What is their reasoning for supporting one party over another? What positions do they prefer in the party that was mostly voted for over the other party? Sorry but I know next to nothing about European politics.
The United Kingdom Independence Party is against the United Nations interference and the current immigration policy. It is more conservative than the Conservative Party.
The main issue is over immigration and the fact that England has virtually no control over who can immigrate from other European Union nations. UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party) made resolving that problem their central issue, and they appear to have hurt the conservative Tory party the most. The US is not the only country trying to control who gets in.
Interesting. I would have to say that I’d likely support the United Kingdom Independent Party as well. I don’t think it is justified to have such a broad view of immigration and immigration policy. Immigration does need to be restricted but it also needs to be broad enough to allow people in who need in or who have family there. Its kind of a sticky issue I think.
You know, while I don’t take much notice of the Kippers, I’ve not heard them moan about the United Nations, about the EU both obviously and endlessly but the UN no.
Please tell us more about it.
Just to point out that it’s ‘Independence Party’ not ‘Independent Party’.
Something you share with most UKIP voters.
Go and sit on the naughty step, Kaninchen
Ah okay. That’s kind of sad to be honest. I’m not European but they are so they ought to know more about European politics than me.
They are not internationalist European but Nationalist. Some people label them as backward and ignorant because UK will supposedly suffer if they withdraw from the EU or because it may make the UK look bad, as in xenophobic.
I personally don’t think the EU itself is bad. It should be reformed though and maybe some restrictions need to be in place for countries who feel they are being flooded by foreigners. Whether those restrictions are justified or not, they should be put to a popular vote.
BUT if the majority of British people want OUT OF THE EU, they should be granted that wish. That’s what self determination is about. And not London, or Brussels or Washingon or Moscow or Tel Aviv or Berlin or Beijing should tell them what to do, or think or do the decisions for them.
(Disclaimer: as an EU passport holder, I enjoy visa free travel across the EU and across Shengen on my ID card. This would affect me and I may have difficulty entering UK or working there despite my GMC registration in the UK. But anyhow, despite that, I think if majority of UK people don’t want people like to work or live there, they should be able to affect that change.)
I just posted this on another thread:
This time, unlike 1910, Britons were not electing a government, but merely members of the European Parliament. The European Parliament isn’t really a parliament, in the sense that it does not have “legislative initiative”, which is a polite why of saying these guys have no say over anything that matters. And, aside from not being a parliament, there isn’t any “Europe”. The more the Eurocrats insist that their subjects are voting as “European citizens”, the more the horizons shrivel: in the Parliament of Euro-Man, the French vote for French nationalists, Hungarians for Hungarian nationalists, Greeks for Greek nationalists, etc. There is no European polity, which is why there should be no European parliament.
My old boss Boris Johnson, now the Mayor of London and eying Downing Street next, analyzed the vote thus:
**To a greater or lesser extent, the story of this Euro-election has been the rise of the minor parties – some of them bizarre, some of them downright potty, but all of them united by a visceral dislike of the EU bureaucracy: its arrogance, its remoteness, its expense, its endless condescension and its manic and messianic belief in its right to legislate for all 500 million people in the EU.
There is a kind of peasants’ revolt going on, a jacquerie. From Dublin to Lublin, from Portugal to Pomerania, the pitchfork-wielding populists are converging on the Breydel building in Brussels – drunk on local hooch and chanting nationalist slogans and preparing to give the federalist machinery a good old kicking with their authentically folkloric clogs.**
Lovely stuff, but I don’t think it’s quite right. Yes, Ukip voters hate the EU bureaucracy, but the only reason the EU is in a position to put the screws to them is because the British political class gave away British sovereignty to Brussels. And Ukip wants it back. So, in that sense, it’s not so very different from 1910. Like John Redmond and his Irish caucus, Nigel Farage leads a nationalist party and, like Redmond with Asquith, he’d be happy to enter into an arrangement with the Prime Minister in exchange for a Home Rule bill.
But none of the Westminster parties is serious about Home Rule for Britain - which is to say withdrawal from the EU, or at any rate the kind of meaningful clawback that would dramatically reduce Brussels’ jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. Dear old Boris doesn’t seem to get that everything he says about the EU bureaucracy - “its arrogance, its remoteness, its expense, its endless condescension” - is exactly how Farage’s voters feel about the Conservative-Liberal-Labour-Media Permanent Political Class in London. For the most recent examples of arrogance, remoteness and condescension, see the coverage of Ukip throughout this election campaign.
Just like the Hungarians, the French, the Greek . . . . etc., lots of people that don’t know much or rather don’t CARE much for European politics or the EU.
One doesn’t have to know much about EU politics to believe a country is best run by its own government elected by its own people rather than by a random group of professional politicians implementing their collective views about how other people ought to live. The “Independence Party” is accurately named.
If that actually described the situation - rather than being bluster about the situation - that might be fair comment.
Since we’re fundamentally opposed to each other’s position there’s little to discuss.
The article cited by the OP contained this comment:*A Tory Cabinet minister today concedes that immigration is a “legitimate complaint” and admits that Britain has “virtually no control” over immigration from Europe.
*If the minister’s observation is accurate then the UK has ceded control of that part of their national welfare to the EU. We may have fundamentally different opinions about whether that is or is not a good thing but we should at least be able to agree on whether the statement is true.
Are you British?
My wife is-does that count?
She might be able to answer the questions I was going to ask Ender but she’s not part of the conversation.
She’s been gone since 1966 so I doubt she could be of much help. She still has a hard time understanding the extent of free speech in this country and the difficulty of suing for libel.