Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (46551)	5/24/2004 6:07:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794192

I enjoy this "Eurosoc" source. It is obviously British, and tends to be a bit eclectic. The Moving Target EURSOC Two 24 May, 2004 Some Europhiles seem determined to ensure Tony Blair is defeated not only at next month's EU elections but also in the vote on the constitution. This can be the only conclusion after reading articles like former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley's in today's Guardian. Ostensibly an attack on opposition leader Michael Howard's hopes of renegotiating a new relationship with the EU, Hattersly's column only serves to remind voters why closer integration is such a bad idea. Hattersley rubbishes Howard's notion that Britain can somehow change Europe's status to a more open, liberal bloc of trading partners: "Europe likes Europe as it is." No, it doesn't. Support for the EU is falling across the continent: Citizens are increasingly suspicious of its operations and reject closer integration on the rare occasions they are given the opportunity to vote. The ten new member states are not happy with their second-class status and will resist attempts to fall into line with the flatlining economies of Western Europe. Even Eurocrats don't like Europe as it is - otherwise why would they constantly propose new measures to ensure closer integration? Hattersley argues that Labour should make the case for the constitution based on protection of worker's rights and welfare, claiming that the treaty "is necessary to make those social policies work in a union of 25 members." Again, no it isn't. Individual nations have their own perfectly good systems of social protection in place. Why should the right to change these structures to meet new demands and new circumstances be removed from voters and handed to the EU? Europe needs to attract well-paid jobs demanding highly-educated workers. Some nations have social charges running at 60% above salaries: How can that attract outside investment? Why should nations not be allowed to choose their own levels of protection to compete in the global marketplace? The trouble for Hattersley is that Europe is a moving target. His vision - that Labour should make a "hard promise to embed Britain even deeper in Europe" - gives voters no endgame but ever-closer integration into a state in which direct democracy and accountability are eroded even further. Eurofantasist attempts to rally Labour around this flag can only make a difficult job for Tony Blair harder still. eursoc.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (46551)	5/24/2004 6:24:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794192

And they do vote about 80/20 Democratic, according to the past Pew polls. Yes, I know, to a partisan, that's the only thing that matters. I don't think that tells us all that much. If they vote a straight ticket, then it does, otherwise not. You saw the poll results showing that this group was very secular. In the last couple of decades, that's enough reason for a libertarian to vote Democratic, IMO. Voting Democratic doesn't necessarily mean that they're protectionists or for nationalizing health care.