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

[goneforlunch]

You keep shouting "slurs" but I get much of my information from the UKIP website. Are you suggesting that they're slurring themselves?

Well you don't get any information which makes them a xenophobic party. So I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.

How many kinds of xenophobia are there? You're not doing very well. In fact, so desperate are you to score points, you'll even try and make out that there are more than form of xenophobia. UKIP isn't simply anti-EU, many of its members seriously believe that 'we' should never have given up India.

It depends on who you ask. I know of MEPs who think simply to be anti-eu is to be xenophobic. If you want to go with the dictionary definition - please see my comments to CyberRose in my previous post. I've never met a single UKIP member who has ever spoken about India or any of the old Empire or any of that stuff and as a member I very probably know a lot more of them than you do. UKIP is a small party so the "many members" you know are in a tiny minority. And so "desperate" am I to score points I even offered to agree to differ with you.

Codswallop. Just because you deny it, that doesn't make it any less xenophobic and small-minded.

Been through that.
.

 

[goneforlunch]

If you check out the policies UKIP has announced on their website (as opposed to the rather vague promises in their manifesto), you'll see some very interesting things, some hilarious, some tragic and some that you'll want a lot more explanation (which is where goneforlunch can help)


That's just funny!

Why?

UKIP's policies are more detailed than any of the vague promises in any of the mainstream party manifestoes. I'm not going to "help" much. It's the school holidays and I'd rather spend the time with my kids than with you.

Not a great party for the Muslims it seems! I wonder, are Muslims the only ones capable of treason or encouraging violence? Because I'm pretty sure that the actions of the IRA in the past would be considered treasonous, and the BNP certainly encourage violence, yet UKIP's policy seemingly only applies to Muslims. Wonder if goneforlunch could explain that one?

It's a great party for anyone who wants to live within the law whatever their religion or lack of under small state government. At present it is Muslim fundamentalists who are successfully enticing their followers into violence and it's these people who would face this action. If you think that's wrong you and I are on different planets. I guess the peace process in NI has passed you by. It would be really stupid to re-open those old wounds.

Another one I'd like goneforlunch's help with is the fact that when you trawl through UKIP's policies, you find that when you add up all the extra costs incurred by their policies (double the amount spent on prisons, replacing student loans with grants, increasing defence by 40% and introducing a 33% flat rate tax), they are left with an approx £54bn shortfall. They claim that "government spending" will be cut back, but can goneforlunch tell me specifically where £54bn of cuts will be made? (That's 10% of the entire UK budget)

What's your source for the £54bn figure? UKIP would save money by abolishing policies like ID cards and the National Identity Register and flagship policies like Sure Start (which was started with the best of motives but hasn't worked) but not vital public services. But that would be an anathema to you I imagine. Smacks too much of small state for you to stomach. And UKIP have said they would borrow money - just not as much as the other parties would.

 

[goneforlunch]

Come again? An English parliament but not a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly. This smells like Anglo-centricism.

But the railways will remain in private hands...oh, and how are motorists being "persecuted"?

http://www.ukip.org/pdf/westlothianquestion.pdf

Increased road taxes/fuel duties and increased speed cameras with increasing costs for public transport and no improvement in services. Drivers are the new smokers.

What's your point about railways in private hands? The mainstream parties are committed to the present policy. I'm not an economist but I should think it would be ruinously expensive to re-nationalise railways now.

 

[Teaboy]

I once saw some sort of UKIP rally in Reading outside the town hall, it's the one and only time I've ever seen any of their representatives in the town.

It was a trully hilarious sight, they were all extremley well turned out middle and upper class folks well into their 50's and 60's. I have never seen so many handlebar moustaches

What puzzled me was where did they all come from? I've never seen them before or since in Reading.

There is clearly a place for them as for all their posturing the three main parties have essentually similar views on Europe. That being said of what I've seen and read of UKIP they have nothing to offer me or the predominatly working class populace of my home town.

 

[Teaboy]

What's your point about railways in private hands? The mainstream parties are committed to the present policy. I'm not an economist but I should think it would be ruinously expensive to re-nationalise railways now.

Sadly this is true, due to the hamfisted and bargain basement way the Tories sold off nationally owned stock it would cost a bomb to re-nationalise. That being said it would be a very worthwhile venture and if it's taken one franchise at a time it's perfectly do-able. The railways at the moment are a national disgrace and as a nationlist party I'd hope UKIP recognised this.

Besides I bet re-nationlising the railway costs peanuts compared to fighting pointless wars on two fronts.

 

[CyberRose]

When employees cost more (and much more than workers in economies like India) it becomes harder to justify their cost to a business. You tell me who benefits - the employee or the employer?

British workers will never be cheaper than Indian workers so your point is irrelevant. We can't stop businesses relocating to India, but we can stop them relocating to other areas of the EU where the cost of workers might have been much lower should that country be playing to a different set of rules than the rest. That's what UKIP wants for the UK. Not to fend of job losses to India, that cannot be helped, but to attract businesses to the UK from elsewhere in the UK by having the least workers' rights and conditions in the EU. That's why UKIP will struggle to come to agreement with the rest of the EU to stay in the free trade zone because they will give themselves an unfair advantage and in the process screw over the working classes. You complain about jobs going to India, but it appears you want to counter that by creating an "Indian" workforce in the UK with low pay and no rights...

Remember the Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty? It says the currency of the union shall be the Euro. We have no opt out on that. Norway retains gets to retain the krone unless it chooses to give it up.

Another example of either your lies or UKIP's lies. The decision to enter into the Euro or not is down to the UK government. The Lisbon Treaty would not force us to join.

The UK has no veto on the CFP. Whatever ever gave you the idea that it had? What were once exclusively British fishing grounds and amongst the richest in the world have been decimated by the CFP. With it have gone thousands of fishermen's livelihoods. Norway retains control over its fishing grounds.

Sorry thought you meant foreign policy. No we do not have control over fisheries, that is solely down to the EU. However, there is no way individual nations should be allowed to fish as much as they want, even Norway has an agreement with the EU (plus Iceland etc). If Norway fishes every single cod while they were very young and had a chance to swim to the UK, we would have no fishing industry. The fact is, fish stocks are lower than when our fishing fleet was at its peak. That's why the industry is in decline, not because of EU laws. EU laws have probably helped stabilise the industry

Attempts have been made to reform the CAP ever since the 1970s and still it is a bloated corrupt monstrosity. But Mandelsson (a politician rejected by his onw constitutuents) has tried so that's ok. Norway is not bound by the CAP.

Well CAP has changed and continues to do so, but I completely agree it needs to change quicker and more far reaching

The eu's wealthy nations are wealthy in spite of the eu not because of it.

True that may be, it does not explain why they want to be in the EU does it? You tell me why Germany, France and UK are all keen on being part of the EU if it is so much in their interests to be out of it?

Why not just tell me what you meant when you said "... what makes you think they'll look at the UK any different if we start giving ourselves an unfair advantage or don't play by the rules?" And who makes "the rules"?

The EU makes the rules (between the member states) and will continue to do so whether the UK is a member or not (ask Norway). My first paragraph in this post will help you understand what I mean by an unfair advantage. You should also look at the trade disputes between the US and EU over the past few years and look at the billions of £££s worth of retaliation that has gone off between them.

Check this out. The US wanted to protect its steel industry so imposed 30% tariffs on EU imports. The EU was set to retaliate with $2.2bn counter tariffs that could be applied to any industry in the US. What happens when UKIP decides they want to break free of EU trade rules to protect a certain British industry? The EU will impose like for like tariffs to punish the UK

UKIP is not xenophobic; it does not have a morbid fear of foreigners. It does not even dislike foreigners. There are very good reasons for dramatically reducing the numbers of immigrants (but not genuine asylum seekers). Our public services and infrastructure cannot cope. It drives down the wages of those already here and particularly of the unskilled. The right wing benefits they give to workers are a right wing policy too far.

The left wing people in this forum struggle to find me evidence to suggest that immigrants drive wages down, so I doubt you have anything to back that claim up. As for public services struggling, well immigrants put in a hell of a lot more to the public purse than they take out, so they are of benefit to society and I really can't see that public services are therefore struggling to accommodate them. The fact that UKIP wilfully ignores these benefits and instead choose to concentrate on Daily Mail stories about immigrants suggests, along with their singling out of Muslims, that they are a xenophobic and prejudiced party. But when you consider the party is made up of the middle/upper class old guard of the Tory party that's hardly surprising

It's a great party for anyone who wants to live within the law whatever their religion or lack of under small state government. At present it is Muslim fundamentalists who are successfully enticing their followers into violence and it's these people who would face this action. If you think that's wrong you and I are on different planets. I guess the peace process in NI has passed you by. It would be really stupid to re-open those old wounds.

Policies that are not racist don't single out races (even if hidden by the veil of religious criticism, that still shows prejudice). Why not say what they did in general terms? Why is it only Muslims that will be prosecuted for "treason" and not the BNP?

What's your source for the £54bn figure?

Well UKIP themselves say that their tax policy will cost £34bn. They claim they will double the amount of prisons (which we currently spend £3.5bn on), they claim they will scarp student loans and replace them with grants (each year students borrow £3.2bn, and if UKIP aimed to wipe out student debt, that would take the total up to around £75bn!), and they say themselves they will increase defence spending by 40% (which would mean an extra £13.2bn on what is spent today). This is all from their own website and only includes policies they have released. I should imagine there is a lot more to add on to that £54bn but for now, £54bn is what they admit to

UKIP would save money by abolishing policies like ID cards and the National Identity Register and flagship policies like Sure Start (which was started with the best of motives but hasn't worked) but not vital public services. But that would be an anathema to you I imagine. Smacks too much of small state for you to stomach. And UKIP have said they would borrow money - just not as much as the other parties would.

ID cards will cost £5.4bn over the next ten years, but others have warned it could cost £18bn, so being kind, that's £1.8bn shaved off. Not sure but I think the NIR comes under ID cards so has prob already been taken into account. Sure Start had a budget of £1.5bn in 2006, so lets go crazy and say it's now £2bn! Also you forgot the most important cut back - the EU dummy! We contribute around £10bn but receive back about half that, so in net terms, that's around £5bn in savings. So basically, your saying UKIP would make £9bn worth of cuts and borrow £45bn!? No come on, tell me really where the bread and butter cut backs are gonna come from?

 

[nino_savatte]

http://www.ukip.org/pdf/westlothianquestion.pdf

Increased road taxes/fuel duties and increased speed cameras with increasing costs for public transport and no improvement in services. Drivers are the new smokers.

What's your point about railways in private hands? The mainstream parties are committed to the present policy. I'm not an economist but I should think it would be ruinously expensive to re-nationalise railways now.

Nonsense, as a cyclist, I am the one being who is being oppressed by motorists and the state alike. Drivers are not the "new smokers", that's a dramatic flourish...like motorists being "persecuted".

UKIP's railway policy overlooks the fact that privatised railways rarely, if ever, make a profit. Privatised railways are run for the benefit of shareholders and have little, if anything, to do with ensuring the nation's transport infrastructure is fit for purpose. Currently, this is not the case nor would it be the case if UKIP were to ever achieve power.

So what about this "English parliament"? Does it come at the expense of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assemblies? Of course it does.

 

[goneforlunch]

CyberRose

I never said British workers would or should be cheaper than any worker in any of the emerging economies - just that they need to be cheaper than they are becoming if they want to keep their jobs. The cost of a worker is relevant in a global economy. I don't want a poorly paid workforce and I don't want a workforce with no rights - far from it. I want all workers to have clout not rather dubious "rights" which can be taken away at any time. Clout is hard to find especially for an unskilled worker when there is a constant influx of immigrants waiting to take their place.

The decision as to whether the UK enters the euro will be up to the EU because we have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and it says the currency of the union shall be the euro and we don't even have a veto. And anyway the government has shown that it will dismiss its own promise of a referendum on the flimsiest of pretexts. You think it (or a future Tory government) won't find another to justify a refusal to allow the long standing promise on the adoption of the euro? I doubt "force" will be an issue.

Our veto on foregin policy (CFSP) won't be worth a cent when it's tested in the ECJ.

I didn't say fishing should be unrestricted but I do believe the UK should control what were its own fishing waters. Our fishing industry is in decline because of over fishing and that's a direct result of the CFP. Former UK (but not Norwegian) terrortorial waters were opened up to Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets when they joined the eu. That's when the real damage occurred. The Spanish particularly had a large factory fleet that had been built up under Franco but Spain had little to bring in the way of fishing grounds. Thousands of British fishermen have lost their livelihoods because of the CFP. And the EU ... helped probably helped to stabilise the industry? Not for UK fishermen it hasn't.

Whilst we are waiting for the meaningful changes to the CAP we are paying much more than we need for food (and African farmers are having our excesses dumped on their markets) and that affects the poor more than it affects the rich. And then there's the EU buying the rights for Spanish fishermen to fish off the coast of Africa ...

I didn't say it was in the interests of Germany or France to be out of it. But as you've asked I'd say France is not nearly as burdened by the EU as the UK is in that it is barely a contributor to the EU's budget and it is much more willing to disregard any directives which are not in its national interests. It might become so if the EU tries to mess too much with the CAP from which France has long been the chief beneficiary and Sarkozy is none too popular in his efforts to increase the hours in the French working week. The EU is behind the moves to change French culture. The German people I've met are not "keen" on being part of the EU and they hate their currency being the same as the profligate Med countries. Politicians from both countries though seem as as keen to be in the EU as UK ones are. But the British people .... keen to be in the EU? I don't know about that!

Why don't you tell me why you think these countries want to remain in the EU? If you tell me its so they can solve the world's problems together/promote peace/make us all happy and prosperous I shall laugh like a drain.

Your argument on trade assumes the UK remains in the EEA or EFTA. The trade disputes between the EU and the US are not to be compared with any which might ensue between the EU and the UK. The UK is in an entirely different position with regard to trade balance to the US.

If hobbling their economy with those costs is an unfair advantage over the eu then the solution would be there for the EU to take or not as it chose.

WTF does the Daily Mail have to do with this? The tabloid newspaper industry in this country is crap and the so called quality press doesn't deserve any investigative awards with its limited reporting. It's pretty obvious that immigrants drive down wages. More workers = less demand for each individual's labour.

Are you describing UKIP or me or both as a racist? Might I remind you of the EU's definition as set out above of racism and xenophobia as before you do? UKIP has not criticised a religion. It has criticised the actions of Muslim fundamentalists who incite violence against our entire society. If any other group ever does that I would have no problem with them being singled out. It beats everyone having their civil liberties eroded as is happening now. I can think of plenty of words to describe the BNP - odious/racist/unsavoury/uncouth/economically left wing/immature are just a few - but treasonable?

Your thinking is that of a big state socialist who supports a system which encourages a noses in the trough metality costing us literally billions every year. Labour is now promoting free school meals for all children whether their parents can afford to pay or not. Estimates put the cost at £1bn. Are taxes to go up yet again or will cuts be made in order to fund this initiative? UKIP is not the same party and spending would not be anything like the same. (Although ALL politicians are scoundrels unless they prove otherwise which is why it is absolutely necessary to have the power to vote them out and usher in a different party with a different set of policies. That's something we cannot do under the EU system of government. I really wish that was propaganda.)

And if you're still with me - sorry for the length of this post!

 

[goneforlunch]

Nonsense, as a cyclist, I am the one being who is being oppressed by motorists and the state alike. Drivers are not the "new smokers", that's a dramatic flourish...like motorists being "persecuted".

You're right it was a bit dramatic and "persecuted" is not a word I would have used. Bad drivers need to be dealt with but part of the problem is that our cities are crowded and cyclists themselves are not always safe or considerate road users. How are you as a cyclist being oppressed by the state and isn't it rather dramatic to describe it as oppression? You are certainly not faced with the swinging costs that motorists are and the government is with you on moral grounds at least.

I agree with you on your first point but compensating the shareholders of the railway companies would be ruinously expensive. What do you think about the government's and opposition's plans to continue with the sale of what state owned industries are still left like the nuclear industry and the continued privatisation of the NHS? All fully endorsed by the EU.

So what about this "English parliament"? Does it come at the expense of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assemblies? Of course it does.

Of course it comes at the expense of Scottish and Welsh regional power bases. It does not however imo come at the expense of the Scottish and Welsh people. The pigs have their noses in the trough in regional government as much as they do in national government and EU institutions.

May I assume that you will drop your accusations of xenophobia in the light of the EU definition and sanctions against those found guilty?

 

[nino_savatte]

You're right it was a bit dramatic and "persecuted" is not a word I would have used. Bad drivers need to be dealt with but part of the problem is that our cities are crowded and cyclists themselves are not always safe or considerate road users. How are you as a cyclist being oppressed by the state and isn't it rather dramatic to describe it as oppression? You are certainly not faced with the swinging costs that motorists are and the government is with you on moral grounds at least.

The general attitude towards cycling and cyclists in this country is poor, to say the least; and many motorist (including motoring organisations like the AA are vehemently against cycling - often insisting that we should pay road tax; or that we "shouldn't be on the road because we don't pay road tax". Oddly enough no one would dare say this to horse-riders). The vast majority of local authorities create cycle lanes without the input of the cyclists themselves. In essence it is an exercise in producing the right kind of statistic. In other words, councils can tell central government that they have rolled out greener policies by pointing to the miles and miles of advisory cycle lanes they've built in the area. Advisory cycle lanes are useless. I see nothing from UKIP with regards to cyclists. In fact, UKIP's support for all things automotive spits in the face of the effects mass car-ownership has on the environment. Of course, I don't expect UKIP to have any real policies concerning the environment either. Too touchy-feely and 'tree-huggy' for you - non?

I agree with you on your first point but compensating the shareholders of the railway companies would be ruinously expensive. What do you think about the government's and opposition's plans to continue with the sale of what state owned industries are still left like the nuclear industry and the continued privatisation of the NHS? All fully endorsed by the EU.

I see, everything is down to the UK's membership of the EU. That's a little, er, one track - isn't it?

Of course it comes at the expense of Scottish and Welsh regional power bases. It does not however imo come at the expense of the Scottish and Welsh people. The pigs have their noses in the trough in regional government as much as they do in national government and EU institutions.

Which rather proves my point about UKIP being not only Anglo-centric but small-minded as well. Do you honestly think that your party has the interests of Scotland and Wales in its thinking and policy-making when you come out with statements like this? How can your proposal not come at the expense of the Scots and Welsh people? You are talking about their elected legislatures. You have contradicted yourself too.

May I assume that you will drop your accusations of xenophobia in the light of the EU definition and sanctions against those found guilty?

What on earth are you talking about? When one unpacks all the anti-EU rhetoric one is left with something that looks and smells like xenophobia (not to mention old fashioned Empirism)

 

[goneforlunch]

The general attitude towards cycling and cyclists in this country is poor, to say the least; and many motorist (including motoring organisations like the AA are vehemently against cycling - often insisting that we should pay road tax; or that we "shouldn't be on the road because we don't pay road tax". Oddly enough no one would dare say this to horse-riders). The vast majority of local authorities create cycle lanes without the input of the cyclists themselves. In essence it is an exercise in producing the right kind of statistic. In other words, councils can tell central government that they have rolled out greener policies by pointing to the miles and miles of advisory cycle lanes they've built in the area. Advisory cycle lanes are useless. I see nothing from UKIP with regards to cyclists. In fact, UKIP's support for all things automotive spits in the face of the effects mass car-ownership has on the environment. Of course, I don't expect UKIP to have any real policies concerning the environment either. Too touchy-feely and 'tree-huggy' for you - non?

UKIP has real policies concerning the environment and they don't include meeting 20% of our energy need from renewable energy sources. How does the projected increase in population sit with your concern for the environment? More people = more building and more cars (unless drivers are priced off the roads) and more pressure on greenfield sites and a greater energy need.

Your "oppression" as a cyclist on the grounds you have outlined seems dramatic. Better facilities for cyclists would mean higher taxes and less room for cars. The car driving public who you might regard as selfish would never go for that. I wish we all had the time and the inclination and the suitable lifestyles to cycle rather than drive but we don't. I don't find you touchy-feely at all just a little idealistic. And as for too tree huggers - certainly not - they have my total support against developers.

I see, everything is down to the UK's membership of the EU. That's a little, er, one track - isn't it?

Well of course everything is not down to the UK's membership of the EU - just the many parts which are subject to the many policy forming EU directives and regulations - like the privatisation of the NHS. Do you agree with that? You appear to accept EU control and have the brass neck cheek to say I'm one track!

Which rather proves my point about UKIP being not only Anglo-centric but small-minded as well. Do you honestly think that your party has the interests of Scotland and Wales in its thinking and policy-making when you come out with statements like this?

How can your proposal not come at the expense of the Scots and Welsh people? You are talking about their elected legislatures. You have contradicted yourself too.

UKIP would ensure fair play to all the people of the UK. Turnout at Scottish elections to its parliament is barely over 50% and it's less than 50% in Wales. Not much of an endorsement for either the Scottish parliament or the Welsh assembly. Could that be that the electorate see their representatives in those chambers as being yet another layer party and self-serving politicians?

UKIP's policies for Scotland and Wales are in the link I supplied earlier. They are sketchy (but from a small party with very limited resources I would not expect more). They are more London centric than nationalists would like but I'd like to know how nationalists square their desire for "independence" with undemocratic EU centric rule. The SNP policy of "independence in the EU" is either naive or a deliberate attempt to fool the Scottish people.

I've said before if Wales wanted to remain in the EU in the event England ever decided to leave I wouldn't want UKIP to stand in its way. The same goes for Scotland. Scotland and Wales are not going to vote UKIP so they had better get used to EU centric rule which by design is a lot more remote than rule from Westminster has ever been. The SNP's position of "independence" in the EU is wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to fool the Scottish people.

What on earth are you talking about?

Your insistence that UKIP is xenophobic. "When one unpacks all the anti-EU rhetoric one is left with something that looks and smells like xenophobia (not to mention old fashioned Empirism)" but only if one interprets it from the view point of a EU supporter. But at least this time you expressed your view as an opinion unlike before ... "UKIP is a party of overwhelmingly ... xenophobes." That's some progress I suppose.

The EU thinks xenophobes should be criminalised with amongst other things up to 2 years in prison. Should that apply to UKIP officials/MEPs and members? We don't agree on policy but do you believe in the freedom of speech?

 

[CyberRose]

I never said British workers would or should be cheaper than any worker in any of the emerging economies - just that they need to be cheaper than they are becoming if they want to keep their jobs.

Yet below you use the argument that immigrants are driving wages down as an example of why immigrants are bad...so you want British workers to be cheaper for businesses but you don't want immigrants because they drive wages down (making British workers cheaper). Doesn't make sense does it?

I don't want a poorly paid workforce and I don't want a workforce with no rights - far from it. I want all workers to have clout not rather dubious "rights" which can be taken away at any time. Clout is hard to find especially for an unskilled worker when there is a constant influx of immigrants waiting to take their place.

Again, you don't make sense here. Coupled with what you say above, it suggests you believe British workers are too expensive for businesses which forces them to look elsewhere for cheaper labour (obviously leaving aside your contradicting comments about immigrants driving wages down). So to counter that, you want to opt out of EU employment legislation in order to make our workforce cheaper (which means taking away many of the employment rights British workers enjoy today) and you will replace it with "clout". Now leaving aside the fact "clout" is completely meaningless, which specific employment rights would you like to see abandoned in order to produce this cheap British labour force? (Ok, you can tell me what "clout" involves if you like)

The decision as to whether the UK enters the euro will be up to the EU because we have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and it says the currency of the union shall be the euro and we don't even have a veto

In some of my previous posts, I have asked whether you knowingly tell the lies you do, or whether you're just parroting the lies that UKIP tells you? So could you answer that question considering the fact that the Lisbon Treaty states: "the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to adopt the euro without a separate decision to do so by its government and parliament"

Our veto on foregin policy (CFSP) won't be worth a cent when it's tested in the ECJ.

How exactly can CFSP be "tested" in the Court of Justice? The ECJ is for Community law. The ECJ only rules on EU laws that are to be implemented into national law, as CFSP does not produce any laws full stop, I fail to see how the ECJ relates to this field in the slightest. Sounds more like another of yours or UKIP's scaremongering lies again

Whilst we are waiting for the meaningful changes to the CAP we are paying much more than we need for food (and African farmers are having our excesses dumped on their markets) and that affects the poor more than it affects the rich. And then there's the EU buying the rights for Spanish fishermen to fish off the coast of Africa ...

You can't use the effect of CAP on the third world as a criticism because you don't care about that in the slightest. You're only saying that to appeal to people's sensitivities in here. You simply want out of CAP altogether then you'll be happy, even if it continues and even if the effects on the third world continue. However, I agree the CAP needs to be reformed from head to tail, but that's hardly a reason to leave the EU is it?

I didn't say it was in the interests of Germany or France to be out of it.

Why would it be in the interests of France and Germany to stay in and not the UK?

But as you've asked I'd say France is not nearly as burdened by the EU as the UK is in that it is barely a contributor to the EU's budget

France's net contribution is €4bn compared with the UK's €6bn, altho neither can compare to Germany's €10bn. Italy's is €3bn, Netherlands €3.5bn while Spain makes a profit of €4bn! France gets most through CAP (plus money to subsidise the Parliament in Strasbourg)

and it is much more willing to disregard any directives which are not in its national interests

Dirty French bastards!

The EU is behind the moves to change French culture

Jesus!

The German people I've met are not "keen" on being part of the EU and they hate their currency being the same as the profligate Med countries. Politicians from both countries though seem as as keen to be in the EU as UK ones are. But the British people .... keen to be in the EU? I don't know about that!

60% of Germans support EU membership, while only 30% of British people support EU membership (which has only just recently turned negative as 32% do not support membership)

Why don't you tell me why you think these countries want to remain in the EU? If you tell me its so they can solve the world's problems together/promote peace/make us all happy and prosperous I shall laugh like a drain.

It's so they can finish the plans that Hitler and Stalin couldn't, isn't that what they teach you in UKIP boot camps!? Seriously, I think in very simple terms the EU allows countries to address problems at an international level far more effectively when they club together than when they act individually

Your argument on trade assumes the UK remains in the EEA or EFTA

Well UKIP say they want to remain in the EEA and even acknowledge that this means they will still have to abide by EU legislation (altho you may have missed it because I shit you not, it's in the "small print" of their manifesto ) However, UKIP say this will be "temporary" as they don't want to abide by any EU laws, altho they don't expand on "temporary" and just give the pussy answer you keep repeating "oh we'll negotiate a bilateral deal that will be really really good for the UK and will shit all over the EU"!

The trade disputes between the EU and the US are not to be compared with any which might ensue between the EU and the UK. The UK is in an entirely different position with regard to trade balance to the US.

Why can't they be compared? If we completely cut ourselves off from the EU in order to gain an advantage for our own economy and businesses, why would we be treated any different to America?

It's pretty obvious that immigrants drive down wages. More workers = less demand for each individual's labour.

Sorry, I'm a little confused: Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

Are you describing UKIP or me or both as a racist?

Don't recall calling either you or UKIP racist (altho UKIP does contain a higher than normal amount of racists but hey, only to be expected I suppose)

UKIP has not criticised a religion. It has criticised the actions of Muslim fundamentalists who incite violence against our entire society. If any other group ever does that I would have no problem with them being singled out. It beats everyone having their civil liberties eroded as is happening now. I can think of plenty of words to describe the BNP - odious/racist/unsavoury/uncouth/economically left wing/immature are just a few - but treasonable?

Singling races out is, well, racist. It is also hypocritical when other groups acting exactly the same would not be punished in the same way because they happen to be white

UKIP is not the same party and spending would not be anything like the same

You're able to make that statement, yet unable to tell me how UKIP won't be spending as much. Sounds like opportunist bullshit from a desperate party: "Vote for us! We'll do everything better! What? You don't need to know how, just trust us!"

 

[nino_savatte]

UKIP has real policies concerning the environment and they don't include meeting 20% of our energy need from renewable energy sources. How does the projected increase in population sit with your concern for the environment? More people = more building and more cars (unless drivers are priced off the roads) and more pressure on greenfield sites and a greater energy need.

When you talk of an increase in population, what are you referring to specifically?

Your "oppression" as a cyclist on the grounds you have outlined seems dramatic. Better facilities for cyclists would mean higher taxes and less room for cars. The car driving public who you might regard as selfish would never go for that. I wish we all had the time and the inclination and the suitable lifestyles to cycle rather than drive but we don't. I don't find you touchy-feely at all just a little idealistic. And as for too tree huggers - certainly not - they have my total support against developers.

Why should improved cycling facilities mean higher taxes and less room for cars? Furthermore, why should better awareness of cyclists as road users have a serious impact on motorists?

Well of course everything is not down to the UK's membership of the EU - just the many parts which are subject to the many policy forming EU directives and regulations - like the privatisation of the NHS. Do you agree with that? You appear to accept EU control and have the brass neck cheek to say I'm one track!

You're the one who keeps bringing up the EU, not me.

UKIP would ensure fair play to all the people of the UK. Turnout at Scottish elections to its parliament is barely over 50% and it's less than 50% in Wales. Not much of an endorsement for either the Scottish parliament or the Welsh assembly. Could that be that the electorate see their representatives in those chambers as being yet another layer party and self-serving politicians?

So how does an English parliament serve the interests of the Scots and the Welsh? It doesn't. Turnout to the parliament in Westminster isn't exactly great either, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's a bit of a strawman tbh.

UKIP's policies for Scotland and Wales are in the link I supplied earlier. They are sketchy (but from a small party with very limited resources I would not expect more). They are more London centric than nationalists would like but I'd like to know how nationalists square their desire for "independence" with undemocratic EU centric rule. The SNP policy of "independence in the EU" is either naive or a deliberate attempt to fool the Scottish people.

I'll have a look.

I've said before if Wales wanted to remain in the EU in the event England ever decided to leave I wouldn't want UKIP to stand in its way. The same goes for Scotland. Scotland and Wales are not going to vote UKIP so they had better get used to EU centric rule which by design is a lot more remote than rule from Westminster has ever been. The SNP's position of "independence" in the EU is wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to fool the Scottish people.

Your insistence that UKIP is xenophobic. "When one unpacks all the anti-EU rhetoric one is left with something that looks and smells like xenophobia (not to mention old fashioned Empirism)" but only if one interprets it from the view point of a EU supporter. But at least this time you expressed your view as an opinion unlike before ... "UKIP is a party of overwhelmingly ... xenophobes." That's some progress I suppose.

Come again?

The EU thinks xenophobes should be criminalised with amongst other things up to 2 years in prison. Should that apply to UKIP officials/MEPs and members? We don't agree on policy but do you believe in the freedom of speech?

The EU "thinks xenophobes should be criminalised"? Where does the EU say this? Furthermore, hasn't the EU condemned the Berlusconi government for its policies towards the Roma?

What I don't understand is this: if UKIP is so set against the EU, why do your MEPs take their salaries and any other perks from the EU? At least Sinn Fein MPs put their money where their collective mouth is and decline to take their seats at Westminster. Oh and I'm not a supporter of SF, in case you were wondering.

 

[goneforlunch]

Yet below you use the argument that immigrants are driving wages down as an example of why immigrants are bad...Doesn't make sense does it?

British workers, especially low or unskilled workers, are not keeping their jobs/getting their jobs if immigrants are doing the work instead, especially when immigrants are prepared to work for less than British workers would. Immigration increases the number of workers available to employers ... driving wages down in real terms. Makes commonnsense.

Again, you don't make sense here. Coupled with what you say above, it suggests you believe British workers are too expensive for businesses which forces them to look elsewhere for cheaper labour (obviously leaving aside your contradicting comments about immigrants driving wages down). So to counter that, you want to opt out of EU employment legislation in order to make our workforce cheaper (which means taking away many of the employment rights British workers enjoy today) and you will replace it with "clout". Now leaving aside the fact "clout" is completely meaningless, which specific employment rights would you like to see abandoned in order to produce this cheap British labour force? (Ok, you can tell me what "clout" involves if you like)

The earliest example of "clout" was seen after the Black Death when peasant labour was in short supply. Employers had to compete for labour (though it didn't last). The principle is the same today. Workers rights are a constant issue and giving up control to the undemocratic EU is madness. Again, it makes perfect commonsense to me.

In some of my previous posts, I have asked whether you knowingly tell the lies you do, or whether you're just parroting the lies that UKIP tells you? So could you answer that question considering the fact that the Lisbon Treaty states: "the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to adopt the euro without a separate decision to do so by its government and parliament"

The Lisbon Treaty also says it "decisions will be taken to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation". That's us; we were granted a derogation on the euro. Perhaps you can explain this apprarent contradiction? It's interesting that the treaty makes no mention of our promised referendum on the euro. Knowing that our politicians are not in favour of referendums, in no way am I satisfied that the Lisbon Treaty will not prove the basis for a legal threat to our currency.

How exactly can CFSP be "tested" in the Court of Justice? The ECJ is for Community law. The ECJ only rules on EU laws that are to be implemented into national law, as CFSP does not produce any laws full stop, I fail to see how the ECJ relates to this field in the slightest. Sounds more like another of yours or UKIP's scaremongering lies again.

The ECJ upholds the treaties. Policies can be moved from third to first pillar easily enough if politicians want them to. It's happened before. And do you really think no laws will be made in respect of the CFSP?

You can't use the effect of CAP on the third world as a criticism because you don't care about that in the slightest. You're only saying that to appeal to people's sensitivities in here. You simply want out of CAP altogether then you'll be happy, even if it continues and even if the effects on the third world continue. However, I agree the CAP needs to be reformed from head to tail, but that's hardly a reason to leave the EU is it?

I can certainly use the CAP. You really are getting above yourself in stating that I don't care about poorer countries. You and those you support do not have a monopoly on that. The CAP is bad for the consumers of this country (especially the poor) and it is bad for the third world. Being out of it would at least mean that British money was not propping it up, and it might mean that we could put pressure on the EU to really reform instead of just talking about it.

Why would it be in the interests of France and Germany to stay in and not the UK?

I didn't say it would be interests of Germany or France to stay in either.

France's net contribution is €4bn compared with the UK's €6bn, altho neither can compare to Germany's €10bn. Italy's is €3bn, Netherlands €3.5bn while Spain makes a profit of €4bn! France gets most through CAP (plus money to subsidise the Parliament in Strasbourg)

France's net contribution has consistently been less than the UK's and it has actively resisted moves to end the parliament's sitting in Strasbourg. Germany makes the largest contribution by far and The Netherlands makes the largest contribution per head of population. So what? None of that means that EU membership is good for the people of Britain.

Dirty French bastards!

I wasn't making any such judgement. It's still true though - the french are amongst those countries which ignore rules that don't suit them for as long as they can.

... while only 30% of British people support EU membership (which has only just recently turned negative as 32% do not support membership)

So well over half of British people are either against membership or have no strong feelings. Not exactly "keen" on EU membership then, are they?

Seriously, I think in very simple terms the EU allows countries to address problems at an international level far more effectively when they club together than when they act individually

So we are giving up democratic control of our politicians so that the EU can "address" problems at an international level more "effectively". The evidence does I think show that the EU's policies (at least as they are being implemented so far) are working against the interests of the people of the UK. I can see no evidence that the EU is "addressing problems" effectively at an international level either.

Well UKIP say they want to remain in the EEA and even acknowledge that this means they will still have to abide by EU legislation (altho you may have missed it because I shit you not, it's in the "small print" of their manifesto ) However, UKIP say this will be "temporary" as they don't want to abide by any EU laws, altho they don't expand on "temporary" and just give the pussy answer you keep repeating "oh we'll negotiate a bilateral deal that will be really really good for the UK and will shit all over the EU"!

UKIP doesn't actually say it wants to remain in the EEA - though it is a possible option. UKIP has never said that it will shit on the EU. That's a barefaced lie.

Why can't they be compared? If we completely cut ourselves off from the EU in order to gain an advantage for our own economy and businesses, why would we be treated any different to America?

UKIP does not want to completely cut the UK off from the EU. That's an ignorant misrepresentation of UKIP's position. You really have no understanding of what UKIP is about. The US broke WTO rules and that's why the EU imposed sanctions. If the EU imposed sanctions unfairly, the UK would impose sanctions of its own and the EU would lose.

Sorry, I'm a little confused: Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

Well of course it's a bad thing. Are you really a socialist at all?

Don't recall calling either you or UKIP racist (altho UKIP does contain a higher than normal amount of racists but hey, only to be expected I suppose)

You did say a particular UKIP policy was racist. And how would you know whether UKIP has a higher number of racists? You think policies are racist when they simply aren't!

Singling races out is, well, racist. It is also hypocritical when other groups acting exactly the same would not be punished in the same way because they happen to be white

Well it would be but UKIP has not singled out a race. Muslims can and do come from all races including whites. (Did you really need to be told that!) "Other groups" are not acting in the same way. To make policies to include these other groups would be rank political correctness.

You're able to make that statement, yet unable to tell me how UKIP won't be spending as much. Sounds like opportunist bullshit from a desperate party: "Vote for us! We'll do everything better! What? You don't need to know how, just trust us!"

UKIP is a small government party. I could list all sorts of things it would save millions on. I'm not surprised that you, as an Labour/EU supporter, can't think of any. Small government is the very antitheses of both!

The Labour Party says:

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’

What's that all about when the gap between the rich and the poor gets ever wider and their is less social mobility now than there was in the 1950s? Its claim to be socialist is sounding pretty hollow now.
It's not very democratic - it supports membership of the EU and it has lied to justify its refusal to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

The gap between what Labour says it stands for and what has actually happened since it came to power is huge. Atlee must be turning in his grave. Labour's a proven bullshitter whilst you just hope UKIP is. You have difficulty understanding that holding a different opinion to yours does not make anyone a liar. I have not lied and UKIP has not lied or even scaremongered.

 

[goneforlunch]

When you talk of an increase in population, what are you referring to
specifically?

Official population forecasts which predict an increase in population to 77 million IIRC by 2050. It has been quite widely reported. Cyclists will be squeezed out unless motorists are priced off the roads.

Why should improved cycling facilities mean higher taxes and less room for cars? Furthermore, why should better awareness of cyclists as road
users have a serious impact on motorists?

Millions of pounds from public funds have already been spent on provisions for cyclists and yet you still feel "oppressed"! I am in favour of better awareness of cyclists and motorcyclists.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the EU, not me.

No, I don't. I rarely contribute to discussions here and I've offered an agree to disagree option on this one (and only joined it because the first post was so provocative. Incidentally someone whose kid has fleas does not sound very "middle class" to me.) If I "put a sock in it" as you suggested I would have to leave your posts unanswered or say something you find acceptable. You have said that you are not going to have me tell you that you are wrong about UKIP and yet you expect me to shut up when you tell me that UKIP xenophobic! You haven't even had the decency to say whether you think the EU's apparent sanctions on free speech are right. Nice.

An English parliament would be fair to people living in England. Arrangements for Scotland and Wales would be fair to them also. Turnout at General elections would be better if politicians actually listened to what the voters wanted. Too populist for you? These same politicians are also pro-EU. Coincidence, d'you think?

UKIP's policies for Scotland and Wales are in the link I supplied earlier. They are sketchy (but from a small party with very limited resources I would not expect more). They are more London centric than nationalists would like but I'd like to know how nationalists square their desire for "independence" with undemocratic EU centric rule. The SNP policy of "independence in the EU" is either naive or a deliberate attempt to fool the Scottish people.

I'll have a look.

I don't expect you to agree with UKIP's policies, but I'd be interested in your response to my other comments.

Your insistence that UKIP is xenophobic. "When one unpacks all the anti-EU rhetoric one is left with something that looks and smells like xenophobia (not to mention old fashioned Empirism)" but only if one interprets it from the view point of a EU supporter. But at least this time you expressed your view as an opinion unlike before ... "UKIP is a party of overwhelmingly ... xenophobes." That's some progress I suppose.

Come again?

In what respect?

The EU "thinks xenophobes should be criminalised"? Where does the EU say this? Furthermore, hasn't the EU condemned the Berlusconi government for its policies towards the Roma?

The EU sets out is policies and sanctions against xenophobes (and racists) here.

The Italian government was racist/xenophobic in its treatment of the Roma, apparently with the backing of the Italian people. UKIP is not so I don't see the correlation.

What I don't understand is this: if UKIP is so set against the EU, why do your MEPs take their salaries and any other perks from the EU? At least Sinn Fein MPs put their money where their collective mouth is and decline to take their seats at Westminster. Oh and I'm not a supporter of SF, in case you were wondering.

Sinn Fein had other sources of funding, and the pay and perks package of a British MP are not nearly so enticing as those of an MEP. Politics being an expensive business, needs a lot of money (Labour and the Tories used up £17m each at the last election) and I don't like that any more than I expect you. The EU gets British money against the probable wishes of the British people, so I think UKIP is more than justified in taking some of that money back in order to campaign for an end to our membership.

I'd never have thought of you as a Sinn Fein supporter. Who do you support though?

 

[subversplat]

One guy at work's dad stood for UKIP once. The odd thing is that my colleague was born in France

 

[CyberRose]

British workers, especially low or unskilled workers, are not keeping their jobs/getting their jobs if immigrants are doing the work instead, especially when immigrants are prepared to work for less than British workers would. Immigration increases the number of workers available to employers ... driving wages down in real terms. Makes commonnsense.

But you said the British workforce needed to be cheaper to compete, so surely immigrants driving down wages would be a good thing in your book, right?

Workers rights are a constant issue and giving up control to the undemocratic EU is madness. Again, it makes perfect commonsense to me.

Well considering the vast majority of our workers rights comes from the EU, and "democratic" UK governments have to some extent or another, opposed their introduction, I fail to see why giving control to the EU is respect of worker's rights could be considered negative?

The Lisbon Treaty also says it "decisions will be taken to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation"

And which article of the treaty is that from? Cos I just searched it and guess what?

The ECJ upholds the treaties. Policies can be moved from third to first pillar easily enough if politicians want them to. It's happened before. And do you really think no laws will be made in respect of the CFSP?

Every aspect of pillar three requires unanimity, therefore, nothing whatsoever can be agreed in this area without the approval of the UK government

I can certainly use the CAP

Not when you're criticising it for the effect on the third world because you don't care. You don't care what happens with CAP as long as the UK is not part of it. Africans will still be getting screwed if the UK was not a part of it, the difference being you would have stopped caring by then

I didn't say it would be interests of Germany or France to stay in either

It is obviously in the best interests of all countries that are in the EU otherwise they would leave or not join in the first place

France's net contribution has consistently been less than the UK's and it has actively resisted moves to end the parliament's sitting in Strasbourg. Germany makes the largest contribution by far and The Netherlands makes the largest contribution per head of population. So what? None of that means that EU membership is good for the people of Britain

None of that means it's bad for the people of Britain either so well done on making an irrelevant point

So well over half of British people are either against membership or have no strong feelings. Not exactly "keen" on EU membership then, are they?

Er no, I don't think 32% has ever been considered "well over half", even if you use metric percentages. The polls have shown that support (and non-support) for the EU fluctuates around 30-35%, and the % that don't care is around 40%

So we are giving up democratic control of our politicians so that the EU can "address" problems at an international level more "effectively". The evidence does I think show that the EU's policies (at least as they are being implemented so far) are working against the interests of the people of the UK. I can see no evidence that the EU is "addressing problems" effectively at an international level either.

Yawn

UKIP doesn't actually say it wants to remain in the EEA - though it is a possible option. UKIP has never said that it will shit on the EU. That's a barefaced lie.

They want to join EEA until they negotiate a deal with the EU. Considering they have no idea whatsoever (as proved by yourself who cannot tell me what their magical "deal" would involve) this deal is, I would say they'd be in the EEA for a long time...

UKIP does not want to completely cut the UK off from the EU

No, they just don't want to dirty unwashed bastards telling us English what to do!

Well of course it's a bad thing. Are you really a socialist at all?

If it were happening it would be a bad thing, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that's true. Also, you want a cheaper workforce, so how can you tell me it's a bad thing?

UKIP is a small government party. I could list all sorts of things it would save millions on

I've asked you to, several times. Surely UKIP have decided on this? Surely it's been discussed or put forward by the party, so please tell me what UKIP will cut back on? From what I know, UKIP will ADD £54bn to UK spending, so that's £54bn you need to cut back on right there in order to continue the same level of spending as you do now. What I don't know might add billions more. So if you want to decrease spending, list what UKIP will cut back on that what, adds up to £100bn?

 

[nino_savatte]

One guy at work's dad stood for UKIP once. The odd thing is that my colleague was born in France

LOL!!! That's UKIP for you.

 

[nino_savatte]

Official population forecasts which predict an increase in population to 77 million IIRC by 2050. It has been quite widely reported. Cyclists will be squeezed out unless motorists are priced off the roads.

Point please?

Millions of pounds from public funds have already been spent on provisions for cyclists and yet you still feel "oppressed"! I am in favour of better awareness of cyclists and motorcyclists.

Millions of pounds have been spent on dangerous and virtually pointless cycle lanes. That is the truth. Local authorities can point to them and tell everyone that they are "meeting government environmental targets". Are you a cyclist btw?

No, I don't. I rarely contribute to discussions here and I've offered an agree to disagree option on this one (and only joined it because the first post was so provocative. Incidentally someone whose kid has fleas does not sound very "middle class" to me.) If I "put a sock in it" as you suggested I would have to leave your posts unanswered or say something you find acceptable. You have said that you are not going to have me tell you that you are wrong about UKIP and yet you expect me to shut up when you tell me that UKIP xenophobic! You haven't even had the decency to say whether you think the EU's apparent sanctions on free speech are right. Nice.

Rubbish, you bleat on endlessly about the EU as does your party (single issue).

An English parliament would be fair to people living in England. Arrangements for Scotland and Wales would be fair to them also. Turnout at General elections would be better if politicians actually listened to what the voters wanted. Too populist for you? These same politicians are also pro-EU. Coincidence, d'you think?

It isn't fair to the people of Wales or Scotland to create an English parliament while scrapping theirs. I think this sums up the small-minded Anglo-centric attitude of UKIP.

I don't expect you to agree with UKIP's policies, but I'd be interested in your response to my other comments.

Please, don't try that wee trick. I have responded to your comments, you just don't like them.

In what respect?

Nicely avoided.

The EU sets out is policies and sanctions against xenophobes (and racists) here.

The Italian government was racist/xenophobic in its treatment of the Roma, apparently with the backing of the Italian people. UKIP is not so I don't see the correlation.

UKIP is in a contradictory position: it is anti-immigration and generally xenophobic and yet, you make this claim. Did UKIP condemn this? Did the Italian government really have the backing of the people or did it manufacture that consent? I think the latter.

Sinn Fein had other sources of funding, and the pay and perks package of a British MP are not nearly so enticing as those of an MEP. Politics being an expensive business, needs a lot of money (Labour and the Tories used up £17m each at the last election) and I don't like that any more than I expect you. The EU gets British money against the probable wishes of the British people, so I think UKIP is more than justified in taking some of that money back in order to campaign for an end to our membership.

That's no excuse. SF at least had a degree of conviction in that regard. I see nothing of the sort with UKIP, whose MEPs are more than happy to accept their salaries from the EU, while taking their seats and moaning about how bad the EU is. What I find odd, is that you see no contradiction or hypocrisy in UKIP's position. So UKIP don't have any rich backers? Of course they do.

I'd never have thought of you as a Sinn Fein supporter. Who do you support though?

I don't support political parties: they're too much like 'organised' religions.

 

[moon23]

I know a UKIP MEP candidate (yes isn't that ironic). They are a fairly decent liberal person who just think the EU is an undemocractic form of governance that supports the capitialist world order.

 

[CyberRose]

I know a UKIP MEP candidate (yes isn't that ironic). They are a fairly decent liberal person who just think the EU is an undemocractic form of governance that supports the capitialist world order.

I don't think there's many governments in the West (ie any) that don't support this "capitalist world order" and UKIP's policies suggest they support it more than the "EU" does so your friend is a bit of a jackass isn't he?!

 

[moon23]

I don't think there's many governments in the West (ie any) that don't support this "capitalist world order" and UKIP's policies suggest they support it more than the "EU" does so your friend is a bit of a jackass isn't he?!

Hey I never said they were a friend, just someone I know through campaigning with against ID cards.

They are worried by things such as project STORK

EU/UK: EU pilot to boost compatibility of eID kicks off in the UK, 15 October 2007

The ultimate goal of the STORK project is to implement an EU-wide interoperable system for the recognition and authentication of eIDs [electronic identities] that will enable businesses, citizens and government employees to use their national eIDs in any Member State. Once established, this would significantly facilitate migration between Member States, allowing easy access to a variety of eGovernment services including, for example, social security, medical prescriptions and pension payments. It could also ease cross-border student enrolment in colleges ...

The UK’s Identity and Passport Service (IPS) is leading the pilot project, in close co-operation with the Government Gateway, the UK’s centralised registration service. “It is about the eventual pan-European recognition of electronic IDs,” noted an IPS spokesperson.

I don't think they are a jackass, I think they are wrong about a few things but generally someone who is trying to win more freedom for people by campaigning for de-centralized grass roots democracy, as opposed to a centralized EU bureaucracy.

 

[nino_savatte]

I know a UKIP MEP candidate (yes isn't that ironic). They are a fairly decent liberal person who just think the EU is an undemocractic form of governance that supports the capitialist world order.

They're a "decent liberal person"? That sounds like an oxymoron.

How can one be a liberal and be a member of UKIP? Liberals tend to support Europe and the EU wholeheartedly. I think your acquaintance is likely to be some sort of right wing libertarian rather than a liberal.

 

[Citizen66]

I don't vote but if I did I wouldn't, no.

 

[goneforlunch]

Point please?

Cyclists need more room. They're not going to get it with a population increase on that scale unless motorists are priced off the roads.

Millions of pounds have been spent on dangerous and virtually pointless cycle lanes. That is the truth. Local authorities can point to them and tell everyone that they are "meeting government environmental targets". Are you a cyclist btw?

Millions of pounds have been wasted on useless cycle lanes, I agree. Would your preferred plans, whatever they are, have made better use of the money? I'm a cyclist, for leisure purposes only, but my children cycle to school frequently as their school bus is so unreliable. I'm sure you will understand, as a cyclist yourself, why I worry about them.

It isn't fair to the people of Wales or Scotland to create an English parliament while scrapping theirs. I think this sums up the small-minded Anglo-centric attitude of UKIP.

The Welsh and the Scottish don't have parliaments. They have EU regional assemblies. They'd have more say over their own affairs under the UKIP proposal than they would under the present system. I think that's fairer to all. And wanting an independent country, ie able to set its own policies in response to the democratically expressed will of the people, without being subject to QMV, does not make UKIP small minded or Anglo-centric - far from it - but it certainly makes us much less EU centric. (And as I've said if the Scots and the Welsh think the present system is better, I'd support them in staying in the EU.)

Please, don't try that wee trick. I have responded to your comments, you just don't like them.

I'm not trying tricks. You haven't responded to the comments I'd particularly like answers on. Especially this:

The EU thinks xenophobes should be criminalised with amongst other things up to 2 years in prison. Should that apply to UKIP officials/MEPs and members? We don't agree on policy but do you believe in the freedom of speech?

Should it? Do you?

Nicely avoided.

Have you looked in the mirror recently.

I repeat: Come again in what respect. See? Further explanation is required, and no attempt at avoidance is made. If you can't or don't want to answer, fine, but don't make out that I'm at fault!

 

[goneforlunch]

But you said the British workforce needed to be cheaper to compete, so surely immigrants driving down wages would be a good thing in your book, right?

I've said more than once that the right balance between workers and businesses is necessary. I don't believe the EU has that balance right. It favours businesses over workers (and consumers and users of services.) Rights for particular groups do not redress that balance. (Please also see my next comments.)

Well considering the vast majority of our workers rights comes from the EU, and "democratic" UK governments have to some extent or another, opposed their introduction, I fail to see why giving control to the EU is respect of worker's rights could be considered negative?

And the rest of the world's democracies treat their workers badly? I don't think so! Non-EU countries have moved on too. To suggest that we should somehow be grateful to the EU or that all the most important labour reforms would end is silly. Giving control to the EU is negative because the EU is not democratic. Isn't that reason enough? You might trust those in charge today, but will your children or other people's children trust them tomorrow? Are you really that trusting?

And which article of the treaty is that from? Cos I just searched it and guess what?

d) Page 180, Article 1, point 15(b)
For: ‘b) in the first recital, the words “in taking decisions on the passage to the third stage of economic and monetary union” shall be replaced by “in taking decisions to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation”;

Read: ‘b) in the first recital, the words “in taking decisions on the passage to the third stage of economic and monetary union, referred to in Article 121(1) of this Treaty” shall be replaced by “in taking decisions to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation referred to in Article 117a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”;’

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0056:0059:EN:PDF

Guessing games don't interest me, so if you have something to say, just SAY IT!

The ECJ upholds the treaties. Policies can be moved from third to first pillar easily enough if politicians want them to. It's happened before. And do you really think no laws will be made in respect of the CFSP?

Every aspect of pillar three requires unanimity, therefore, nothing whatsoever can be agreed in this area without the approval of the UK government

Try again. (And I don't trust the UK government, and especially not when it's forming policy in EU circles.)

Not when you're criticising it for the effect on the third world because you don't care. You don't care what happens with CAP as long as the UK is not part of it. Africans will still be getting screwed if the UK was not a part of it, the difference being you would have stopped caring by then

You've just repeated the point I'd already answered thus:

I can certainly use the CAP. You really are getting above yourself in stating that I don't care about poorer countries. You and those you support do not have a monopoly on that. The CAP is bad for the consumers of this country (especially the poor) and it is bad for the third world. Being out of it would at least mean that British money was not propping it up, and it might mean that we could put pressure on the EU to really reform instead of just talking about it.

It is obviously in the best interests of all countries that are in the EU otherwise they would leave or not join in the first place

It's obviously in the interests of political parties and multinationals, but their interests are rather different to the people's in whose interests the EU does not operate. Why, if joining was in the people's interests, did Heath have to tell such a momumental lie in order to influence the referendum in the 70s? Why have we never been offered any other referendum despite all the control that has been ceded to the EU? And then there's the refusal of this latest government to renege on its promise to hold a referendum on the Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty. If it's in the people's interests, it would seem governments don't trust the people to see it that way.

None of that means it's bad for the people of Britain either so well done on making an irrelevant point

So why did you bring this up, "France's net contribution is €4bn compared with the UK's €6bn, altho neither can compare to Germany's €10bn. Italy's is €3bn, Netherlands €3.5bn while Spain makes a profit of €4bn! France gets most through CAP (plus money to subsidise the Parliament in Strasbourg)"? if that particular subject is irrelevant? Or is it only my reply that's "irrelevant"?

Er no, I don't think 32% has ever been considered "well over half", even if you use metric percentages. The polls have shown that support (and non-support) for the EU fluctuates around 30-35%, and the % that don't care is around 40%

Politicians are keen on being in the EU. No argument from me there. But the people are not "keen". You said yourself that only 30% of British people support membership, leaving well over half who are either indifferent or don't support membership. How therefore can it be said that the British people are "keen" on being in the EU?

Yawn

Obviously avoiding the point. You declined to say how the EU is addressing international problems more "effectively". Never mind.

They want to join EEA until they negotiate a deal with the EU. Considering they have no idea whatsoever (as proved by yourself who cannot tell me what their magical "deal" would involve) this deal is, I would say they'd be in the EEA for a long time...

UKIP link saying they want to join the EEA until a deal with the EU can be negotiated please? I haven't found anything like that and I'd prefer to read what UKIP says, not your interpretation of what UKIP says.

No, they just don't want to dirty unwashed bastards telling us English what to do!

Not worth a reply because NOTHING UKIP says in public or in private is so derogatory.

I've asked you to, several times. Surely UKIP have decided on this? Surely it's been discussed or put forward by the party, so please tell me what UKIP will cut back on? From what I know, UKIP will ADD £54bn to UK spending, so that's £54bn you need to cut back on right there in order to continue the same level of spending as you do now. What I don't know might add billions more. So if you want to decrease spending, list what UKIP will cut back on that what, adds up to £100bn?

You have a point. I could list all sorts of things I would save money on if I were in government that would fit UKIP's ethos but I'm not "UKIP". The party does fall short on this (but then it is a small party with no chance of actually forming a government. It's hardly a problem confined to UKIP, other bigger parties have been guilty of the same thing.) UKIP has not yet published its full manifesto, and the party does understand the need to cost its policies properly in order not to get ripped to shreds in the media. Despite the party's shortcomings in this, I'll still support it over the mainstream parties.

And I've asked you several questions, that you have completely ignored.

I've answered all your questions now I think, though not perhaps to the satisfaction of your EU supporting mind. Before you make any new points could you answer mine please? (It would be helpful if you quote the question you're replying to for clarity's sake.) You have completely ignored some very pertinent questions yourself. I'll list them if you are not clear, but they are plain enough if you read through the thread.

 

[CyberRose]

I've said more than once that the right balance between workers and businesses is necessary. I don't believe the EU has that balance right. It favours businesses over workers (and consumers and users of services.) Rights for particular groups do not redress that balance. (Please also see my next comments.)

So you want more workers' rights? If that's true, then why would you be in favour of signing out of the EU's social chapter (as the Conservatives have promised, and UKIP want out of the EU altogether, especially the social chapter)?

d) Page 180, Article 1, point 15(b)
For: ‘b) in the first recital, the words “in taking decisions on the passage to the third stage of economic and monetary union” shall be replaced by “in taking decisions to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation”;

Read: ‘b) in the first recital, the words “in taking decisions on the passage to the third stage of economic and monetary union, referred to in Article 121(1) of this Treaty” shall be replaced by “in taking decisions to end the derogations of those Member States with a derogation referred to in Article 117a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”;’

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0056:0059:EN:PDF

So you've picked out a random, not even a full sentence, and applied your own context? You don't even know which part of the Treaty that half-sentence is from, otherwise you'd have linked to the Treaty itself. That article concerns the convergence criteria for those member states wishing to join the Euro. It does not apply to any states wishing to maintain their derogation. More proof that either you or UKIP is full of shit and deceit. Baring in mind I linked to the actual Treaty that states in black and white that the decision to join the Euro is solely down to the UK government, will you now admit you (or UKIP) are wrong about this particular issue, or will you repeat the lies?

Try again. (And I don't trust the UK government, and especially not when it's forming policy in EU circles.)

If anything is transferred between pillars it must be done so via the Treaties, which require unanimity. Therefore, nothing can pass without the approval of the UK government. If you choose to ignore this, then continue peddling your lies, but it makes your argument less convincing every time you do

So why did you bring this up, "France's net contribution is €4bn compared with the UK's €6bn, altho neither can compare to Germany's €10bn. Italy's is €3bn, Netherlands €3.5bn while Spain makes a profit of €4bn! France gets most through CAP (plus money to subsidise the Parliament in Strasbourg)"? if that particular subject is irrelevant? Or is it only my reply that's "irrelevant"?

Well if you could explain to me what exactly your point is, then it may have some relevance. However, I don't even think you know why you brought it up and even less of an idea how it's relevant to anything we're discussing

Politicians are keen on being in the EU. No argument from me there. But the people are not "keen". You said yourself that only 30% of British people support membership, leaving well over half who are either indifferent or don't support membership. How therefore can it be said that the British people are "keen" on being in the EU?

Are you thick? Or do you have trouble reading? The figure in opposition to the EU in the UK is 32%. This is the first time (ie in the past couple of months) that the number of British people opposed to the EU has been greater than those that support membership. So for years and years and years, the British public have supported membership, but now all of a sudden, because the figure has dropped slightly, and for a couple of months, that means everyone is opposed to membership?

UKIP link saying they want to join the EEA until a deal with the EU can be negotiated please? I haven't found anything like that and I'd prefer to read what UKIP says, not your interpretation of what UKIP says.

Christ have you not even read UKIP's manifesto?! Well you might have missed it as they only put it in the 'small print':

An alternative would be to conduct our EU trade under the rules of the European Economic Area (EEA), as does Norway which has never been a member of the EU. This would allow a continuation of free trade as if we were staying in the EU, but while we would be released from most EU legislation (farming and fishing, for instance), we would remain bound by the single market rules. This may be an appropriate temporary frame work while negotiations are taking place, but UKIP wants freedom from all EU legislation so we should not consider it as a suitable long term option.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stories/pdf/UKIPa4manifesto2005.pdf

Not worth a reply because NOTHING UKIP says in public or in private is so derogatory.

Come now that's not true is it?!

You have a point. I could list all sorts of things I would save money on if I were in government that would fit UKIP's ethos but I'm not "UKIP". The party does fall short on this (but then it is a small party with no chance of actually forming a government. It's hardly a problem confined to UKIP, other bigger parties have been guilty of the same thing.) UKIP has not yet published its full manifesto, and the party does understand the need to cost its policies properly in order not to get ripped to shreds in the media. Despite the party's shortcomings in this, I'll still support it over the mainstream parties.

Why don't you list them then? Tell me how UKIP can pay for its policies (that we know about) and still make cuts? And why would you support a party that doesn't even have a clue about the most important thing a government has to do (setting the budget)?

I've answered all your questions now I think, though not perhaps to the satisfaction of your EU supporting mind. Before you make any new points could you answer mine please? (It would be helpful if you quote the question you're replying to for clarity's sake.) You have completely ignored some very pertinent questions yourself. I'll list them if you are not clear, but they are plain enough if you read through the thread.

I leave things out that are irrelevant or are going nowhere, as I have done in this post. If you want something specific answering then you'll have to ask me (but please try to keep it relevant)

 

[nino_savatte]

goneforlunch;7888350Cyclists need more room. They're not going to get it with a population increase on that scale unless motorists are priced off the roads.

How are motorists going to be "priced off the roads"? You have failed to support this outburst with anything tangible.

Millions of pounds have been wasted on useless cycle lanes, I agree. Would your preferred plans, whatever they are, have made better use of the money? I'm a cyclist, for leisure purposes only, but my children cycle to school frequently as their school bus is so unreliable. I'm sure you will understand, as a cyclist yourself, why I worry about them.

Thanks, you sum up the attitude in this country to cycling by perpetuating the false notion that cycling is "dangerous" and therefore, children should cycle on the pavement where they will develop bad road habits.

I don't suppose better cycle training ever occurred to you? Most councils are still operating the old Cycling Proficiency Test and not the new Bikeability scheme? Why? Because cycling doesn't matter, what matters is getting more people into cars and catering to their needs.

The Welsh and the Scottish don't have parliaments. They have EU regional assemblies. They'd have more say over their own affairs under the UKIP proposal than they would under the present system. I think that's fairer to all. And wanting an independent country, ie able to set its own policies in response to the democratically expressed will of the people, without being subject to QMV, does not make UKIP small minded or Anglo-centric - far from it - but it certainly makes us much less EU centric. (And as I've said if the Scots and the Welsh think the present system is better, I'd support them in staying in the EU.)

I beg to differ: Scotland has a parliament. But then UKIP only sees Britain through the prism of England as is evidenced by its desire to create an English Parliament. How well do UKIP perform in Wales and Scotland I wonder? Not very well, one would wager.

I'm not trying tricks. You haven't responded to the comments I'd particularly like answers on. Especially this:

Hmmm, yes, you're fond of this discursive tactic. I've naswered your questions but others are too ridiculous forr words and rather sum up the small-minded, Anglo-centric (not to mention Imperialist) attitude of your party.

The EU thinks xenophobes should be criminalised with amongst other things up to 2 years in prison. Should that apply to UKIP officials/MEPs and members? We don't agree on policy but do you believe in the freedom of speech?

Should it? Do you?

UKIP MEPs shouldn't take their seats in a parliament that they are sworn to abolish. That is hypocrisy.

Have you looked in the mirror recently.

At least my mirror doesn't flatter or distort.

I repeat: Come again in what respect. See? Further explanation is required, and no attempt at avoidance is made. If you can't or don't want to answer, fine, but don't make out that I'm at fault!

Not sure what you're on about here.

 

[goneforlunch]

CyberRose

I shall be very pleased to answer all the points and questions raised in your last post just as soon as you have answered some of my very obviously put questions from this thread:

Labour is now promoting free school meals for all children whether their parents can afford to pay or not. Estimates put the cost at £1bn. Are taxes to go up yet again or will cuts be made in order to fund this initiative? (My post #98.)

The Labour Party says:

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’

What's that all about when the gap between the rich and the poor gets ever wider and there is less social mobility now than there was in the 1950s? Its claim to be socialist is sounding pretty hollow now. It's not very democratic - it supports membership of the EU and it has lied to justify its refusal to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. (My post #104.)

And please, don't try to pretend this stuff isn't relevant. The lack of difference between the mainstream parties in policy is the very reason why UKIP and other small parties now exist.

Also, I'd like to know why abolishing the Human Rights Act is "just funny". (My post #92.) You might not have realised what this question referred to as the quote you used from UKIP was not shown when I quoted you.

Nino_Savatte

Please, don't make assumptions about me or my family. I would not let my children cycle on the country lanes without footpaths and on the busy A road, which form their route to school, unless I was confident as to their skills and road sense. I'm not worried about their competency but that of the drivers with whom they share the road.

As with CyberRose, I'll be pleased to answer your other comments, but not unless you answer my question, clearly and unequiovically, about UKIP, the EU and xenophobia:

The EU thinks xenophobes should be criminalised with amongst other things up to 2 years in prison. Should that apply to UKIP officials ... and members? We don't agree on policy but do you believe in the freedom of speech?

Should it? Do you?

It's far from being a ridiculous question to me. I want to be sure that you understand the implications of what you are accusing UKIP members of. (I noted your comments about MEPs, and I'll deal with them later.)

But neither of you need worry if you find it these questions too hard to come to terms with, I'll understand completely.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino_Savatte

Please, don't make assumptions about me or my family. I would not let my children cycle on the country lanes without footpaths and on the busy A road, which form their route to school, unless I was confident as to their skills and road sense. I'm not worried about their competency but that of the drivers with whom they share the road.

As with CyberRose, I'll be pleased to answer your other comments, but not unless you answer my question, clearly and unequiovically, about UKIP, the EU and xenophobia:




It's far from being a ridiculous question to me. I want to be sure that you understand the implications of what you are accusing UKIP members of. (I noted your comments about MEPs, and I'll deal with them later.)

But neither of you need worry if you find it these questions too hard to come to terms with, I'll understand completely.

I'm not "making assumptions about your family". I am merely pointing out that you subscribe to the exact same prejudice against cycling that others have in this country. The mainstream view is "cycling is dangerous" or "cycling is poor man's transport", your attitude isn't that much different. This attitude is reflected in government policy at local and national level as well as being represented within motoring organisations such as the AA. Better cycle training is preferable to uttering the hackneyed" There are so many dangerous drivers out there". While there is some truth to that statement, insisting that children cycle on pavements will only lead to bad cycling habits later. I know, I see it all the time.

UKIP has demonstrated nothing but contempt for Europe and its institutions. Your MEPs sit in the Euro Parliament and take their salaries despite being vehemently opposed to it. That is not only paradoxical, it is hypocritical and you have consistently avoided that point. Its individual members have made some of the most vile xenophobic (as well as sexist) remarks and, to my mind, that is fairly representative of a party whose roots are in Thatcher's anti-European position. IIRC, one of your MEPs was, or is, accused of fiddling his expenses. Care to comment on that?

But what I find so breathtakingly obnoxious about your argument is your narrow focus on Europe (this is also reflected in your party's policies). It's as though any other policies are an afterthought.

I will not retract my statement about UKIP being xenophobic. If you think that I'm being defamatory, by all means take me to court.