David Cameron and Iraq for Tony Blair.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/23/2066840.htm
for the Australian most recent poll with election end of November (Labor policies includes withdrawing from Iraq and a republic). 16% lead on 2 party preferred for Labor…
John -
“Similarly, when people refer to immigration many probably do not realise that one of the main obstacles to fully controlled immigration is the EU”
Bingo! It doesn’t matter if the thing they are concerned about is actually caused by Europe unless they realise that it is. If all the problems people were worred about were caused by Europe, it still wouldn’t make it a salient issue unless people actually connected that issue with Europe in their minds.
Under normal circumstances people do indeed care far more about issues that affect their normal everyday lives. They only care about ‘operational’ issues when they impact upon it. To some degree immigration is the same - people use their local health services, the local police stops crime down their road, schools educate their children, but immigration doesn’t affect them directly. It has become salient because people think rightly or wrongly that it affects their lives through the knock on effect in crime, housing, employment, pressure on public services, etc, etc. Europe isn’t an issue at the moment because most people rightly or wrongly don’t see how an extra EU treaty will effect their lives.
In measuring public opinion it doesn’t matter if people are right or wrong, whether they correctly apportion blame or identify causes. It measures what people actually think, not what they should think.
John H
My sentiments entirely
Anthony,
By and large people don’t like extra government, whether it be the issue of cost or the supposed intrusion.
In this respect because the EU is largely percieved as an addition layer of government over and above what we have, it will always struggle to win public support.
As they say ” What’s right isn’t always popular, and what’s popular isn’t always right”. Polls measure whats popular and like it our not a majority of swing voters who have no ideological allegience to a party will vote for whats popular.
That’s why focused polls matter and have so much influence of Party strategy and policy.
Peter,
Sean Fear: “Cllr. Peter Cairns,
The golden scenario for the Conservatives would be if this treaty were passed, and then one or our unions managed to use the Charter of Fundamental Rights to have the ban on secondary picketing overturned (and the unions will be bringing test cases).”
No, that is a nightmare worst case scenario, not a golden scenario.
The above scenario could be used as leverage by the Conservatives to get us out of Europe, or renegotiate this treaty (it may be too late to do so if/when they get back into power). Then again I’m not convinced we’d instantly head back into the 1970’s if secondary picketing was allowed.
Thinking about the poll above, 4% seems quite small considering the noise David Cameron is making about the referendum issue, and also considering the trouble the whole issue has caused his party in the past, I’m not sure he’ll get a no-referendum boost in the polls. Perhaps he’d better stick to tax cuts.
“At every election one of the anti independence arguments is that we would lose our seat at the top table and that we would have no influence. Being seen on the News at the UN stating our case would undermine that argument…”
I don’t think so. Being seen at a disarmament conference is not comparable to having a seat on the Security Council with the veto. I don’t think anyone believes that Scotland would have its own seat on that.
Colin
My understanding is that Cameron has NOT pledged to hold a referendum in the event that he comes to power after the treaty is ratified. Hague was pressed on this very point this weekend and refused to commit to it. The Telegraph were swift to spot this and were fairly critical (for them) in their editorial yesterday.
Cameron is playing a dangerous game in the long term here. By playing along with the Euro sceptics he gives the clear impression that he believes that the British public should have a say and yet the last thing he will want to do should he become PM is to hold a referendum on the already ratified treaty because he knows that such a referendum could render our European membership dead in the water. That is not scaremongering, just a simple reality that it will not be possible retrospectively to pick and choose carve outs with 26 other countries. They will simply say that we can take what is already agreed or leave. Cameron knows this.
Indeed if the British public are to have a say on this treaty, on what basis of principle would Cameron deny the people a say on the consitutional parts of the Maastricht Treaty and the Single European Act which Thatcher and Major respectively denied us a vote on?
I don’t for a minute believe that Cameron is a Euro sceptic and that is why anyone genuinely hoping for a referendum on this treaty is living in cloud cuckoo land if they think they will get one from the Tories once it has been ratified. At best Cameron may adopt the LibDem approach of offering a referendum on the whole deal and he would campaign for a Yes vote. I think that unlikely however as it would split the party from top to bottom.
This is politics of the same hue that Labour employed in the 1990s when they sided with the Euro rebels to defeat the government over the Maastricht bill. There’s nothing wrong with that (indeed I think Cameron is doing his job properly by doing so) but some of the moral preaching we hear at present is simply laughable.
link
Over the next months and years we’ll be reading examples of where the “red lines” are being eroded, or alternatively, of where they are proving resilient. Cameron will hope that heinous crimes or injustices are seen through his EU prism, and his argument for a partial disengagement would gain credence. (e.g. “The EU prevents us from deporting X criminal, whose family are on UK benefits”), Anything less newsworthy won’t have much effect on people’s opinion. In any event, this Treaty is the wrong thing to be arguing over. I don’t want a polarising “In or Out” debate, but a full, fact driven appreciation of the pluses and minuses of the EU.
Personally, I’d love to know how the EU impacts on my everyday life; I suspect it has a lot less influence than my own actions, and somewhat less influence than the tax & spending decisions of the Government (& council). For that reason, it doesn’t surprise me when people put NHS, Crime Education, Economy, etc. ahead in importance
Arnie
I think Cameron is concentrating more on the “you broke your manifesto pledge” line than on the treaty itself, although he certainly gives the impression that a future Tory Government would at least detach us from the Human Rights Act.
Any lasting damage that line does to Labour in the polls will be affected by the occasions when the EU makes the news - every time it does, Cameron will mention the “broken promise” before he mentions whatever the issue is.
Arnie-
I watched Cameron’s Press Conference this morning. He refused to even discuss what the position might be if Brown ratifies & subsequently loses an election to Cameron.
He said-correctly in my view-that he is concentrating on getting a referendum before the event rather than after.
Your phrase-”By playing along with the Euro sceptics he gives the clear impression that he believes that the British public should have a say” is I am afraid so typical of the school of opinion which classifies anyone with any doubts at all about the direction the EU is headed, as beyon the pale in some way.
First of all a majority in UK expresses the wish to have a referendum on this Treaty. Whatever you or I may think about that, it cannot be dismissed, and Cameron is right to acknowledge it.
SEcondly it is possible to “pick & choose carve outs with 26 other countries”-Brown has done just that. INdeed his whole defense of THe TReaty appears to rest on his Red Lines protecting “British Interests”, rather than a recommendation of The Treaty per se.
Yes I agree with you that Cameron is playing a “dangerous game”-but for a different reason.
I believe that Cameron is using the Referendum demand as a tool to expose what he sees as a ( unpopular) failure to keep their word on Labour’s part.But I am concerned that this agenda-valid in it’s own right-will overide a duty to pursue a real and genuine concern by voters that The Treaty does represent further transfer of powers. I would want him to start demonstrating that in detail.
THere are many people, I believe, in this country who recognise the benefits of trade ties with the rest of Europe, and the benefits of a common approach to certain policy areas-but who are not in favour of the present impetus to more and more political. social, and legal integration.It is this subject which should be aired-and the Treaty Referendum debate could facilitate it .
I hope so-but am not sanguine about it. Glib use of words like “Eurosceptic” and “Europhile” do not aid rational debate on the subject.
Fascinating. I am no fan of Nick Robinson but it appears that this criticism of Cameron’s stance is starting to gather pace. If nothing else it underlines what I was trying to explain about the dangers of Cameron appearing to promise something that in fact he is not. If he does not state his position clearly and quickly, this could backfire on him particularly as he has made “trust” and “treating people like fools” his mantra.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
Anthony - Thanks for responding and I don’t disagree with what you say. However it really doesn’t address the point I raised.
In your original post you dismiss completely the relevance of the specifc strategic poll on the EU. In doing so you assume that -
People are unable to associate the two partly related issues.
and secondly that just because people focus on operational issues they do not also take into consideration strategic issues.
I do not believe either assumption is correct.
I agree issues such as the EU Referendum and the West Lothian Question will never win an election on their own (does any, other than tax cuts?) but will still have an impact on the way they vote and may effect the votes of sufficient people to decide a Government.
Furthermore, as you point out 67% of people say that the EU is sufficiently important to affect the way they vote but you go one to effectively rubbish their stated view and then justify it by making a statement which in reality rubbishes all polls on issues.
If anything I would question the validity of the ICM poll which I believe requires the sample to choose which single policy area is the most important. To me this is a totally unrealistic way of assessing this.
Personally, I want to see all areas of government addressed with the approriate urgency and not just those that are ‘the most important’ in the polls. If I was asked the ICM question it would be hard for me to give an accurate answer and I would probably answer differently each month but my top 10 issues (that will define how I vote) would rarely change and the EU and WLQ would always feature.
The problem really is that those purchasing the polls are looking for a simplistic sound byte answer and in doing so they are distorting the public’s views.
Now if the question was changed to say ‘What issues are important to you?’ with people allowed to choose whichever issues they feel are important and the EU did not figure significantly in that poll then I would accept your assessment. However, I believe it would feature significantly.
As it stands I still think your assessment is wrong. Both polls are valid and should be taken at face value and as the Populus polls is on a specific single issue it is more informative than the generic ICM tracker.
Unfortunately, there is insufficient detail on other issues to undertake a realistic comparison with the Populus poll. Unless you can point me toward some?
As a follow up why did you even bother to mention the ICM poll on class because extending your argument about prompting against the Populus poll surely the same applies to this and possibly even more so?
I do not recall the last time I was in the company of people who discussed class. It was a very long time ago!
John - If anything I would question the validity of the ICM poll which I believe requires the sample to choose which single policy area is the most important
No, it asked people what they thought was the most important issue and then also asked them what other issues they also thought were important. The data in the table is the combination of all those answers, treating them all as equally important (so if someone said health was their number one issue, but they also cared about crime, agriculture and europe it would count as 1 vote for health, 1 vote for agriculture, etc, etc)”
Now if the question was changed to say ‘What issues are important to you?’ with people allowed to choose whichever issues they feel are important and the EU did not figure significantly in that poll then I would accept your assessment. However, I believe it would feature significantly.
That pretty much what it did do. People could name whatever issues they liked, and were able to give a list of several different issues.
The debate in Parliament about the Treaty, I hope, will be about its contents, and not restricted to the point-scoring “We have our Red Lines versus You Broke Your Promise” lines.
Making polling more indicative of what makes people’s minds tick must be a fiendish task - I wonder if efforts are made to move in that direction (eg What specifically would sway you on the EU?) would lead to more analytical problems or fewer?
Nicholas,
“It’s not how big it is it’s waht you do with it”.
If Alex or Scotland are seen to stand up at the UN and push for disarmament and oppose Trident, then it will go down extremely well in Scotland. If he is attacked for doing something people think is right then that is a dangerous tactic for unionists to try.
Conversely if the UK is seen to be blocking progress or worse still despite Browns attempts to put distance between himself from Bush looks like we are just Americas second vote then again it could play well for the SNP.
No one is saying that being an observer at the NPT talks is on a par with a seat and the security table.
However, if for example, Alex says that we need to tackle the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons if we are to have stability in the middle east, and Britain continues with the pretence that we have no evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons and as they haven’t signed the NPT they shouldn’t be discussed then who will look the better.
Some people already ask what’s the point of being on the security council if all you do is back the US and maintain the status quo, when what the public want is change.
Eric Joyce MP was on Newsnight Scotland last night for Labour raging about this and again talking about comforting the likes of Iran but it’s fairly obvious that as the UK develops it’s position and the talks come about through our diplomats the UK will be talking to the likes of Iran as well.
Publically the anger is directed at the SNP Government for doing something that it shouldn’t be doing and that the UK wouldn’t, when in reality what is making Labour in Westminster annoyed is that the SNP is actually doing exactly what the UK government does.
But again until the issue progresses and gets a big enough profile for the media in Scotland to do a decent poll as opposed to a Daily Record style,
” Should Alex Salmond be wasting your taxes going on a junket to New York rather than helping poor starving grannies in Glasgow”
we won’t know if the SNP have pushed the right buttons or not.
Personally and pretty obviously as a nationalist, I think we should be at the UN stating our position and trying to get our way if possible, but the issue here is will it play well for the SNP in the polls, and that I just don’t know.
Peter.
PC SNP
What gives you the idea the your PM is not under the same control by the same people as the British PM?
If Scotland gets independence it is because the big money wants them to have it. Or REAL independence simply will not be allowed to happen.
Scotland is about as close to a Marxist communist corporate capitalist state as it is possible to become in the western world. Thats why you lot are as unhealthy, laking in confidence and independent wealth, as you are. These power crazy Marxist bankers have spent the last 50 years destroying the Scottish people for a reason. It seems you are that reason.
The people of Scotland should think hard before they abandon their friends in the English people. A nation divided is a nation ripe for a takeover. A small nation like Scotland dependent on oil and state subsidy is a slave nation in all but name. Why would you want to make this situation infinitely worse?
My wife’s Scottish, healthy extraordinarily confident (so are her friends!) and came with a substantial dowry thanks very much!
I’m not sure how her family voted last May, but like many Scots are waiting to see that the SNP cools its “independence” ardour, and secures a reputation for economic competence before the next election.
Any SNP private polling suggesting growing support for an Independence referendum?
Good to see Alex flying the flag and getting out and about.
“Any SNP private polling suggesting growing support for an Independence referendum?”
A poll in England would be interesting too.
The question might be something along these lines:-
Are you content to see the Scottish administration playing at being independent with the proceeds of your taxes-or would you prefer them to be really independent and rely on their own taxes?
The question might be something like that if you wanted a biased leading question.
Otherwise it could be something like “Would you approve or disapprove of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an independent country?”
Anyway, there was a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times that asked the whole country, rather than just the Scots, about Scottish Independence.
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/STI070101004_1.pdf
Does that mean Colin’s application to become a member of the Market Research Society hasn’t gone through on the nod yet?
I think the “self-determination” precedents render that poll less significant than a poll of Scots would be, but I can’t wait to see how the answers differ once they’ve had a period in office - on both sides of the “wall”.
Anthony,
The message from the full figures is a clear North/South divide, or more specifically a Scotland/London divide.
On the actual question itself there aren’t that many differences although the highest level of support for independence is actually in London not Scotland.
The big difference is that people in England think Scotland is subsidiesed and people in Scotland don’t and consequently English people think the current settlement is unfair and Scots don’t.
Now I’d have to say that to be honest that’s probably mostly parochialism, we don’t want to see our spending cut, and people in England want it spent their…… hardly surprising.
However a smaller part of it is amost crtainly that Scotland being to the left of most of the UK the principle that “You put in what you can afford and get out what you need” is stronger up here.
From a Scottish perspective with a third of the UK land mass but only a twelth of the population services up here are harder and more expensive to deliver so we need more money.
I am not saying it’s that simple or that it’s even true, but I do think it’s how it’s percieved.
Politically what is hard to judge is the political effect of any cut, which in a way brings us back to salience. like the EU the constitutional issue is low on the radar throughout the UK.
Any substantial cut to Scottish spending would I am pretty sure shoot independence up the political scale in Scotland and do the SNP poll ratinmg a huge amount of good.
What Iam less sure of is that if you gave potential voters in South east marginals a list of things David cameron could do and asked would it make you vote Tory that cutting spending to Scotland would get anything like the support of limiting immigration or more bobbies on the beat.
As with europe asked in isolation it gets a strong response, but that doesn’t make it a priority by a long way.
Peter.
” “You put in what you can afford and get out what you need” is stronger up here. ”
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, Peter, certainly not in my politically mixed circle/nationally mixed marriage! “One-Nation Tories” wouldn’t disagree with that motto, and even some whackadoos’ (no offence!)advocation of charitable donation as an alternative to state-collected taxes is driven by an atruistic idea.
Perception and prejudice (not yours!!)rear their twin heads, and the facts are left out. Do you know the figures re the North Sea resources (energy and fish!) obtained for the benefit of the UK, as compared with the “formula subsidy” to Scotland (from the Exchequer and from EU)? I don’t, and I suspect the answers would lower the temperature when it came to discussions of unfairness and “ungratefulness”.
I think when Brown has to rely on his Scottish MPs to force through an English only bill is the time when the debate will be rekindled in England. Certainly, while the English (as a rule) quite like Scottish people and Socttish culture, they also percieve them to consume more per head in taxes than the English, and put less back.
Inmy opinion the current settlement with Scotland is simply not sustainable, politically or economically, and I expect there will be some more final resolution in the next 10 years, especially if a Consevrtaive Government (without many Scotish MPs) removes their voting rights on English issues and evens up government spending between the avaergae Scot and Englishmen. I support independence, I think it would be better for England and (in the long run) Scotland too.
John T,
To be honest I’ve never been one for the on going debate about who subsidies who. It’s like the debate over Tory tax cuts and efficencies v disasterous cuts to public services.
By the time you cut out the spin and compare the two the difference between Labour and Tory plans is probably less than the annual margin of error.
For me Independence has always been more like leaving home, buying your first house, getting married or having kids. They are all big steps you shouldn’t do likely, they all require change and usually some financial sacrifice and risk.
However, by and large when we look back at these things, be it not living with your parents when your forty or paying more in rent for a house you don’t own than you would in a mortgage, it turns out to have been more than worth the sacrific and hard work.
The problem is the “in ten years time you’ll wonder why you didn’t do it sooner” arguement hardly features and rarely works in elections.
We like most democracies tend to fight camapaigns on the immediate rather than the long term so we tend to make short term policy a priority, rather that long term strategy.
Peter.
Peter, I’m sure that’s not the approved SNP spin!
Independence is a medium-term SNP project, and short-term policies, such as free prescriptions, surely have half an eye on that project, along with trying to establish the SNP, rather like New Labour, as the natural choice for stable economic policy.
Nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to a referendum debate, both sides will be relying on their spin on factual detail. Wouldn’t it be better to get that detail “off the bus stand” now, before the half-truths get halfway across the world?
John T,
If you can show how you are abetter man than me.
The “who subsidies who” debate has been a feature of politics is Scotland since the seventies, so I don’t hold out much hope a of a clear answer after thirty years or wrangling.
We could ask the EU to do it, as a neutral third party, but that would have southern Tories foaming at the mouth……
Peter.
I shan’t be joining you any time soon - my wife would never let me live it down!
Preparing for membership of the EU (presumably that’s part of the deal?) would reveal all kinds of facts and figures to do with the CAP, CFP, etc. and EU inward investment/grants, so there’s a start.
I don’t like foam from either side, and I’d hate to think Alezx would get into tongue-sticking, point-scoring short-termism.
We don’t hear enough what Scottish voters think - doesn’t The Scotsman ever commission polls?
Thank you Anthony for the Poll results-and advice on how to structure a Referendum question !!
Mine was loaded -of course-in which respect I found the answers to the West Lothian question in your Poll interesting, particularly given they were from both sides of the border.
I take the points made by others about the true state of the net financial support to Scotland. But precise numbers apart, perhaps the WLQ answer reflects a feeling that either we are one country-or we are two-and that this hybrid which exists now simply allows Scotland to spend “UK” taxes in a way which unfairly discriminates against non-scots-eg in healthcare.
It is a difficult one-and I don’t pretend to have an answer…but I do think that if the Scots really want to structure their public services differently from the rest of the UK, and indeed wish to strut the World stage as a seperate entity, they should hurry up & go Independent, before the English start to get seriously disenchanted.
Re: Europe. I must have pounded on 20,000 doors at the very least over the past 20 years and it’s NEVER been mentioned. Outside of political circles, whether for or against, it’s an issue many seem largely indifferent towards. Hence thousands are petititioning for a referendum not millions.
The majority of people, if asked, would say that other issues such as health and education are more important than Europe.
But Europe affects ordinary people concerning many issues about which they care very much indeed, and on which Westminster politicians are seen as failing to deliver. The appallingly low reputation of our politicians will continue for as long as they pretend to be responsible for matters on which they have given away power to Europe. The proposed new European constitution, sorry treaty, will make matters even worse.
John T,
well with a third of the Uk and only 5 million people I am sure we can find you a space somewhere. Certainly here on the Black Isle we have a quality of life second to none in the UK.
The EU does count Scotland as a region of the Uk so it does have seperate statistics and as part of the mastricht(?) agreement the UK submits to the commission annual accounts that use the EU accounting system with no PSBR.
On that basis they are probably quite well placed to give an independant view, although they seem loathed to do so for fear of getting drawn in to the internal politics of a member state.
Even if it did give us an independant perspective I doubt it would help much as to be honest I don’t know an independant report in years that politicains of all parties haven’t rolled up and clubed each other with.
you only look at how the report on the Scottish elections went down yesterday. the fact that everyone was criticised didn’t stop the name calling and buck passing.
Having said that the SNP have taken the position that in any Independence negotiations the EU offically play the part of arbriter ( although i don’t think we used the term Binding…..)
Peter.
Is that “black” as in the black arts?
Thanks for the insight re EU!
A clarification, I think.
As far as I know the MORI question on “most important issue” isn’t asked every month - almost every month but not quite. This year it was not asked in February or March (which was quite annoying because the January one had shown “immigration” dropping from 38% to 25% and I wanted to know if this was a blip or a trend (it was a blip - up to 36% in April)).
On Europe - I always thought this was less ‘important’ from a polling point of view because those people who are likely to say that it is an important topic to them are those who are likely to vote Conservative anyway; so even if Europe is higher as an “important issue” it won’t have much effect on vote (except maybe through increasing turnout of Conservatives?)
Jon
Peter Cairns:-
“you only look at how the report on the Scottish elections went down yesterday. the fact that everyone was criticised didn’t stop the name calling and buck passing”
…”everyone” except the voters of course. The Gould Report concluded that all poitical parties had put their own interests before those of the electorate.
It behoves politicians to remember the etymology of the word Democracy from time to time:-
From the Greek-demos ( common people) + kratos ( rule)
John T:-
“Thanks for the insight re EU!”
Here are a few more :-
Valerie Giscard d’Estaing :-this new treaty” takes up the entirety of the progress contained in the constitutional project…the proposed measures remain intact”
Jose Socrates ( PM of Portugal) :- “This Treaty is not the end of the story because their is no end”
and some interesting ideas from letters to The Times today :-
*Repeal of the acquis communitaire by which an EU directive can never be rescinded.
*MEPs be empowered to initiate and repeal legislation rather than merely to approve proposals from the Commission.
*Restore social policy responsibility to member states.
*Reject the proposal that the ECJ should have competency to adjudicate it’s own supremacy over the parliaments of member states.
…Any party proposing that these measures were enacted before UK Treaty assent would begin to demonstrate some vestige of democratic accountability.
Colin - I was thanking Peter for his writing about the EU in relation to Scotland, information which I hadn’t known.
Frederic “Europe affects ordinary people concerning many issues about which they care very much indeed, ” The problem is that those issues are not discussed in practical terms, apart from when an “outrage” hits the heaadlines, and even then the argument descends into mutual “clubbing over the head”.
I’m not going to be drawn into an argument re the “opt-outs”, but if the public are told facts that they can relate to their everyday lives, then the Europhile/Eurosceptic differences might start to make sense and gain in importance.
Highlighting different of the Reform Treaty, without reference to any country’s “opt-outs” doesn’t shed much light on the actual issues.
It’s no good simply saying that we have given away all our power without saying precisely how that has damaged, or could damage in the future our lives. People simply get bored by the noise, and disengaged from the argument.
Colin - I was thanking Peter for his writing about the EU in relation to Scotland, information which I hadn’t known.
Frederic “Europe affects ordinary people concerning many issues about which they care very much indeed, ” The problem is that those issues are not discussed in practical terms, apart from when an “outrage” hits the heaadlines, and even then the argument descends into mutual “clubbing over the head”.
I’m not going to be drawn into an argument re the “opt-outs”, but if the public are told facts that they can relate to their everyday lives, then the Europhile/Eurosceptic differences might start to make sense and gain in importance.
Highlighting different interpretations of the Reform Treaty, without reference to any country’s “opt-outs” doesn’t shed much light on the actual issues.
It’s no good simply saying that we have given away all our power without saying precisely how that has damaged, or could damage in the future our lives. People simply get bored by the noise, and disengaged from the argument.
Jon - the gaps in MORI’s trend data this year are a special case. It’s because they were integrating their interviewers into Ipsos’s fieldwork team, so for a least one month they didn’t do a political tracker at all - the figures in the voting intention tracker are a separate poll done just to keep that main tracker unbroken.
Colin,
“Jose Socrates ( PM of Portugal) :- “This Treaty is not the end of the story because their is no end””,
I can’t see this as anything but a statement of fact.
All laws and treaties last only as long as those that sign them want.
You seem to interpret it as some sign of ever encroating Europe, but if the UK or anyone else makes a proposal to reduce power and gets it through, then the change will happen, but in the other direction.
I think one of the reasons for the publics general indifference to much of what Europe does is the fact that despite nearly 35 years of membership with constant calls from the right to “wake up Britain” the sky hasn’t fallen or the ground open up beneath or feet.
We had a huge battle over “Save the Pound” and a majority of British people still don’t want the Euro, but by and large they think the Euro has been a good thing.
It’s generally been good for the EU and it’s been convenient for them when travelling.
Warning people that they might wake up one day in the United states of europe doesn’t mean much if when the go out side life goes on pretty much as before. Indeed i am pretty sure that the people who complain about the things the EU does would still complain about the same things if the EU wasn’t there and our governemnt did them instead.
There is a disparity between the amount that people are warned about Europe intruding in there lives and how much they actually feel.
The Express can rant about curved bananas and pounds and ounces, but as most people buy them in Tesco’s and don’t check the price let alone how they are weighted or what euro classification they are it’s pretty much a waste of time.
I remember a Community Council meeting for an ugrade of a local sewage works where we were debating the best site, and one of the public said,
” We’re only getting this here because of EU rules”, to a general hear hear,
To which the planning offical replied,
“Would you rather continue to have raw sewage on the beach”, to silence from the audience.
Fact is it was easy to blame the nasty EU because they didn’t want it at there end of the village ( oddly enough the people from the other end of the village where the alternative site was were quite keen on it not being at there end either), but as to what the EU directive was trying to do, bring sewage up to a proper standard, no one was against.
For all it’s flaws the EU is a convenient scapegoat for people anger and frustration over things that they don’t like.
I’ve lost count of the times i’ve heard local councillors complain about the EU this or that, but as soon as there is a new road in their ward they are on the front page of the paper smiling while trying to blot out the sign that tells people it’s been built with EU money.
Yes…. I know it’s our money not the EU’s…. but you can say that for any tax be it central government or Local council spending.
Peter.
PeterCairns “United States of Europe” doesnt mean much as if life goes on much as before. What nonsense(unless democracy means nothing).That statement applies to most dictatorships-Europe as seen from Brussels is a one party state. How is this different from China? Possibly most decisions made are acceptable and for huge numbers life goes on better than before. However, the decisions are made by unelected,overpaid often corrupt members of government(sounds familiar?),with a different agenda. They cannot be dismissed-in China because of the military,in Brussels because of bureaucracy and self-protection.SNP would be a joke if Scotland were independentin EU.Who in Brussels would listen to you?It is bad enough now as part of UK. Yes,I am sceptical as you should be after fighting for years for independence-not about being in EU,but about the way decisions are made and the inadequacy of the people who make them.
How did we end up comparing the EU Reform Treaty with the Chinese system? Most people turn off as soon as they hear things that signify polarisation of debate on Europe (including me!).
Peter
My concerns about the EU centre -as I have tried to explain-on it’s fundamental lack of democratic accountability-not on curved bananas, or the funding of Scottish sewage plants.
But I can understand that the latter might be of more concern than the former to politicians in areas reliant upon EU Regional Aid.
Concern about an “ever encroaching Europe” as you put it is precisely what people are concerned about. I took the trouble to establish this by posting the results of polls on the subject by the Scottish Government! Just to remind you , the largest proportion of people polled felt that we should stay in Europe , but one with reduced powers. This was true both for the Scottish Poll & the UK wide Poll.
We did indeed have a battle over membership of the Euro-and it is to Brown’s credit that he stopped Blairs blind faith in a “one size fits all” interest rate policy managed by the ECB. He has been proved right. The Euro has caused inflation throughout Europe and it’s popularity has fallen-particularly in Germany. Italy not so long ago talked of withdrawing from it.
It will only ever be a success if / when the basic objective the Eurozone comes to pass -ie-convergence of the EU economies-aka Europe as the single economic state.
Yes I agree that Snr Socrates made a “statement of fact” . He did indeed!
Actually our Prime Minister is clearly aware of peoples fears of a Federal Europe, and quite aware of the constant drive towards it in Brussels. In a little reported remark after LIsbon, he said that this was the end of further institutional change in Europe for a decade at least
And so we are back to trust again-does he mean it?-will he stop it?
Much more to the point will he push for Europe to turn it’s face outward to the enormous economic competitive challenges of China & India-rather than inward to the next batch of ossifying laws attempting to create the supra-national European State?
Collin-I wonder if you & I are becoming mistaken as one entity?
I will be happy to add my surname in future posts-Boyd.
Colin We have similar views but my nname has 2 lls for reasons too complcated and boring for this site
Anthony
I’ve raised this a few times (albeit sandwiched into some political discourse) but what on earth has happened to ComRes? Have they performed the psephological equivalent of Captain Oates?
Collin,
As long as EU commission takes direction from the democratically elected heads of the member states and they are all democratically elected in free and fair multi-party elections as they are now, any talk of Europe being like China is unfounded.
The so called “Bureaucracts in Brussels” are like the manderins in Whitehall or the staff I work with at Highland Council, give advice and opinions, but they do as they are told by politicians like me.
The Council of ministers are all elected, the commissioners are all nominated by elected governments and the directly elected european parliament oversees them.
At all levels if we don’t like the things the EU does it’s down to politicains we have elected and the decisions they have made, not the people employed to carry them out.
They don’t always agree with the politicains, but when push comes to shove they carry out our orders even if they aren’t happy about it, or what we’ve decided isn’t very smart.
Rather than make claims about us being like China, why not quote an example of the European Commission taking a decision that wasn’t requested or endorsed by the Council of Ministers, all of whom are the democratically elected leader of their own countries.
I’ve said this here before but the message doesn’t seem to get through. The elctorate vote for people to act on their behalf and they make laws and employ people to impliment them.
The people employed aren’t elected, not here not in the EU. In the US they do elect police Chiefs or District Attornies, but if you want to go down that road and fragment and politicise the judisary and police force be my guest.
But then if you want real democracy why stop there, elect your local dustman, or postie.
Peter.
John T. “how many people actually care about Europe?” Difficult to discuss without showing why people should(or should not) care, dont you think? However, when this happens, you switch off. Not very helpful, perhaps?
Going back to the original question; I certainly have the feeling that the EU really is low down on most people’s agenda (although high for the tabloids and the Telegraph; an unusual duo. Why? It’s just not a day to day concern; people care more about the rubbish being collected, the mortgage and the ckid’s education. The EU is too far away from every one’s daily lives. They dislike the EU as they dislike all politicians as it’s an example of the gravy train missing them…
Jack,
I tend to agree with you, but I’d also add that a lot of what the EU does is both boring to most people and administrative.
Overseeing water quality standards is hardly declaring war, and although it’s important regardless of who sets and oversees it, it isn’t visible.
In addition it’s pretty routine and on going like the work of any department and it rarely has a public face like a domestic ministry (although how many britains would recognise and tell the correct ministries for the current cabinet).
Like I’ve said if we didn’t have anonimous civil servants in Brussels doing these things we’d probably have anonimous civil servants here doing them.
It’s an odd thing but the further the administration gets from peoples lives the less interested they are in it and the less important they seem to think it is.
So we get a situation where they don’t really feel the impact of it on their daily lives (low salience in polls) while when asked about it they are negitive (If they don’t see what it does they tend to think it’s doing nothing worthwhile).
Peter.
Peter Cairns- A single government(never mind a minister,nevermind a coucillor) can no more tell a commissioner what to do (if he doesnt want to do it) than I can.The best it can do is go through a series of meetings(at which he can be outvoted anyway). Even if agreed,the commissioner or his senior staff has numerous ways of delaying action indefinitely.I am talking about decisions that matter,not some local drains problem. If you believe this is the equivalent of a minister instructing hissenior civil servants, then I think you need a little help. Brussels bureaucrats,believe you me,are NOTHING like our civil servants.
Collin,
As with my request that you give an example of the commission or anyone else acting without politicans authority, have you anything other than assertion to back up the claim that people employed by government in Brussels are different from those employed here.
If they aren’t like our civil servants, prove it, preferably with something that isn’t just innuendo with a sprinkling of block capitals.
Peter.
Peter.
You might be interested in this view of the degree of democratic accountability actually operating in the governance of the EU :-
http://www.fedtrust.co.uk/admin/uploads/FedT_LAD.pdf
Colin,
All that says in effect is that instead of the council of ministers and one commissioner per country, there should be a commission elected in line with a pan european election.
In short the way to make the EU more democratic is to have a federal europe with less power for national heads of state.
Firstly hell will freeze over before europes leaders create a power above themselves and secondly Britain would never sign up for such a thing.
As I’ve said all along there are things wrong with europe, but the blame and the solution lies with the people we elect and the decisions they make not with the people employed to uimpliment them.
Peter.
Peter Cairns. The problem is that Europe will never be either federal or democratic,which leaves control in the hands of Brussels. Yes,I have direct knowledge of senior Bussels staff through a senior civil servant seconded to Brussels for 2 years.If you feel I was a bit aggressive,youshould hear what he has to say!He came back very depressed at the situation over there(about 3 years ago).Apologies for the caps. will not occur again.
Collin
Since I “switched off” yesterday afternoon, nothing has been added that addresses my desire for examples to be given of how the “lack of accountability” affects my life.
There is just assertion, and counter-assertion.
Is there real elector accountability in domestic politics that is greater or more effective than that in the EU?
Cllr Cairns provides one example re water-quality, to show something that the EU actually does that seems worthwhile. What exactly does it do, with examples, that is not?
Peter
I draw your attention to this Europe wide poll of attitudes to EU, the euro etc.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=31
If any politician of any hue thinks this represents an endorsement for ever increasing political. sociaL & economic integration , then they need to get out of their ivory tower a bit more.
Colin
“reduce the EU’s trade barriers against developing countries.” is the only thing of substance in that poll.
The rest is a reflection of completely un-informed opinion; the question of “why people should care” referred to at 5.24pm by “2 l’s” above remains an open question, with no specific answers apart from one about hygiene from one side and one about free trade from the other. If anyone can thiink of anything else that is substantive, then I might be persuaded to care more.
The only fact I can add about EU activity is that Peckham received an EU grant of £500m for re-generation a few years ago.
John T
I beg to differ-the things of “substance” are Key Findings number 2, 4 & 8
I just love your “un-informed opinion ” remark!!
I can hear that being muttered throughout the corridors of power in EU.
No doubt the millions about to be spent in setting up an EU “embassy” ( ?!) in London will be expended in an effort to rid us all of these un-informed opinions.
I’m very pleased that the good folk of Peckham are content with their £500m
Colin
The Key Findings are polling figures - people’s opinions, not actual issues of substance or policy.
I’m glad you agree that people are un-informed.
If there is an EU embassy to be established in London with a view to telling the public what it does, then provided it doesn’t cost too much, that’s not a bad idea.
I’m all for getting information out there. The good people of Peckham probably don’t realise that their houses have been built with EU money, and might well include people who think the EU is unremittingly bad. Is that OK by you? Or would you rather they based their opinions on some facts?
John T.There is,it seems to me, one incontravertible “fact”- the EU is and will continue to be undemocratic, regardless of how good its decisions. This is why I compared it to China. No doubt China makes numerous decisions beneficial to its citizens and there is no doubting its economic success. Is this the government you want? Because this is what you will get.
JohnT. But without the economic success.
John T
I could not disagree more with your view that people’s opinions are not issues of substance.
(…I mean why are you bothering to comment on opinion polls here ?)
IMHO any politician -or governing administration of any sort holding that view for long will be out of a job-one way or another.
By the way it’s not “EU money”-it’s EU citizens’ money redistributed through an administration which duplicates their national governments’-and which is notorious for waste , fraud & errors.
…and that is not just an “opinion”-it’s a fact.
link
[...] the public does not worry very much about Europe; some 4 per cent according to a recent poll. However, this is historically low; in 1997 that figure stood at 43 per [...]
Colin
EU money is the same as Government money, or “taxes”. I wasn’t suggesting it hadn’t been collected - if that was a criticism of my understanding of that very basic issue.
Is it OK that people’s opinions are not arrived at because of their reaction to real information? Is it OK to spend squillions on advertising campaigns pushing “spin” and winning the public over without any reference to facts?
“(…I mean why are you bothering to comment on opinion polls here ?)”
I think it’s a valid point (and I make it often) that people rely on “gut reaction” when responding to surveys, and I wish they had more to go on than the loud noises in the papers
I’m interested in what people think, and why they think the things they do think. I’m intrigued that no-one (not even The Sun in its anti-Treaty campaign) can come up with any practical examples that could inform those surveyed.
Comparison between the EU to China is very odd, because their system of Government is for China, and its “dependent territories”, not for 20-odd sifferent countries. Perhaps it was the EU “mandarins” that prompted that?
I’m sure Anthony would have censored my comments here long ago if they had been as irrelevant to this site as you suggest.
Your link is to an article in November 2005. Anything more recent?
I accept the “notoriety”, the “reputation”, is there - that’s consistent with my statements. the question is, is the notoriety based on any concrete examples?
Of course what people think is important. I was not suggesting that people should be ignored, I was suggesting that they should be informed. I don’t understaand why that elicits such a negative response from you.
Colin (one l)
Re the “opinion is a substanive issue” point. Of course you are correct - it drives decision-making. Even if , say, all the indicators are that prison doesn’t work, more will be built because public perception is that prison doea work. (Might be a bad example, because I’m not sure whether prison works or not), but I hope you see that I get your point.
Ironically, that’s not so in China, Collin, where decisions are made without reference to opinion polls. By the way, that isn’t the problem with China, it’s more the fear of protest/opposition, which passes on to its poeople a fear of repression and a reluctance to discuss politics - “keep your head down”. I lived there for a short time amongst un-westernised non-English speakers and while they were perfectly happy in there lives, there was a marked quietness, and over-regard for authority. I can’t see the French ever acquiescing to the thought-police, or the British for that matter.
I remember the infamous curved Bananas story, wher the beaurocrats in Brussels wer estopping British banans being sold.
However whta had actually happened was that farmers, retailers, traders, processors and restraunts across europe wanted a single system of classification instead of different national sytems so that they could buy and sell freely and consistantly throughout the EU.
Ministers asked the commission to draw up the rules and after a lot of wrangling (unsurprisinly ever nation tried to skew the classification to help their own interests) they came up with a single set of rules.
Then the UK press take the fact that certain types of banans that we like will be graded as somewhat differently to currently into a Euro attack on the British way of life.
There never was any possibility that there would be any restrictions on the type of banans we could buy, but it’s amazing how many people still hold the banana wars against the EU.
Peter.
JohnT. Different dictatorships use different controls.The Chinese use fear,the EU uses extreme uncontrolled bureaucracy-both seem to work quite successfully.
Collin,
Still no sign of any actual proof of your assertion of an uncontrolled bureacracy.
“All the Presidents Men”. Before you publish you need too independent verifyable sources.
Peter.
John T:-
“I accept the “notoriety”, the “reputation”, is there - that’s consistent with my statements. the question is, is the notoriety based on any concrete examples”
You may be interested in this:-
http://www.ifj-europe.org/default.asp?index=2720&Language=EN
You can do your own searches on Paul Van Buitenen & Martha Andreasen & make your own mind up.
Andreasen was sacked by then Commissioner Kinnock, whose portfolio included Fraud reduction.
Peter.
Perhaps you can help me-
Do you think the following is correct,and what is your answer to the question at the end.
In answer to the charge that “Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats,” the European Commission is fond of reminding us that the most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country.
Furthermore, it states, “Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable.” Thus, the Commission effectively argues, because Council members are responsible to their electorates, the European Union is democratically controlled.
In order to explore this assertion - that the Council somehow adds democratic legitimacy to the European Union - we simply need to look at what the Council is, and what it does.
Firstly, the Council itself. In fact there are many “Councils” each dealing with specific policy areas - like environment, transport, fisheries, agriculture, etc. Their members are the sectoral ministers from the member states,(not always the Heads of State) each council comprising the same number of ministers as there are member states.
So what do they do?
The answer to that is quite simple - they “legislate”. That is, they receive proposals from the unelected Commission, asking them to take powers and/or responsibilities from their member state governments (or to impose obligations on their citizens).
They then turn these proposals into laws, giving the Commission the powers it asks for - often acting by qualified majority voting - thereby depriving their own governments (and/or citizens) of power.
That’s it.
From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).
Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.
Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.
Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.
Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? No.
So what is the Council?
In effect, it is a transfer station. On the basis of proposals from the Commission,( the only body empowered to initiate legislation) it handles the process of taking powers from member states, packaging them up and shovelling them into the Commission, for them never to be returned.
Does it ask the electorate in advance - through an election manifesto - what powers it should hand over? No.
And is any record kept of which particular ministers vote for what, so that they can be taken to task by their electorates, if they vote the wrong way? No.
Is this process democratic?
Colin-Thanks- saved me writing in similar terms.None of your comments are assertions.However “dont confuse me with the facts”-makes it too difficult to live with ones prejudices.
Collin - I don’t understand your last sentence - do you want to be confused? Yopu seem to be sideing with me - we need facts, not “spin”, and all Colin has provided is a description of the process (rather loaded to reflect his view of it)
“The Chinese use fear,the EU uses extreme uncontrolled bureaucracy-” suggests we all feel cowed by bureaucracy. Is there an example as to why I should feel threatened by EU beaurocrats in the same way that a Chinese peasant feels threatened by punishment for protesting against government policy?
Colin, the answer to the question, “is the EU law-making process democratic” is yes. One only has to compare it with the UK “democratic process” to see that “democracy” in action isn’t a simple matter of responding to the clearly ewxpressed wishes of majorities of voters, but something rather more complex. Involving “spinning” arguments instead of examioning the facts.
There are still no examples from you of how the EU processes damage us to the extent that it should be fundamentally changed.
Colin,
If by your definition the EU is undemocratic then so is Britain, and indeed every other modern democracy. They all have civil servants who give ministers or their equivelents advice.
Ministers then decide how to act and send there civil servants away to do it. That action comes back as legislation for the government to take forward if it chooses.
As to many “commissions”, we have many ministers, in ministries covering similiar areas.
There is of course a difference.
Where as in the EU the “commissions” are overseen by a council of ministers elected from a range of countries and from a range of democratically elected ( usually proportionally) political party’s in the UK it tends to be a single politicain from one party which didn’t get the support of the majority of the electorate at the election.
You can claim that having a room full of agricultural ministers plus their advisors is a lot more clumbersome than a single minister but your on dodgy ground on it being undemocratic.
So lets try a different tack, why don’t you tell us what a democratic EU would look like and how it would work.
Peter.
John T & Peter. Ofcourse,no one is afraid of bureaucrats-that is not how they work.If they are uncontrolled(by ministers, Parliament in our case)then their agenda and objective can be achieved more easily.Passing legislation cannot be compared with advising a minister.As for suggesting that because EU is undemocratic,so UK must also,this doesnt stand up to a moments scrutiny, for the same reason.
Peter & John T
I suppose my answer to you both is that I wouldn’t start from here!
To John-rather than “what damage” I ask what point & what benefit to the bureaucracy &institutions-particularly the Commission-and the
self evident trajectory to integration.Why cannot trade be conducted -as itis with so many other nation states-without economic union? Why do the economies of Europe have to convergesimply in order to facilitate a common currency & interest rate policy?
Why does the law of the country in which I live & vote have to be subsidiary tothe law of the EU which is not a country & where I do not vote?
I feel that the areas of common interest across europe could have been fostered by trade & forums without the straightjacket of conformity, and cost of the insitutions which have been spawned in the transition from an “Economic Community” to a “Union”
To Peter-I don’t think a European “Union”cannever be democratic until it’s law makers are directly elected by all it’s citizens-and that would make it one country.But I believe in the importance of the Nation State, and all that it represents for it’s people . I want to feel that I can directly influence the laws of my country with my vote. I feel no ability whatsoever to influence the laws of the EU-and less so every time I read that this or that policy change is not possible because it would infringe EU law.
Thereare areas of pan-European action which I readily accept as sensible and usefull. But I do not believe that these needed the massive structure of institutions & law , which sensible co-operation between states ( a prerequisite in any event !), and organisations like UN & NATO for example could help to facilitate.
Well chaps I guess we have squeezed the pips out of this one. We clearly have differing views & it has been most interesting to examine them.
Colllin,
“As for suggesting that because EU is undemocratic,so UK must also,this doesnt stand up to a moments scrutiny”.
It stands scrutiny pretty well from where I stand.
The minister who is appointed by the leader of his party as part the government in the UK, is the same minister as goes to sit on the Commission, he makes decisions based on advice from civil servants in London and Brussels.
Other than the still unsubstantiated claim that the EU’s civil servants are somehow more corrupt or devious than ours it is the same politican with the same democratic mandate making decisions in two different palces.
Therefore neither is more or less democratic than the other which means that if the EU is undemocratic then so is the UK or conversely if we have democratic control of public servants than so has the EU.
Colin,
A bit of a self tautology isn’t it.
In effect you are saying,
” I am opposed to the EU because it’s undemocratic, but the only way to make it democratic is for it to be a federal state, and because I am opposed to that, I am opposed to the EU.”
The reason for the single market with the free flow of goods and services was that when we looked at the costs of doing business in the EU compared to the US there was no comparison.
The idea was to where possible to replicate what they had their with free movement of goods services and people between states and a single currency and central bank.
If you compare it to the US, I suppose you could argue that what they came up with was a loose confedracy with no executive president, a single house of congress, but with more limited powers, and a governing council that is the equivellant of a forum of elected state Governors.
Oddly enough I know quite a few Americans from both Right ( they don’t like big government in Washington interfering in their lives and taxing them) and Left ( they don’t like the power of the president which they feel should be curtailed), who would quite like that model themselves.
You also mention Nato.
It’s go a perminant HQ with a huge staff in Brussels. Looking at Afghanistan, it’s hardly inspiring, what with the Germans and French pretty much refusing to fight and us still short of combat troops after more than a year despite the European members having over 1m men under arms.
There is no Nato parliament, I know we have an Ambassador to Nato because I once visited his house. All Nato decisions are made by unanimity so, luxembourg or Iceland can veto everyone else. Given your concerns about democratic accountability how can you be in favour of Nato?
As to your vote influencing things, move to Scotland, in England the only two parties that can win now have identical manifestos.
Peter.
Peter-
I don’t buy your equation of Westminster & The Council. If I voted for the ruling party at Westminster , they published a Manifesto & I voted for it. By & large I can expect to see the contents of that manifesto enacted by a majority in power.
The single representative of that party in The Council does not provide provide me with any certainty as to outcomes there. He is but one voice.
I don’t think the Commission is at all equivalent to our Civil Service.
I have not claimed ( if indeed thats what you meant) that the present Commission is corrupt ( though you will remember Santer & his gang as well as I no doubt)-merely that the EU Auditors tell us that to date it has never properly accounted for its expenditure of our money.
Thanks for your invitation-but no thanks.The party I intend to vote for will have a very distinctive set of policies which will benefit the country in my view.
I trust that Mr Salmond will be able to claim the same for his country.
[...] article by Anthony Wells - How can UKIP make the EU relevant - how can UKIP make people care? polling Report ? Blog Archive ? How many people actually care about Europe? October 22nd, 2007 How many people actually care about Europe? Posted by Anthony Wells in [...]
JohnT/Peter.So these are the same- 1/A UK minister advised by his department,steering laws through Paliament and 2/The same minister in a group in Brussels over which he has little influence, discussing briefly proposed laws which are then enacted by the proposers without further reference. This is so bizarre,no further comment seems needed.However,as I am probably the only person in the world still reading this site,I doubt if it matters. Over and out.
Peter-
In your third para I think you meant “Council”-not “Commission”
I just don’t buy the equations UK Parliament=THe Council & UK Civil Service= The Commission.
A UK voter who voted for the winner in a GE, will have voted for a manifesto. He/she will have a high degree of certainty that it will be implemented by the majority party. THe individual from that party who sits on the EU Council of MInisters is in a minority-possibly a political minority & can offer no certainty of outcomes to the UK voter. There is no manifesto, no record of proceedures & no voting record for THe Council.
The UK Civil Service is low key/a-political/legislatively re-active.
THe Commission is high profile/political/legislatively pro-active. I saw Barosso with Brown recently. He set out the Commissions’ vision for EU, and did not think twice about warning BRown not to demand too many UK derogations from the grand plan. Our civil service does not act like this.
THe democratic credentials of THe Council are illusory & it’s control over the Commission debatable.
My point about NATO & UN was precisely because-as you say-EU agreement on foreign policy is so difficult to achieve, why not use the talking shops we have already rather than construct yet more EU institutions to no purpose.
Thanks for your invitation, but the party I vote for will have very distinct policies & values, which are unlikely to be legislated for in Scotland at present!
Colin,
“Thanks for your invitation, but the party I vote for will have very distinct policies & values, which are unlikely to be legislated for in Scotland at present!”
That will be UKIP I presume.
Odd that you talk about being able to have democartic control through your vote when you seem intent on wasting it.
Peter.
Peter-you presume too much-the politicians eternal failing.
Nope-I’ll be voting Conservative in all probability.
Not at all a wasted vote!!!
Colin.Amazing!! This could go on till we get a referendum(some hope)
Colin.For some reason, Anthonys system recorded the entries after clocks put back as pm not am.People reading this should realise we shall be monitoring it 24/7 until Brown gives us the referendum we obviously need,from the low grade responses we have been getting.
Colin at 1.25pm
“FJ Calls for New Protection for Whistleblowers Within European Union
30/09/2004″
2004?? I need more recent examples of how the EU damages my life. How about an article from some time this year (or henceforward - I’m sure Anthony will indulge us awhile at the bottom of a thread!
I disagree that the debate has been low-grade. It has been almost entirely about the process of government, at the expense of discussion of policies , which no doubt in my mind explains the public’s lack of interest in the EU (pace Anthony!!), but there was an interesting turn at 7.51pm from Colin :
1 “Why cannot trade be conducted - as it is with so many other nation states - without economic union?
2 Why do the economies of Europe have to converges simply in order to facilitate a common currency & interest rate policy?
3 Why does the law of the country in which I live & vote have to be subsidiary to the law of the EU which is not a country & where I do not vote?”
These are very good questions (I corrected the typos)and added numbers for convenience.as to the answers, my personal take is :
1 Economic Union is not an issue for us - won’t happen.
2 The differnet economies WOULD have to converge to facilitate a single currency and interest rate policy. Again, not an issue for us, as we do not envisage a single currency, a convergence of economies, or a single interest rate policy.
3 Assumiong you live in the UK, your laws are not subsidiary to thse of the EU, at least until the “opt-outs” are removed, at which point I’ll gladly join the queue to exit.
Colin at 1.36 pm
“He/she will have a high degree of certainty that it will be implemented by the majority party”
When was the last time a majority party decided anything in this country?
The last time a majority view held sway was when the poll tax riots 500 yards from the palace led to its abandonment, but even then the taxpayer was punished by an increase in VAT from 15% to 17.5%, in order to “pay for the transition”.
Collin - your departure from this debate presumably means we can stay off China now!
John T
I just want to respond to one of your points-or else this will go on too far-it probably has already!
“UK, laws are not subsidiary to thse of the EU,”
It has been ruled several times by the European Court of Justice that EU law is superior to national laws, and even Member States’ constitutions. Where a conflict arises between EU law and the law of a Member State, EU law takes precedence, so that the law of a Member State must be disapplied. This doctrine, known as the supremacy of EU law, emerged from the European Court of Justice in Costa v. ENEL
The Commission has sole power to initiate this legislation -and it pours out in bucket loads.
Since end May this year over 600 new laws have appeared .
Colin - If any of the 600 (I believe you!) make my life any worse, I’d love to know which and how. “EU law” doesn’t enjoy jurisdiction, say, on Tax, or foreign policy, or any of the other subjects covered by the UK’s opt-outs.
If the EU robs us of our “democratic” rights, then so does our own “undemocratic” system. Who elected the Crown? If we had to start again from scratch we’d probably be able to devise a more “democratic” system than we have - in the EU as well (I don’t disagree as much as you might think!) , since the driving force behind its original establishment was the proximity of the last World War.
It would be great to couch debate in terms of facts and figures (what laws exactly, and how do they affect life here?) , but there’s been precious little of those here, and I’m sure that’s the main reason people don’t care about Europe. “600 laws have been passed since May” doesn’t mean anything near as much as, say, “ONE law has been passed which is going to cost you your job”.
John T
If you want to understand how EU law has impacted UK it’s very easy to do the research on-line.You just have to be interested enough.
You seem quite content with the status quo which is fine.-I am not.
We are on different sides of a divide it seems.
It’s been fun though
atb
Colin
Fun for me too Colin!
Cheers
[...] what matters most to the people (at least in the UK) is, apparently immigration (43%), crime (41%), health (36%), defence and terrorism (22%), with Europe scoring a [...]