http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088133.stm

- This is disastrous for the attempted EU 'constitution', ie Treaty of Lisbon. The Conservatives vowed to force a referendum on the issue if they took power and, as we know, referendum's on EU treaties usually mean defeat, due to a lack of knowledge, misinterpretation, or a successful fear-campaign by the right (just look at the French, Dutch, and more poignantly, the Irish, defeats).

For those not too sure on UK/EU politics, the Conservatives won a crushing local election defeat this week, gaining something like 250 councillors, making them supreme at the local government level. This is, of course, an indication as to what a general election result would be. The Government meanwhile has imploded with several senior ministers quitting, some due to an expenses scandal, others in protest against Brown. There's a backbench rebellion, and opinion polls put Conservatives way ahead.

Now, each British political party has its own, usually differently named, EU party. Labour has always possessed the most MEPs (members of European Parliament), but the penundulem of power has swung to the right in yesterday's EU elections.

Where do we stand? Well, it means no EU constitution could now be ratified as the Tories seem a sure bet to win the next general election (and it only takes one member to ruin the entire thing), and that the majority right at Brussels will work against most EU legislation.

As a major EU state, the UKs drift to the right, at both the local and European level, marks a major blow to the EU 'dream'.

It is tough to try and get so many cultures and philosophies to work together for the greater good. I admire the success the EU has had so far. I mean we have 2 parties that represent the same people and they cant even get along and do for the greater good.

Was listening to BBC on the way in and it was stated that this was the worst turnout yet and that there is a disconnect between the people in that taking the time to research the parties and platforms in ones own country is more beneficial than trying to take the time to understand the parties platforms of the EU parliment. Something to the effect that the results of voting into office for ones own area had more tangible results than what the EU does. It's easier for folks to understand the role of their local and nationwide gov't but not that of the EU.

It sounds like a disconnect to me and that the EU is not doing a good job of PR. Of course all that lovely scandal you guys have had with MEPs probably had something to do with voter apathy.

Halo, is this a reaction of isolationism/protectionism due to global economies or?

Well, it may have been a bust for European integration (and I've heard numerous reasons why voter apathy for the EU elections is so high, including that y'all outlawed any sort of symbol for the EU beyond the flag), but at least it was a boon for the pirates!

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/

Regards,
Nydia

No, Fanny, nothing economical about it. Fil hit it on the head, IMO, the notion of Otherness, or 'Removedness'. People seem to grasp local and national politics, but feel the supra-political nature of European Politics beyond their sphere of concerns/emotions, and as such misinterpret legislation, intentions, and the entire policy or point of the EU. As such, people in European states are extremely vulnerable to right/far-right scare-mongering about the erosion of national sovereignity and the domination of 'The Brussels Evil'. Irish voters, for example, were subject to anti-catholic fears, ie meddling with abortion legislation. British and French voters are particularly liable to gobble up immigration scare-mongering (the UK Independent Party and the British National Party being particular winners in these elections, using anti-immigration as their platform). And so on. It is particularly telling that many of the MEPs themselves have little care or real knowledge of European politics, and how they relate to their particular national context.

But that, pro-EU politicians argue, is the point of any constitution, to give the EU unity and backbone, and allow a greater integration at the local and national level, to the point of connecting member states, and their populations, closer to the supra-national level. If the EU remains a loose political, and pre-dominantly commercial entity, then apathy at the micro-level will remain supreme. It's a tough cookie. And it's the sort of stalemate, Nydia, that prevents the EU adopting an overtly nationalist stance and promoting symbols, anthems, etc. There is no European Union state, and there will never be anything like it, until greater cohesion and integration can be invoked.

Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. All I can say is that divided, the Greek states tore eachother apart. The one time they united, they achieved the unthinkable and crushed their Persian enemy. There may be a lesson, however far removed, in that thought.

To be fair to the anti-immigrant crowd, they have valid concerns about Labour (and EU) policy when many thousands of "refugees" from Africa and South Asia cross the whole of Europe just to get into Britain.

The tendency for extra layers of government in the EU so far has been to pass and enforce onerous amounts of regulations covering ridiculous amounts of detail. At least that is what I've been reading on a UK based message board that I frequent.

The thing is, until 1999, the EU was concerned with mainly three things: a common EU agricultural policy; EU-wide commercial policy; and common member state trade regulation.

In a single decade, it is now attempting to create a unified foreign policy, manage a parliament, initiate a rotating presidency and ultimately a rotating President; legislate on member-state domestic affairs; install a common border agency to protect against and regular immigration; and move towards a strike force, or EU army - and a thousand more things, all the while expanding its member base in a substantial manner. It is going to be bumpy, difficult, many won't understand its intentions, more will be scared. It's natural.

And yes Gulor, while concerns about immigration are to some extent valid (although, as a new report today shows, immigration estimates have been grossly exeggerated, only 20,000 coming into Britain annually, as opposed to the 50-60,000 previously thought, while the number of immigrants leaving Britain has increased in the past three years - will try and find the link to the paper article), the ease with which such an issue is made into hysteria is alarmingly prominent. Remember, Western Europe's demography are getting older, and its workforce smaller. The giant economies of Britain, France and Germany need, to a certain extent, young, immigrant labour from Poland, and even extra-European states.

Anyway, nice to see some of you taking an interest :P

The thing is, until 1999, the EU was concerned with mainly three things: a common EU agricultural policy; EU-wide commercial policy; and common member state trade regulation.

In a single decade, it is now attempting to create a unified foreign policy, manage a parliament, initiate a rotating presidency and ultimately a rotating President; legislate on member-state domestic affairs; install a common border agency to protect against and regular immigration; and move towards a strike force, or EU army - and a thousand more things, all the while expanding its member base in a substantial manner. It is going to be bumpy, difficult, many won't understand its intentions, more will be scared. It's natural.

And yes Gulor, while concerns about immigration are to some extent valid (although, as a new report today shows, immigration estimates have been grossly exeggerated, only 20,000 coming into Britain annually, as opposed to the 50-60,000 previously thought, while the number of immigrants leaving Britain has increased in the past three years - will try and find the link to the paper article), the ease with which such an issue is made into hysteria is alarmingly prominent. Remember, Western Europe's demography are getting older, and its workforce smaller. The giant economies of Britain, France and Germany need, to a certain extent, young, immigrant labour from Poland, and even extra-European states.

Anyway, nice to see some of you taking an interest :P

the ease with which such an issue is made into hysteria is alarmingly prominent.

Following the American model I see. Progress indeed.

65 years ago, you guys were against EU integration too. The EU just had a different name then!

Har har............


........Or not.

Perhaps some of the countries are not yet ready to become 1 nation.

And yes Gulor, while concerns about immigration are to some extent valid (although, as a new report today shows, immigration estimates have been grossly exeggerated, only 20,000 coming into Britain annually, as opposed to the 50-60,000 previously thought, while the number of immigrants leaving Britain has increased in the past three years - will try and find the link to the paper article), the ease with which such an issue is made into hysteria is alarmingly prominent.

Your numbers don't jive with other reports that have been posted on the subject by independent sources. According to the following, net migration into Britain has been 10 times that (237,000) as recently as 2007.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260

Even without an unknown number of undocumented migrants it is a significant inflow of people for a country the size of the UK. A survey taken in the UK of the grocery chains came up with a total estimated population about ten million people higher (figured using food consumption rates) than official Labour government estimates of the UK population. In reality, like the US, they just don't really know how many people are living in the country because there is no accurate mechanism in place to count them. So while there may be some hysteria, there is definitely also evidence to support the notion that immigration may be out of control.

I feel that EU integration has been largely a success for Central European countries, whilst you see more resistance from the Nordic countries. It is also a sore point for some EU members to see Eastern European countries enroling with the EU.

While I know some basic details of the Lisbon treaty, I don't believe I am qualified to speak on it.

I don't see how Conservatives winning is a bad thing for EU. The one thing that I have noticed is that MEPs seem to be encroaching on more and more political freedoms in Europe. What Europe needs now is a party to eliminate some of the Draconian file sharing laws recently enacted, and eliminate a lot of nonsensical legislation.

Needless to say, I do have a strong disdain for Mr Sarkozy; he has left me with a strong visceral reaction in many of his policies and thinking. He also doesn't realise that the Dalai Lama is responsible for much slavery of Tibetans and Chinese (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) up until the 1950s, as researched by Yale University Prof Michael Parenti. While we definitely won't get the straight dope from the Chinese government, the Dalai Lama certainly has his own incentive to distort the truth.