Does anyone (or has anyone) ever voted UKIP or Veritas?

[Dillinger4]

I like that UKIP advert with the massive giant purple octopus.

 

[goneforlunch]

What Norway?! Don't be daft! However, UKIP's ideology is Thatcherite, and we both know what that means as far as regulating businesses and providing social protection goes...

Anyway, if a country is in the EEA they have to contribute to the EU budget and must abide by EU trade laws (ie the vast majority of EU laws) but...by not being part of the EU they have no say and no right to vote on those laws, nor will they receive any structural/regional funding from the EU...

Are you suggesting that countries in those organisations have no "social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations"? Well are you? I can't see anything 'daft' in that question. The EU itself is big on 'Thatcherism' in that it has taken up privatisation in a big way. The multinationals are very much in favour of EU membership. As for UKIP and Thatcherism, UKIP wants fair protection for employers as well as employees. You would not see cases like the hairdresser having to pay compensation to the job applicant whose feelings had been hurt after being told she'd need to remove her headscarf if she wanted to work in her salon as a hair stylist under a UKIP government (I hope).

Do you have a breakdown of types of EU law? Non EU members do contribute to the EU budget in order to access the internal market, and developed nations don't receive funding, that's true. They're still not joining the EU despite a majority of politicians in some of those countries being in favour of membership. And Switzerland isn't in the EEA.

Did anyone see Heaver on QT? He seemed to go down well with the audience. Any criticisms of his views would carry weight if they are specific.

 

[CyberRose]

Are you suggesting that countries in those organisations have no "social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations"? Well are you? I can't see anything 'daft' in that question.

"Don't be daft" should have been interpreted by you as me saying 'those countries do have social protection'. But that's up to them and therefore irrelevant to UKIP. UKIP = Thatcherism = low taxes and fuck the poor

The EU itself is big on 'Thatcherism'

Then why do UKIP, a Thatcherite organisation, most of the Tories and rich millionaires want out of the EU?

in that it has taken up privatisation in a big way

It hasn't "taken up privatisation". Nation states have taken up privatisation. The EU creates rules under which privatised companies operate fairly across the EU. If an industry is privatised it is because the nation state agreed to it or initiated it. But UKIP are Thatcherite and therefore pro-privatisation (unless they can make a political point by opposing it when they are being opportunist), so what exactly is your point? Are you saying privatisation is a good thing or a bad thing?

The multinationals are very much in favour of EU membership

They're in favour of free trade, but not all the regulations that come with EU membership (see their rabid opposition to Agency Workers Directive - something UKIP and the Thatcherite Tories also oppose)

As for UKIP and Thatcherism, UKIP wants fair protection for employers as well as employees

You don't need to lecture me or anyone else here about what Thatcherism involves. Don't try to tell us it's got its benefits (I'm from South Yorkshire) and don't try to distance UKIP from it if you view it as negative because UKIP is extreme far right economically

You would not see cases like the hairdresser having to pay compensation to the job applicant whose feelings had been hurt after being told she'd need to remove her headscarf if she wanted to work in her salon as a hair stylist under a UKIP government (I hope).

What the hell has that got to do with anything?!

Do you have a breakdown of types of EU law? Non EU members do contribute to the EU budget in order to access the internal market, and developed nations don't receive funding, that's true. They're still not joining the EU despite a majority of politicians in some of those countries being in favour of membership. And Switzerland isn't in the EEA.

Switzerland is in the EFTA, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein are in the EEA and EFTA. If you are a member of the EEA you must abide by some 'community' laws. This is the 'first pillar' of the EU and includes social policy, consumer protection, environmental laws, corporate laws and general trade regulations. They have no say over these laws but must abide them. They do not have to abide by any laws in the common foreign and security policy (second pillar) or justice and home affairs (third policy) altho presumably they can participate if they want to. Ironically, the laws that EEA states must abide by are the laws UKIP hates the most. I'm sure there are many areas of JHA for example they see enormous benefits of participation (shared police intelligence for instance)

 

[goneforlunch]

"Don't be daft" should have been interpreted by you as me saying 'those countries do have social protection'. But that's up to them and therefore irrelevant to UKIP. UKIP = Thatcherism = low taxes and fuck the poor

Independent democratically run countries decide their own policies. It would grossly misrepresentative to suggest that they have no "social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations" as it would be a ridiculous misrepresentation of UKIP's position to suggest that UKIP wants to end such protections. I would not support any party which wanted to 'fuck the poor'. High taxes = fuck the workers, IMO.

Then why do UKIP, a Thatcherite organisation, most of the Tories and rich millionaires want out of the EU?

I'm not defending or supporting Thatcher. I'm not a Thatcherite. Most of the Tories and rich millionaires don't want out of the EU, certainly not enough to withdraw support from the Tory supporting EU. UKIP is a very poorly funded party having far, far fewer rich backers than any of the major parties. And nor does UKIP support state funding for political parties.

It hasn't "taken up privatisation". Nation states have taken up privatisation. The EU creates rules under which privatised companies operate fairly across the EU. If an industry is privatised it is because the nation state agreed to it or initiated it. But UKIP are Thatcherite and therefore pro-privatisation (unless they can make a political point by opposing it when they are being opportunist), so what exactly is your point? Are you saying privatisation is a good thing or a bad thing?

Oh yes it has. Nation states are subject to laws made by the EU Commission which can force them, whether they are in favour or not, to privatise state owned industries. The Commission is even trying to bring France to heel. It was you who said even EEA countries must obey trade laws! I'm saying privatisation can be a good thing for some industries with real regulatory price control, but allowing other countries a majority share in utility companies particularly is a very bad thing. I'd definitely support the re-nationalisation of the railways given the choice, but I don't agree with UKIP's every policy and statement. (Do you always agree with Labour?)

They're in favour of free trade, but not all the regulations that come with EU membership (see their rabid opposition to Agency Workers Directive - something UKIP and the Thatcherite Tories also oppose)

And yet they (the multinationals) support EU membership. A curious position. And UKIP's position on the Agency Workers Directive is hardly rabid. It believes it will push up costs for British businesses and is likely to drive jobs abroad.

You don't need to lecture me or anyone else here about what Thatcherism involves. Don't try to tell us it's got its benefits (I'm from South Yorkshire) and don't try to distance UKIP from it if you view it as negative because UKIP is extreme far right economically

I'm not lecturing anyone, and don't take the moral high ground with me. I never said I favoured Thatcherism. You'd agree that the EU is big on the privatisation aspect of Thatcherism? And as for South Yorkshire, Thatcher pre-empted EU legislation to break the unions but the pits would have closed anyway as they have all over Western Europe because the EU hates coal. She and Scargill deserved each other. And which UKIP policy is 'extreme right wing'? Specific policies, please!

What the hell has that got to do with anything?!

A difference in government approach to employment laws!

Switzerland is in the EFTA, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein are in the EEA and EFTA. If you are a member of the EEA you must abide by some 'community' laws. This is the 'first pillar' of the EU and includes social policy, consumer protection, environmental laws, corporate laws and general trade regulations. They have no say over these laws but must abide them. They do not have to abide by any laws in the common foreign and security policy (second pillar) or justice and home affairs (third policy) altho presumably they can participate if they want to.

You claimed the vast majority of EU laws are about trade. Can you provide a breakdown to support this as requested please? Or otherwise tell me what this view is based upon. And STILL these countries have not joined the EU. You just can't get away from that.

Ironically, the laws that EEA states must abide by are the laws UKIP hates the most. I'm sure there are many areas of JHA for example they see enormous benefits of participation (shared police intelligence for instance)

UKIP is opposed to the way laws are undemocratically imposed and it probably disagrees with many of those laws. And an independent Britain need not be a member of the EEA at all. Exit negotiations haven't even started. And shared police intelligence isn't necessarily a benefit at all. The police state isn't just growing in the UK. Terrorism (and fraud and organised crime before that) is a convenient excuse to justify surrendering control of home affairs decisions.

 

[CyberRose]

Independent democratically run countries decide their own policies. It would grossly misrepresentative to suggest that they have no "social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations" as it would be a ridiculous misrepresentation of UKIP's position to suggest that UKIP wants to end such protections. I would not support any party which wanted to 'fuck the poor'. High taxes = fuck the workers, IMO.

This thread is about UKIP. I said what I believed UKIP wanted out of the EU for, I never said anything about why the other countries stay out of the EU (obviously in Norway's case it is completely different)

I'm not defending or supporting Thatcher. I'm not a Thatcherite. Most of the Tories and rich millionaires don't want out of the EU, certainly not enough to withdraw support from the Tory supporting EU. UKIP is a very poorly funded party having far, far fewer rich backers than any of the major parties. And nor does UKIP support state funding for political parties.

UKIP is a Thatcherite party (ideologically)

And yet they (the multinationals) support EU membership. A curious position. And UKIP's position on the Agency Workers Directive is hardly rabid. It believes it will push up costs for British businesses and is likely to drive jobs abroad.

UKIP, being a Thatcherite party, parrots the concerns of business. Businesses, of course, like the opportunities a single market presents them, but they hate the social and employment regulations that eat into their profits. That is why every single business org opposed Agency Workers and that is why UKIP oppose Agency Workers (and the EU in general) - because they are a Thatcherite party for rich businesses

You claimed the vast majority of EU laws are about trade. Can you provide a breakdown to support this as requested please? Or otherwise tell me what this view is based upon. And STILL these countries have not joined the EU. You just can't get away from that.

I think it goes without saying that trade accounts for the vast majority of EU laws. I honestly can't think why you'd think otherwise? You obviously dispute that so why don't you tell me which policy area you think DOES contain the most EU laws?

UKIP is opposed to the way laws are undemocratically imposed and it probably disagrees with many of those laws. And an independent Britain need not be a member of the EEA at all. Exit negotiations haven't even started. And shared police intelligence isn't necessarily a benefit at all. The police state isn't just growing in the UK. Terrorism (and fraud and organised crime before that) is a convenient excuse to justify surrendering control of home affairs decisions.

By "undemocratically imposed" surely you don't mean voted on by directly elected MEPs and by elected national governments?

 

[Stoat Boy]

Out of interest you lefties who are so down on the UKIP now, would you have supported Old Labour who campaigned many times on a ticket of withdrawal from the EU ?

 

[CyberRose]

Out of interest you lefties who are so down on the UKIP now, would you have supported Old Labour who campaigned many times on a ticket of withdrawal from the EU ?

People oppose EU membership for a number of contrasting reasons. UKIP oppose it for right wing reasons, so if they were in power and in a position to enact withdrawal, we'd see a very different society to that proposed by people who support withdrawal for left wing reasons.

 

[gunneradt]

it's simple.

Have a referendum on the EU. But Blair and Brown have bottled a referendum on the Euro and Treaties to date.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Out of interest you lefties who are so down on the UKIP now, would you have supported Old Labour who campaigned many times on a ticket of withdrawal from the EU ?

If Britain withdrew from the EU to pursue socialism, I would support the withdrawal as the EU is a fundamentally capitalist project.

If Britain withdrew from the EU to pursue a version of laissee faire capitalism that was incompatible with the EU's slightly kinder version of capitalism, I would not support the withdrawal.

It's not rocket science.

 

[goneforlunch]

This thread is about UKIP. I said what I believed UKIP wanted out of the EU for, I never said anything about why the other countries stay out of the EU (obviously in Norway's case it is completely different)

So, you want this thread to be about UKIP? Fine, but don't make crass suggestions implying that countries in the EEA have "no social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations". UKIP wants an independent country, ie able to set its own laws, electing governments which will act in accordance with its people's wishes. It has policies of its own (and they are economically right wing but not excesively so IMO) but then it would be at fault for being a single issue party if it did not. UKIP might only last a year or two in government anyway and then a new government with different policies on offer could be elected. It would be a far cry from the consensus politics of Britain today. And what is completely different about Norway? I hope you're not thinking that it is more able to survive outside the EU than the UK is.

UKIP, being a Thatcherite party, parrots the concerns of business. Businesses, of course, like the opportunities a single market presents them, but they hate the social and employment regulations that eat into their profits. That is why every single business org opposed Agency Workers and that is why UKIP oppose Agency Workers (and the EU in general) - because they are a Thatcherite party for rich businesses.

UKIP isn't parroting any such thing. And the idea that it's a 'thatcherite party for rich business' really is so far off the mark as to be absolutely risible. I'm sure you're not really that ignorant. UKIP is not funded by 'rich business' so it is not beholden to rich business, whereas both the Labour and Conservatives Parties are very definitely funded by the rich. They spent about £17 million each of their rich donors' and lenders' money at the last election, a sum far beyond UKIP's means. Whom do you think is most influenced by the rich? Honestly.

You had the link which explained UKIP's position on agency workers. Multinationals do like the single (internal) market, and though they don't like the social and employment regulations they don't dislike them enough to promote any country leaving the EU, and it is to their advantage that it leaves their small business rivals stuggling to cope. The members of the Federation of Small Businesses twice voted to leave the EU at their conference but their leadership disregarded that vote.

I think it goes without saying that trade accounts for the vast majority of EU laws. I honestly can't think why you'd think otherwise? You obviously dispute that so why don't you tell me which policy area you think DOES contain the most EU laws?

No it certainly does not go without saying. I don't know which policy area makes up the bulk of the the EU acquis communautaire as it contains well over 100,000 pages of laws! Apparently you don't know either, so your claim that the vast majority of EU laws are about trade is completely groundless unless you can prove otherwise.

By "undemocratically imposed" surely you don't mean voted on by directly elected MEPs and by elected national governments?

Well, that and those undemocratically imposed by the appointed EU Commission. How often are you kept informed about what is decided by the European institutions which make our laws? If you are one of the well-informed you are not getting your information from the government itself via the MSM as most of the population does. Are we supposed to just trust them all without knowing what they really stand for?

 

[CyberRose]

So, you want this thread to be about UKIP? Fine, but don't make crass suggestions implying that countries in the EEA have "no social/employment safety nets and no regulations for big corporations".

I didn't, I said that's what UKIP wants. YOU said that's what I said.

[qote]And what is completely different about Norway? I hope you're not thinking that it is more able to survive outside the EU than the UK is.[/quote]
Either your brain's melted or you're deliberately being a bit of a cock. I said Norway was completely different society to the one UKIP would like, not that Norway is able to survive outside the EU more than the UK (altho it does have shit loads of oil). Besides, Norway is in the EEA so must abide by all EU trade laws so they're not really "surviving" outside the EU, are they?

UKIP isn't parroting any such thing. And the idea that it's a 'thatcherite party for rich business' really is so far off the mark as to be absolutely risible. I'm sure you're not really that ignorant.

Oh please. UKIP are the old guard of the Tories. If you think anything else then you're either trying to bullshit people into thinking UKIP aren't bad or you're completely delusional. Maybe you hate being in the EU so much that's all you care about and would support any anti-EU party no matter what their other polices are? Pretty much all UKIP members used to be Tories or support the Tories and wanted Tory policies but without the EU

UKIP is not funded by 'rich business' so it is not beholden to rich business, whereas both the Labour and Conservatives Parties are very definitely funded by the rich. They spent about £17 million each of their rich donors' and lenders' money at the last election, a sum far beyond UKIP's means. Whom do you think is most influenced by the rich? Honestly

Well UKIP is financed by rich people too. What about Paul Sykes? The reason they don't get more is because of the size of the party and therefore the lack of influence they have over policy. It's worth remembering Labout get around 1/3 of their finances from Trades Unions so altho they do, being the government of the day, get donations from rich people, their policies won't swayed as much as the Tories or UKIP who get all their non-membership financing from rich individuals

No it certainly does not go without saying. I don't know which policy area makes up the bulk of the the EU acquis communautaire as it contains well over 100,000 pages of laws! Apparently you don't know either, so your claim that the vast majority of EU laws are about trade is completely groundless unless you can prove otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_pillars_of_the_European_Union

That is a link to the EU's three pillars. The first concerns the Community and tha vast majority of which you can see relate to trade or the economy. Now, which pillar do you think has the most laws (pillars two and three only started having laws in 1992, pillar one since 1950s)

Well, that and those undemocratically imposed by the appointed EU Commission.

Ya see, this is what I don't get about ukip people. Are you lying so you can create a negative image of the EU, or have you been tricked into believing that yourself? The Commission proposes laws, it is the Parliament and Council that decide whether they come into force or not (I think the Commission can impose their own directives in one policy area only - anti-monopoly laws). When you come out with lies, and they are lies, plain and simple, about the EU, I really do have to ask myself what's goin on in your head, why do you come out with these nuggets?

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Understanding Kilroy's Image Problem...

 

[goneforlunch]

I didn't, I said that's what UKIP wants. YOU said that's what I said.

I told you that that's not what UKIP wants. Anyone would think none of the people in any countries outside the EU have any employment rights reading your views.

Either your brain's melted or you're deliberately being a bit of a cock. I said Norway was completely different society to the one UKIP would like, not that Norway is able to survive outside the EU more than the UK (altho it does have shit loads of oil). Besides, Norway is in the EEA so must abide by all EU trade laws so they're not really "surviving" outside the EU, are they?

Thank you for now explaining your position on Norway which still rejects EU membership despite abiding by all EU trade laws (and is free to set independent policies in crucial areas unlike EU members) partly due to worries over being forced to cut back on its welfare system. Are you suggesting that the UK could not survive outside the EU or the EEA for that matter?

Oh please. UKIP are the old guard of the Tories. If you think anything else then you're either trying to bullshit people into thinking UKIP aren't bad or you're completely delusional. Maybe you hate being in the EU so much that's all you care about and would support any anti-EU party no matter what their other polices are? Pretty much all UKIP members used to be Tories or support the Tories and wanted Tory policies but without the EU

I'm not bullshitting anyone about UKIP and I've posted enough links to UKIP for anyone to make up his or her own mind. UKIP makes no secret of being right wing and better a right wing party that fights for the democratic will of the people to be heard than the parody of democracy we have now. The right existed before Thatcher and both the left and the right are needed to keep a balance. They're not doing that now under the EU system.

Well UKIP is financed by rich people too. What about Paul Sykes? The reason they don't get more is because of the size of the party and therefore the lack of influence they have over policy. It's worth remembering Labout get around 1/3 of their finances from Trades Unions so altho they do, being the government of the day, get donations from rich people, their policies won't swayed as much as the Tories or UKIP who get all their non-membership financing from rich individuals

UKIP has been financed by TWO rich people that I know of including Sykes but not one single big business. (Sykes went back to the Tories.) Their donations in no way match the donations and loans made by the rich and the multinationals to the two major parties (17 million each remember at the last election). Even the Lib Dems received more money from the rich than UKIP has. Again: who do they have more influence over? UKIP which owes them nothing or the government and its pathetic opposition? And you were the one who complained about rich people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_pillars_of_the_European_Union

That is a link to the EU's three pillars. The first concerns the Community and tha vast majority of which you can see relate to trade or the economy. Now, which pillar do you think has the most laws (pillars two and three only started having laws in 1992, pillar one since 1950s)

A Wiki? Even that shows what a lot of stuff in the first pillar does not relate to trade or the economy. And even then it would be quite incorrect to say as you did that "trade accounts for the vast majority of EU laws". Who's lying?

this is what I don't get about ukip people. Are you lying so you can create a negative image of the EU, or have you been tricked into believing that yourself? The Commission proposes laws, it is the Parliament and Council that decide whether they come into force or not (I think the Commission can impose their own directives in one policy area only - anti-monopoly laws). When you come out with lies, and they are lies, plain and simple, about the EU, I really do have to ask myself what's goin on in your head, why do you come out with these nuggets?

Again: Who is lying? At best your interpretation of what goes on in the EU's institutions is over-simplified. And you'd have to believe them to be working in the interests of the people to be satisifed with the lack of democratic control. Even those employment rights you guard so jealously can be removed when it suits those in charge. As we know the EU has a widely acknowledged (on ALL sides) fluffily termed "democratic deficit".

Edit in bold

 

[nino_savatte]

This is quite an amusing exchange.

UKIP are a small party of narrow interests and even narrower minds.

 

[goneforlunch]

This is quite an amusing exchange.

UKIP are a small party of narrow interests and even narrower minds.

No they are not but knowing your views I would not expect you to support them. Do you support the UK's membership of the EU?

And for CyberRose's benefit:

The UK Independence Party is committed to withdrawing Britain from the European Union. As the debate on the new Constitution has now made clear, the EU agenda is complete political union with all the main functions of national government taken over by the bureaucratic institutions of Brussels.

UKIP believes that this is not only bad for Britain's economy and prosperity, but it is an alien system of government that will ultimately prove to be totally unacceptable to the British people. UKIP would replace Britain's membership of the European Union with the kind of agreements on free trade and co-operation that we thought we had signed up to when we first joined what was then called the European Economic Community.

http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=26

UKIP does not believe accepting the Acquis Communautaire should be a part of the UK's future.

 

[nino_savatte]

No they are not but knowing your views I would not expect you to support them. Do you support the UK's membership of the EU?

And for CyberRose's benefit:



UKIP does not believe accepting the Acquis Communautaire should be a part of the UK's future.

You're right, I don't support parties whose interests are narrow and whose membership is reactionary, insular and backward-looking.

 

[goneforlunch]

You're right, I don't support parties whose interests are narrow and whose membership is reactionary, insular and backward-looking.

That does not include UKIP. Do you support the UK's membership of the EU?

 

[nino_savatte]

That does not include UKIP. Do you support the UK's membership of the EU?

Sorry but it does. As for your EU question, I made a point about UKIP and its membership, not about EU membership. Do try and stay focussed. This thread is about whether or not Urbanites have been tempted to vote for a party of small-minded Thatcherite xenophobes, or a one-man party led by a vainglorious former telly presenter.

 

[goneforlunch]

Sorry but it does. As for your EU question, I made a point about UKIP and its membership, not about EU membership. Do try and stay focussed. This thread is about whether or not Urbanites have been tempted to vote for a party of small-minded Thatcherite xenophobes, or a one-man party led by a vainglorious former telly presenter.

Sorry but it does not. I'm an occasional Urbanite and I feel I've had no choice but to justify my choice in the face of prejudiced comments like yours. UKIP exists because of other parties attitudes to EU membership and all that goes with it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sorry but it does not. I'm an occasional Urbanite and I feel I've had no choice but to justify my choice in the face of prejudiced comments like yours. UKIP exists because of other parties attitudes to EU membership and all that goes with it.

Er, what is the title of this thread? Is it "Do you agree with Britain's EU membership" or is it "Does anyone (or has anyone) ever voted UKIP or Veritas"? Take your time.

As for my "prejudiced" comments, I have based my comments on my observations of UKIP both in the European parliament and its appearances in the media. Your party comes across as narrow-minded, petty, xenophobic and overwhelmingly middle class.

 

[goneforlunch]

Er, what is the title of this thread? Is it "Do you agree with Britain's EU membership" or is it "Does anyone (or has anyone) ever voted UKIP or Veritas"? Take your time.

As for my "prejudiced" comments, I have based my comments on my observations of UKIP both in the European parliament and its appearances in the media. Your party comes across as narrow-minded, petty, xenophobic and overwhelmingly middle class.

Isn't the reason why someone might vote for UKIP relevant? (Veritas no longer exists.) You still haven't answered my question as to whether you support the UK's membership of the EU. Isn't that also relevant in assessing your attitude towards UKIP?

My view of UKIP is not the same as yours and I have also observed UKIP in its activities.

 

[weltweit]

About voting in a general election, why would one bother to vote for UKIP or Veritas?

Its a thrown vote, a wasted vote, may as well vote OMRLP or Lib Dem because the only party that can win are New Labour or Conservative.

So imho you either take a deep breath and hold your nose and vote red or blue, or it is hardly worth turning out to the polls.

With Lib Dem I suppose it does make a difference where you live, I mean you might possibly be able to elect a Lib Dem MP to parliament which would not be a wasted vote.

 

[nino_savatte]

Isn't the reason why someone might vote for UKIP relevant? (Veritas no longer exists.) You still haven't answered my question as to whether you support the UK's membership of the EU. Isn't that also relevant in assessing your attitude towards UKIP?

My view of UKIP is not the same as yours and I have also observed UKIP in its activities.

This thread is about whether or not posters have voted for UKIP or Veritas, it is not about whether or not I support Britain's membership of the EU. If you want to start a thread about what people feel about that particular notion, then feel free to start one.

UKIP is a party of overwhelmingly white, middle class xenophobes.

 

[goneforlunch]

This thread is about whether or not posters have voted for UKIP or Veritas, it is not about whether or not I support Britain's membership of the EU. If you want to start a thread about what people feel about that particular notion, then feel free to start one.

UKIP is a party of white, middle class xenophobes.

So really all you are interested in is a "yes I have" or "no I have not" type of answer unless anyone wants to malign UKIP? You're not interested in an exchange of views and hence not much of a debate then.

It would have been interesting to hear why voting for UKIP is such a "heinous"* crime when UKIP's objective is to leave the EU and run its own affairs just like other independent democratic countries do. And it isn't a party of "white, middle class xenophobes." It welcomes people of all races and incomes and it does not fear (or even dislike for that matter) foreigners. Your prejudice is showing.

*OED definition of heinous: utterley odious or wicked

 

[nino_savatte]

So really all you are interested in is a "yes I have" or "no I have not" type of answer unless anyone wants to malign UKIP? You're not interested in an exchange of views and hence not much of a debate then.

It would have been interesting to hear why voting for UKIP is such a "heinous"* crime when UKIP's objective is to leave the EU and run its own affairs just like other independent democratic countries do. And it isn't a party of "white, middle class xenophobes." It welcomes people of all races and incomes and it does not fear (or even dislike for that matter) foreigners. Your prejudice is showing.

*OED definition of heinous: utterley odious or wicked

Oh please, put a sock in it. You have clearly ignored the thread title in order to pursue/advance your defence/apology of UKIP.

I also do not expect supporters of UKIP to acknowledge their own narrow-mindedness and their tendency towards xenophobia. UKIP only has around three (at the last count) minority members. I think that says it all.

Your prejudice is showing.

Which is rich coming from a UKIP supporter. I don't support xenophobic parties, you do. Btw, this is something that US right-wingers would often resort to when they couldn't muster a half-decent reply.

Oh and personaling the 'argument' won't help your cause either.

 

[goneforlunch]

Oh please, put a sock in it. You have clearly ignored the thread title in order to pursue/advance your defence/apology of UKIP.

I also do not expect supporters of UKIP to acknowledge their own narrow-mindedness and their tendecny towards xenophobia.

Well they won't when it doesn't exist. Justify your views or put a sock in it yourself or come clean on whether you support the EU membership. Any of those options will suffice.

Which is rich coming from a UKIP supporter. I don't support xenophobic parties, you do.

No I don't. UKIP is no more xenophobic than any other party in any independent country.

And personalising the argument! That's rich coming from someone who has accused me of supporting a party of "white, middle class xenophobes". That's no better than middle class Cameron calling me a "closet racist"!

 

[weltweit]

Nino, are you saying because UKIP wants out of the UE they are xenophobic? or is there another reason?

I ask because it seems a perfectly valid angle to me to say you are against EU membership. Not something I particularly agree with but people have a right to hold such views.

 

[nino_savatte]

UKIP's membership consists mainly of Little Englanders; isolationists and post-colonialists who wished we'd never "gave up Inja".

 

[goneforlunch]

UKIP's membership consists mainly of Little Englanders; isolationists and post-colonialists who wished we'd never "gave up Inja".

Pure prejudice or ignorance. Unless of course you can justify your opinions?

 

[nino_savatte]

Well they won't when it doesn't exist. Justify your views or put a sock in it yourself or come clean on whether you support the EU membership. Any of those options will suffice.



No I don't. UKIP is no more xenophobic than any other party in any independent country.

You're becoming tedious. UKIP is a single issue party. As for other parties, you will have to prove that they are truly xenophobic. New Labour, for example, where are the xenophobic policies (I'm not a supporter btw)? Are the Lib Dems xenophobic? How about the SNP or Plaid Cymru?

What are you trying to say in the last sentence? "Independent country"? What are you referring to here or is it the case that this is another UKIP-style dig at Britain's EU membership?

Have a read of the thread title again, because you don't appear to have read it properly.