***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 *****
==========================================================
Continuing discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 1 Oct 15 at 12:46
|
I have changed my mind and will vote out. See the migrants thread.
This does not mean I am a UKIP supporter - shudder. Mind bleach. A one man band run by a ****.
|
I believe the proposed new EU Referendum wording is “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?â€
If I enter “Yesâ€, will this be taken to mean “Yes, the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU†or “Yes, the United Kingdom should leave the EUâ€?
|
|
It makes no difference, the referendum will be repeated until the politically acceptable result is achieved.
|
>>It makes no difference, the referendum will be repeated until the politically acceptable result is achieved.
Yes, the Irish were guilty of "false consciousness" (a Marxist term, I believe) when they voted to leave the OU. They were made to rethink and then they gave the required answer.
|
The Matt cartoon was good :
I think the question "Do you take this man to be your lawfull wedded husband?" is biased towards an "I do" answer.
|
>>I believe the proposed new EU Referendum wording is “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?â€
If it were worded as one question, as you have written it, the answer "yes" would mean "yes, the UK should do one of those things".
However, it will be worded as two questions and you will put your scrawly X against one of the options.
Literal answers often confuse. It seems to me that the standard response to a young person's common "Can I get a coffee?" question, for example, must be along the lines of "I would imagine so".
Last edited by: Crankcase on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 09:23
|
"Leave" the EU,
theknow.eu/
|
>> "Leave" the EU,
>>
>> theknow.eu/
From the site - "quote"
"Non-partisan and independent, we are seeking to engage people from all walks of life, across the political spectrum
Turns out the very first paragraph is a lie.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/30/nigel-farage-accused-of-launching-ukip-front-operation-to-run-eu-no-campaign
|
Mr Cameron had to make the concession of an EU referendum ahead of the British general election in May, even though he is on the record as having said he didn’t want do it. The Conservative Party was concerned over the rise of UKIP in 2015, and the promise of the referendum was seen as a way to stifle the party’s growth.
But he predicated the referendum on a “renegotiation†first – an idea that has been roundly ridiculed by Eurosceptics who believe that the EU project is fundamentally unalterable.
Now the German Chancellor has underscored that futility, by demanding Mr Cameron support Europe-wide army integration in exchange for any changes to Britain’s EU membership. For the past few years, the British political establishment claimed there were no plans for an EU army. The first major flashpoint of such a debate came in 2014, when UKIP leader Nigel Farage debated then Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister ahead of the European elections.
Mr Clegg called the idea a “fantasy†that was “simply not going to happenâ€â€“ a description which was soon debunked as it became clear at an EU Army was in fact in the plans of major EU bureaucrats.
The Telegraph quotes a Berlin source who said that Mrs Merkel’s defence plans would be a “favour†she would seek from Mr Cameron during the renegotiation process.
“If you want favours, you have to give favours,†the source told the paper.
“If Cameron wants a ‘flexible Europe’, he must let other members integrate further. Yes – opt out, opt out, opt out – and then shut up.â€
A 10 point plan, thought to be sourced from Merkel’s CDU party said the Chancellor wants: “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.
“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.â€
It adds: “In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterised by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.â€
A quote from the left/liberal's unfavourite site!
|
A classic illustration of the EU dilemma.
Greater military integration will happen anyway. We can be in and influence its course or we can be out and still have to live with it.
|
|
In some areas might be true, in this case though i don't think there's little risk of us missing out on anything of any importance. Another HQ/talking shop that's about it.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 13:42
|
>> A classic illustration of the EU dilemma.
>>
>> Greater military integration will happen anyway. We can be in and influence its course or
>> we can be out and still have to live with it.
>>
>>
>>
So we can aim for our soldiers to run away like the Dutch soldiers at Sebrinica did and let a massacre happen?
I can see that being popular..
|
>> So we can aim for our soldiers to run away like the Dutch soldiers at
>> Sebrinica did and let a massacre happen?
sorry, I'm struggling to see the link.......
|
>> sorry, I'm struggling to see the link.......
My guess is he sees our military being more professional than many/most others.. and that by remaining on or own, it will continue to be so.. whereas if we integrated we could end up with a right old mish mash of commanders and a seriously less professional outfit generally.
|
The problem with Dutch IIRC was an issue with ROE, rather than a lack of professionalism. So not overly an issue as highlighted per se but it is a good example of weak ROE from a supranational body, in this case the UN.
It's something to be wary of, that's not to say they can't happen within each country, but more likely as there are too many countries have a say in developing the ROE and it becomes analysis paraylsis.
The idea that we are somehow going to end up in one large armed forces across europe as part of DC's negotiations is up there on balance of probablity with being invaded by aliens. Another HQ might be created but that isn't the same at all, but should one be created it won't stop the press screaming about it, but that's mainly because they have no real understanding of what they are looking at. There are a number of them, such as Eurocorps. But in my opinion they are very much the emporers new clothes.
|
>> My guess is he sees our military being more professional than many/most others..
That was my guess too. However the point is spectacularly missed.
If the EU army proposal goes ahead UK will have and use an opt out from physical participation.
The worry in the article(s) linked by Roger was about EU army's effect on UK's military relationship with US. UK is surely in a stronger position in EU and able to influence the EU's military than sitting outside as a bystander.
Same principle applies to EU regulation on commerce, movement of labour, pollution or whatever. Nations like Norway or Switzerland find themselves effectively subject to such rules but lack any real influence over them.
|
>> Same principle applies to EU regulation on commerce
Do you think 70 years ago some people were saying 'it's better to be with them than be on the outside'?
|
>> Do you think 70 years ago some people were saying 'it's better to be with
>> them than be on the outside'?
I'm struggling a bit here. 70 yrs ago was September 1945, probably a good time to be on he inside of a fledgeling united Europe.
|
>> I'm struggling a bit here. 70 yrs ago was September 1945, probably a good time
>> to be on he inside of a fledgeling united Europe.
>>
O.K. my education and specifically my maths, was compromised by trendy left wing thinking and a crappy comprehensive.
Let's be more specific... The Nazi's.
|
>> Let's be more specific... The Nazi's.
I contemplated that possibility but thought the comparison too fatuous even for those on the UKIP fringe.
|
>> I contemplated that possibility but thought the comparison too fatuous even for those on the
>> UKIP fringe.
>>
Well, nevertheless it's what I've said.
I can't see what you think is silly about it, it's the principle I'm writing about, (I know you've had difficulties before with that).
|
>> I can't see what you think is silly about it, it's the principle I'm writing
>> about, (I know you've had difficulties before with that).
Yes but using the Nazis as a comparator for principle co-operation with a 'club' of democratic states just looks ridiculous.
|
>> Yes but using the Nazis as a comparator for principle co-operation with a 'club' of
>> democratic states just looks ridiculous.
>>
Right o.k. it looks silly..now the question, the principle?
|
>> Right o.k. it looks silly..now the question, the principle?
I still don't know which principle.
The point I was making is that, using Norway or Switzerland as comparators, a UK outside the EU would still be directly affected by EU policy and directives but no longer have any influence over them.
On the principle of an EU wide defence force I share Sooty's view as expressed 18:42 yesterday. He knows more than I do about the example of the Dutch/Srebrenica snafu and his aliens comparator for a truly transnational army is spot on.
|
>> I still don't know which principle.
I'll try again.
If you fundamentally disagree with something and it is not to your advantage when you balance the pros and cons...
... then there's no point being in it.
Now fair enough Nazism was extreme... but the point I was making is if it isn't going to work for you, don't kid yourself you'll have influence when you won't.
Yes, we'd have some small influences in the EU... just not a lot, there's too many people in it and too much going on, so I don't think the 'influence' angle is at all worth it. We pay in an absolute fortune, yet have signed away great chunks of our own autonomy and have to abide by decisions made elsewhere by people that don't have our interests at heart at all, why would they?
If we were out, we'd still trade with them... and everywhere else.. o.k. a few forms might be more complicated etc... but we'd still be here, still trading, we're only next door after all. The world wouldn't end.
The advantage of that is if we didn't like something we wouldn't do it, end of story.
|
> The advantage of that is if we didn't like something we wouldn't do it, end
>> of story.
>>
I think that's the point we might end up having to abide by it anyway in or out.
|
>> I think that's the point we might end up having to abide by it anyway
>> in or out.
>>
Why?
|
>> Why?
Let me try again.
Whatever secures the free trade area the antis think will magically retain the benefits of membership while we shed all the bad stuff will be defined by treaties. It's probable that those treaties will bind us to accept, for example, EU directives affecting trade witihn the community. We will no longer have any influence on those.
Ask the Norwegians or the Swiss. The latter have had a recent spat over free movement of people.
|
>> Whatever secures the free trade area the antis think will magically retain the benefits of
>> membership while we shed all the bad stuff will be defined by treaties. It's probable
>> that those treaties will bind us to accept, for example, EU directives affecting trade witihn
>> the community. We will no longer have any influence on those.
>>
>> Ask the Norwegians or the Swiss. The latter have had a recent spat over
>> free movement of people.
>>
We don't have to comply with a thing the EU negotiates amongst it's own membership if we are not in it.
If they want our goods on the basis of a negotiated balanced agreement between us and them, so be it...if not, not.
We can trade with the whole world, Brazil, India, China, US, Russia, Australasia ..wherever.
Countries in the EU will want our goods and equally so, they'll want to sell us their goods... we don't have to jump to their every tune, we negotiate ON TERMS WE FIND ACCEPTABLE, as would they.
Just because we left the EU, the whole trade system wouldn't dry up to nothing.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 18:40
|
>> We don't have to comply with a thing the EU negotiates amongst it's own membership
>> if we are not in it.
I think that's the point being made, countries outside the EU are affected by the rules made inside it. You can of course refuse, but I don't think many do.
|
|
The EU doesn't dictate to the rest of the world how it conducts its trade, particularly the Yanks. There's negotiations.
|
>> The EU doesn't dictate to the rest of the world how it conducts its trade,
>> particularly the Yanks. There's negotiations.
See TTIP.
A far more invidious thing than the EU yet one on which our politicians, even UKIP are strangely silient.
Perhaps JC will change that.
|
>> See TTIP.
>>
>> A far more invidious thing than the EU yet one on which our politicians, even
>> UKIP are strangely silient.
>>
www.ukip.org/ukip_blasts_european_parliament_for_passing_ttip_resolution_in_crucial_vote
|
>> We don't have to comply with a thing the EU negotiates amongst it's own membership
>> if we are not in it.
>>
>> If they want our goods on the basis of a negotiated balanced agreement between us
>> and them, so be it...if not, not.
And that 'balanced' agreement will, to some extent at least, bind us to follow terms/directives applying to those nations remaining inside. Do you really think we can dictate terms on basis of 'if they want our goods'?
How do you think our terms of trade with the US are determined. I never cease to be amazed at extent to which the anti EC brigade seem to roll over when the real bully is mentioned. Do you all really think they're our 'kith and kin' and share our objectives just because they speak a version of the same language?
Does it not bother you that Congress passes legislation purporting to apply worldwide?
America bothers me far more than the EU.
>> We can trade with the whole world, Brazil, India, China, US, Russia, Australasia ..wherever.
As now then.
|
>> America bothers me far more than the EU.
I'm not anti EU, pro US.
I'm pro both, but think we should make our own deals, not be dictated to by either.
|
.Why do you care?
If Cameron negotiates everything he and the country wants and manages a miracle of agreement, you'll vote against it because its foreign.
If on the other hand, he fails and the new structure and terms are abysmally unfavourable to the UK, you'll vote against it because its foreign.
Still at least we now know why you're so bitter, I've often wondered; its because you got your a*** kicked in the Spanish housing market. Bitter and resentful over your financial loss.
Presumably if you'd made a fortune you'd be voting for the EU at every turn.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 13:14
|
SQ 4 the regular LB
>> Presumably if you'd made a fortune you'd be voting for the EU at every turn.
>
1) You assume that Cameron's wants are the same as the country's wants. Why?
2) If he fails (as it is almost certain he will) he will present it as success.
3) You really are an insufferable prig - yes PRIG - with your certainties that you know best and are always right.
4) If you make business recommendations using as little logic & knowledge as you have displayed in your analysis of my character, reasons and thoughts, there is little hope for your clients.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 21:28
|
I would be genuinely concerned and saddened if someone such as you liked me or anything I said.
Conversely I am pleased that someone from your lowly position in the food chain would find me insufferable.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 15:05
|
>> I would be genuinely concerned and saddened if someone such as you liked me or
>> anything I said.
>>
>> Conversely I am pleased that someone from your lowly position in the food chain would
>> find me insufferable.
>>
Succinctly put - those re precisely my feelings for you.
We agree on something.
We despise each other.
|
|
No, that doesn't cover it.
|
Classic vitriolic c4p stuff, involving the usual suspects, the usual personal insults.
Ugh.
|
With the inevitable third party commentary.
Its difficult to know if Observer is capable of more than this? It seems not. I wonder why he doesn't try.
|
I deliberately didn't look at this thread again until just now, when I found that the two of you just carried on.
"Its difficult to know if Observer is capable of more than this? It seems not. I wonder why he doesn't try."
I'm not getting involved in vitriolic/vicious/childish/"I-must-have-the-last-word" slanging matches. I was merely expressing distaste, particularly when both parties are capable of behaving like mature, rational beings elsewhere.
I'm beginning to see why some members (long-standing, some of them) drift away.
|
>> I'm beginning to see why some members (long-standing, some of them) drift away.
Whereas others simply come back with another username and pretend they've never been here before.
|
"Whereas others simply come back with another username and pretend they've never been here before."
I have pretended nothing.
|
>> I have pretended nothing.
Did I mention any names?
|
"Did I mention any names?"
You quoted from my post and the insinuation was clear.
|
>> You quoted from my post and the insinuation was clear.
I was merely replying to a statement that was made. I could hardly reply to anyone else's post with the reply I gave now could I? For starters it would not have made any sense.
Anyone would think you had a guilty conscience.
|
"I was merely replying to a statement that was made. I could hardly reply to anyone else's post with the reply I gave now could I? For starters it would not have made any sense."
You are being disingenuous. You didn't need to make the comment at all. It's not as if you absolutely had to make the comment and then needed to find something to pin it to.
"Anyone would think you had a guilty conscience."
Sounds like another insinuation. I don't feel guilty. I don't know if you want me to feel guilty. Perhaps you're trying to make me feel guilty.
I used to think that moderators were above this kind of thing.
|
>> I used to think that moderators were above this kind of thing.
For some reason you're making mountains out of molehills.
But hey, why break the habit of a lifetime.
|
"For some reason you're making mountains out of molehills."
You mean I picked you up on some not particularly nice things you wrote, which were provoked, it seems, by my comment about people drifting away from the forum? It's the insinuation and disingenuousness that gets me.
"But hey, why break the habit of a lifetime."
There you go again. What on earth provoked that comment?
My first comment in this thread was about what I saw as unreasonable and unpleasant stuff being posted in a row between two forum members. Was that "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Perhaps such unpleasantness is now deemed acceptable here, or perhaps even entertaining.
If you have a problem with me I would really like to know - directly, not by insinuation. Or even better, by private e-mail. I imagine forum members who have bothered to read this are probably bored by it.
|
>> If you have a problem with me I would really like to know
No, I don't have a problem with you.
However, earlier in this thread you said, and I quote:-
"I'm not getting involved in vitriolic/vicious/childish/"I-must-have-the-last-word" slanging matches. I was merely expressing distaste, particularly when both parties are capable of behaving like mature, rational beings elsewhere."
Also earlier in this thread I replied to one of your posts, then you went off on one. That was what I meant by saying "making a mountain out of a molehill". Perhaps you ought to start practicing what you preach instead of jumping to conclusions and starting a slanging match.
>> I'm beginning to see why some members (long-standing, some of them) drift away.
So am I.
|
>> the usual suspects, the usual personal insults.
>> Ugh.
Really vicious, like a couple of spiteful schoolgirls.
|
Just note who started it:)
Probably I should not have lowered myself to respond in a like manner, but the "food chain" comment was a step too far for me to swallow.
|
>> Good to know.
>>
C4P moderator to me-
Write a hundred lines, "I must not feed the troll"
OK I'll stop now :-)
|
No, you won't.
All that happened this time is that I pointed out I'd realised the reason for your bitterness was financial loss in the Spanish housing market. And if sensitivity is anything to go by, I'd say that was a bullseye.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 12:54
|
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107648
Petition to instruct the P.M. to invoke ARTICLE 50 of the E.U. Treaty for the UK to exit NOW!
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 17 Sep 15 at 13:42
|
|
Why waste time posting a petition. Government ignores them..
|
I think you'll find madf, this is the position
>>
At 10,000 signatures...
At 10,000 signatures, government will respond to this petition
At 100,000 signatures...
At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament
<<
I know that because I've just signed it, posted on my Facebook page where a lot of lorry drivers are now doing the same thing!
Pat
|
Yes Pat
I know the rules.
"At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament"
Hey PM, we have a petition with 100,000 signatures".
"I have considered it - we won't do anything. Next "
The End.
|
>> I know that because I've just signed it, posted on my Facebook page where a
>> lot of lorry drivers are now doing the same thing!
Are there any examples of one of these petitions actually changing anything? No? thought not. Its an elaborate con trick.
|
>>Are there any examples of one of these petitions actually changing anything? No? thought not. Its an elaborate con trick. <<
Where do you think FairFuelUK started?
Pat
|
i clicked on Rogers link to the petition page. The top supported one was surprising. The others get the blandest reply you could think of. Of the one thousand i think one for debated in parliament.
|
For those who have never heard Nigel farage live, here is a recording of his "Say No" campaign tour held earlier this evening in Essex.
It's long and there are a couple of introductory speakers.
www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/17/watch-live-nigel-farages-no-to-eu-tour-continues-in-essex/
|
>> For those who have never heard Nigel farage live, here is a recording of his
>> "Say No" campaign tour held earlier this evening in Essex.
I'm sure I was once taught the correct format to RSVP. In this case I'll rely on errr, NO.
|
How much has the migrant crisis firmed up or changed the views of some people to the benefit of the 'no' campaign?
I'd guess, quite a lot.
|
|
Going by those on here, i don't think it's changed anyone's views. Whether here is representative or not is anyone's guess.
|
The staying in option was 43% in the last poll I read, with 40% for out and 17% undecided. The outs have the momentum and whether their numbers grow will be largely influenced by the migrant crisis.
I'm beginning to think the EU is more trouble than it is worth.
|
|
Interesting RoR, might keep an eye on the numbers and see how much they change. I wonder if they have changed much in the last month.
|
My views have been consistent since the flawed "Common Market" scam Yes/No we voted on in the 1970.
I voted NO then (I at least partly understood the real US Eu. agenda) and I shall campaign and vote for "Leave".
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 17 Sep 15 at 19:28
|
>> My views have been consistent since the flawed "Common Market" scam Yes/No we voted on
>> in the 1970.
>> I voted NO then (I at least partly understood the real US Eu. agenda) and
>> I shall campaign and vote for "Leave".
And don't we ruddy well know it, all we get from you us "the EU this, the EU that" nada nada nada" followed by hundreds of links to crap anti EU comics that you must spend all your time searching the web for.
Honestly its like living in a road with someones dog that keep crapping on the pavement. You wake up and you end up walking in sh it unless you keep your eyes open all the time.
|
Someone has to counter the pro EU dog do-do found in the media.
If you don't want read it, as a EUophile, you don't have to.
|
Here's the thing Roger, or at least *my* thing.
I have my doubts about the EU and I don't like many things about it. But your "campaign" for want of a better word, against Muslims, Immigrants, Foreigners and the rest of it hide any reasonable points behind what I perceive to be an obsessional hate or fear.
20 squidrillion people coming to this country is a bad idea. If somebody writes "too many people coming to this country", I have some agreement with that.
But as soon as someone writes too many Muslims / Arabs / foreigners / whatever coming to this country, then it becomes obnoxious.
If someone writes "why don't the countries next to them help" that's one thing. But when someone writes "why don't the Muslim countries next to them help" I immediately wonder about the inclusion of the word "Muslim".
"I detest freeloaders on our welfare system" is a reasonable statement. But include a religion, or a nationality, or a race, and it becomes, in my eyes, despicable.
|
>> If someone writes "why don't the countries next to them help" that's one thing. But
>> when someone writes "why don't the Muslim countries next to them help" I immediately wonder
>> about the inclusion of the word "Muslim".
>>
>> "I detest freeloaders on our welfare system" is a reasonable statement. But include a religion,
>> or a nationality, or a race, and it becomes, in my eyes, despicable.
>>
I disagree.
If there was a big problem in Europe and a Christian based country had loads of refugees running away to other countries for wholly understandable reasons... and great chunks of the Middle East took them in... but the rest of Europe was deafening in its silence....
...I'd have no problem with a Muslim man in the Middle East saying, how come the Christian West isn't doing much to support them?
I'd agree with him.
The inference is there's a similarity of background (religion), human beings can easily revert to that that they know, so why not expect those of a similar background to show some sympathy and actually help?
|
And that, Westpig, is exactly why it seems like we should agree but then we so often don't agree at the last moment.
People are people.
A country is not to be criticized because they don't take people of a certain religion, they are to be criticized because they don't help people.
If I saw a person needing help I could give, his nationality, race or religion would not make me more or less likely to help.
If I didn't want to help, those factors would not make me more or less likely to do so.
People are people.
|
>> People are people.
>>
I understand where you are coming from.. and mostly agree.
It's just that many/most human beings are most comfortable with their own, be that a religion, a geographic area or the local golf club.
That doesn't mean you should be unpleasant to those outside of that... but it's an understandable human trait to subscribe to.
|
>>It's just that many/most human beings are most comfortable with their own
Again, and I know you will think I misunderstand, but we are with our own -> people.
I know Muslims to be admired and Christians to be despised. I know generous Scotsmen and tight Englishmen, polite Parisians and rude Devonians, Americans who speak good English and Brits who speak terrible English. etc. etc. etc.
I cannot imagine a situation where nationality, religion or race would feature in my decision process. Or male/female for that matter.
|
>> Again, and I know you will think I misunderstand, but we are with our own
>> -> people.
I do understand...... and mostly agree in principle.
|
>> Again, and I know you will think I misunderstand, but we are with our own
>> -> people.
I've been giving your post a bit of thought. Mainly because I think you are right.
So why do I only agree with it up to a degree, why do I have a 'but'... well I think I have the answer.
IMO most people (by far) in the world fit your category of 'people are people'.
Trouble is, there are some with agendas. Some are greedy, some are criminal in nature, some are violent, some mentally unwell, some want an advantage over others, etc.
Throw in religious fanaticism; unnecessary control of others (by whatever means); need for power; etc...
...and some people are just not nice.
That's why I think I am wary of some.
Islam is for me a good example. I worked with and mixed with who knows how many Muslims... it matters not a jot. I honestly believe that the huge majority are unsurprisingly no different to any other human being... however... those with an agenda that doesn't work for me or my country..well that's a completely different story... and i'm not afraid to say so.
|
|
The ME is a big area, some have taken lots, some few and some none.
|
>> Someone has to counter the pro EU dog do-do found in the media.
The point is, there isn't. All we get is the bent banana type of anti eu stuff, constantly spewed up by you and the likes of you.
And you know why you hate the EU? Its because to you they are foreign. You were quite happy to lord it over the locals when you were a rich gringo, you were quite happy to exploit all the EU had to offer when you were out there living it up in the sun with your pension being paid over there (Care of EU regulation by the way)
you are the very worse kind of EU critic. A hypocrite.
I am, however thankful you exist and spout on here. Its a constant reminder to me and everyone else what UKIP stands for and how its active membership thinks. Have you considered why UKIP lost? Its because of you my old son, and for that I am truly grateful. So carry on spouting your poisonous crap, because I am happy that you will help screw up the anti EU vote as well.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 17 Sep 15 at 20:43
|
|
Won't happen of course, but just suppose that a certain number of signatures bought so many minutes of debate? Of course with a system like that there would have to be a quorum, no situation of MPs just saying "ok, that's an hours holiday" etc and boycotting the commons.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34351725
While I'm inevitably a 'hostile' in UKIP debate I don't think that colours my view of its public face as a one man band. None of the other people put up to speak for it approach his charisma.
Farage and Carswell were always going to be uneasy bedfellows. Farage is a 'hale fellow well met' type and one who appears to see no contradiction in milking the EU for every penny. Carswell by contrast has an almost Presbyterian work ethic and, IIRC, consistently under claims his allowances for office support, never mind travel/subsistence etc.
He also gives the impression of being more cerebral in his EU opposition than a lot of UKIP. It's no surprise either if he retains links with anti EU Tories, particularly those like Bernard Jenkin with neighbouring constituencies.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 26 Sep 15 at 09:44
|
UKIP is on the way out... it's done it's job and I'm glad it has.
It re-focused the minds of the top two teams and as it stands at the moment a 'no' vote is more than likely... if not a significant and meaningful re-negotiation of the terms would be acceptable to stay in and it that isn't good enough for some in the EU, cheerio then.
Without UKIP this wouldn't be the position we are in.
|
Well - we ARE good at screwing up at our conferences!
That's two of the last three where the headlines have been about "incidents" rather than the message.
I went last year, which went smoothly.
Perhaps I am a mysterious calming influence?
|
>> Well - we ARE good at screwing up at our conferences!
>> That's two of the last three where the headlines have been about "incidents" rather than
>> the message.
>> I went last year, which went smoothly.
>> Perhaps I am a mysterious calming influence?
>>
No Roger
You are sober and sane.. and not an egomaniac.
|
>>UKIP is on the way out... it's done it's job and I'm glad it has.
.
.
>>Without UKIP this wouldn't be the position we are in.
Good note Westpig. Fully agree. I'd rather they hung around in the wings, keeping the focus alive. Just so long as nobody is dumb enough to let them have any real power.
|
I'm not sure that we are on the way out, but I do detect, locally, a falling off of members attending in our regular meetings.
It's always a problem keeping interest up, I guess.
It is as always, a reflection of local leadership and dynamism. We have a new branch chairman - a good chap, a retired fireman, but he like the rest of us (including me) are lacking the true leadership spark. (That is why when we formed the branch I declined the Chairman's position -I don't have the pizazz needed)
A group of us went to a meeting of our neighbouring Rotherham branch and noticed the difference. They are well attended and well organised with a reasonable number of councillors on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Council.
Any way I picked up this news on-line: apparently the Dutch are stirring the referendum pot, too!
europe.leadstories.com/000657-breaking-dutch-weblog-claims-enough-signatures-to-force-referendum-on-eu-treaty.html
|
>> I'm not sure that we are on the way out, but I do detect, locally,
>> a falling off of members attending in our regular meetings.
I wasn't suggesting ukip would disappear but it's now declining.
|
An article by one of the co-founders of leave.eh so biased for "Leave" - fair warning for you!
www.cityam.com/225341/europe-sick-man-globe-britain-will-thrive-away-its-enfeebling-grip
|
|
Good article Dodger, thanks for posting.
|
Latest Poll - Robin O'Reliant
