I've been sort of avoiding blogging on the current Euroepan elections campaign.
Basically the debate in the UK has been so far from a sensible discussion about how decisions are made in the EU (of which the UK is part and from which a substantial part of UK law is directly applicable), that it has barely seemed worth it.

And besides, it's starting to be practically impossible to be pro-EU and not party political which of course I try not to be.
Other bloggers are slogging away, trying to counter the wave of ridiculous rubbish that's being talked about Europe in the UK - Nosemonkey in particular, despite his own antipathy towards the way the EU works in practice, wants the debate to be accurate (£40m a day??? What planet do they think we're on if they think we're going to swallow that sort of figure without question? Thank God for people like Nosemonkey that dig away to find out). You should also check out his post on why a vote for UKIP last time round proved not to be a vote for a squeaky clean collection of individuals. Noticed William Hague using some of the same material on Question Time on the BBC some days later...

My big fear and worry is that people simply don't care.
 They don't care that they're being told things that simply aren't accurate because they don't really understand the context.
My concern is that people think that the European elections are a consequence-free environment in which to give the established Westminster political parties a bloody nose.
That it's just another poll and a chance to express discontent.
It's not.

Think about this logically.
If "80%"
 (8% according to the House of Commons Library, 40% if you look at it in the round from various sources and 80% if you only look at single market legislation from BERR)
of UK legislation is "imposed by the EU"
(i.e. negotiated legislation made by the UK and 26 other Member States' governments along with the European Parliament which includes UK MEPs and the Commission which has UK staff and a UK Commissioner, and is scrutinised by the parliament at Westminster during its development, and which is then implemented in UK law through secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1976)
then it makes sense to choose as your representatives in the European Parliament people who will do their best to work within the system to get the legislation developed in the way that best fits your interests.
 You're getting these people for a 5 year fixed-term!  That's a pretty substantial consequence for a slap in the face to the main politicla parties...

But if it's just a talking shop then there's no point, is there? No need to worry?
No. Because that's part of the problem.
The antis tend to want to portray the EP as toothless and corrupt but the EU as all powerful (witness the as yet unchallenged assertion that if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force there will be no point voting for Westminster as an unelected elite will be running everything from Brussels).
But about 80% of actual legislation at EU level is codecided: that is, the EP as the directly elected representatives of the populations of the member states deciding the final shape of the legislation on equal terms with the governments of the Member States via the Council.
What your representatives do there matters, probably more than the work that a backbench MP at Westminster does in terms of personal capacity to achieve legislative change.

Sending people to the European Parliament to vote "no" to everything, even things that might be of benefit to us, is pointless.
Especially since, until the Lisbon Treaty with its specific withdrawal methods comes into force, all you have to do is repeal that 1976 European Communities Act I mentioned before.

I'm genuinely interested to know whether there's anyone out there who actually knows about how the EU works in practice, how this coincides with the UK's general interests and is still a "UK out" person?
It's often seemed to me in the past that the argument for "UK out" is that "we" are noble, uncorrupt and special and superior and once ruled two thirds of the globe and therefore could reassert this in some way and not need to be tied in with the rest of the "them". But given that the news from Westminster seems to show "we" are no better than "them", I can't really see this holding water any more?
The left argue that "flexicurity", antiprotectionism and othe labour market issues are along the lines of Victorian attitudes in the UK so the EU has a right-wing agenda - hence "no2eu". The right argue that working hours, minimum holiday, parental leave and health and safety issues are evidence of an overt socialist agenda gainst the UK's interests and the rights of a person to spend as long working to make money for their family as they damn well please.
Environmentalists argue that the EU does not go far enough in protecting the environment from harmful chemicals, businesses that there's green militancy in the EU castrating business.
In other words, if the extremes of both sides of an argument are getting annoyed is there not a chance that the EU's getting it about right?
Of course I don't want the EU to be the UK's least worst option, I want to know that its in our best interests.
Its almost impossible to quantify at present the impact of withdrawal, the extra difficulty we'd face globally in negotiation, in getting things decided in a way acceptable to us without the weight of 26 others.
We don't know what we could negotiate as trade tarriffs, or work agreements for our citizens, not just with our former EU partners but also in the wider world.
I'm not sure it'd be a given that it'd be favourable, nor that e.g. the Commonwealth would welcome with open arms a UK that had voluntarily cut itself adrift from the EU and looking for a new gang to be part of and, ideally, lead.
And just who would be negotiating all this? There's so much criticism from the antis of UK civil servants only liking the EU because it gives them power without responsibility (too stupid to be corrupt said one commentator), but surely it'd be these same civil servants that would have to be trusted to negotiate all of this (unless the antis actually naively believe that politicians do all of the negotiating from scratch themselves? But then as above, our politicians are not genenrally considered paragons of virtue any longer are they?)

But if you are voting - and I urge you to do so because we live in a democracy but as I've recently been reminded in the UK that's a privilege not a right, and with our uncodified constitution our only protections come primarily from the Human Rights Act (which and unforgivably high number of people seem to think is a BAD thing and newspapers campaign to be removed from the statute books) and from the terms of the UK's EU membership (rule of law, no death penalty etc.) - please try to remember what this vote is about.

If you care about tackling climate change, food prices, safe toys, being able to go on holiday where you want without your mobile phone calls costing a fortune, tackling terrorism etc., these are not things that we can do by ourselves.
I think we need partners working with us, not just alliances that are only there when its essential and trying to get one over us the rest of the time.
Ultimately, the EP elections should not be about moral deficiencies at Westminster, or even about EU withdrawal as that's only obtainable via Westminster. It should be about getting the people into the European Parliament that can deliver the results you want in the legislation that affects your life: if Westminster's all schools and hospitals (for the English at least) then the EU's your environment, international transport, consumer goods, animal welfare etc. etc. Try to keep that in mind please and don't let's land ourselves with extremists or people who vote "no" even when a "yes" actually fits the day to day lives of the people they are supposed to represent.  besides, I'm no good at cleaning behind fridges - I'm better at politics...
In all likelihood you can give Westminster a bloody nose next year in a general election...