Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Goliath wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Que?

Spoiler:

And of those "policies", which ones are official party policies or merely the opinions of individual members and candidates?

And how credible is the source of that image? Is he officially affiliated with any of the establishment parties? Theres been a ferocious smear campaign against UKIP, with all three parties and most of the MSM colluding together.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/operation-get-nigel-farage-lowest-politics-ukip-smear
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/the-smears-against-nigel-farage-and-ukip-have-reached-spectacular-depths/

Also, it would be polite to provide those links in a text format that can be c&p to the url bar, as opposed to simply providing an img that forces anyone who wants to test the validity of those claims to waste time typing them in by hand, character by character.

Everybody gets smear stories. UKIP just attract more because they are particularly repellent.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Everybody gets smear stories. UKIP just attract more because they are particularly repellent.

No, they're attracting more smear campaigns because they are the first true alternative to the Established LibLabCon parties that don't wish to change their ways, and (rightly) view UKIP as a threat to their electoral support.

Back in the days of the Labour government, we had the likes of despicable figures such as the spin doctor Alistair Campbell secretly briefing the Press against political opponents. Now, according to the Private Eye we have the Conservative party briefing the Guardian newspaper with smear stories against UKIP - a direct threat to their electoral support, as shown by the seats they've lost to UKIP, and the Councils in which UKIP have denied the Tories overall majority control.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/the-smears-against-nigel-farage-and-ukip-have-reached-spectacular-depths/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/operation-get-nigel-farage-lowest-politics-ukip-smear

Wow, the UKIP looks just like the tea party.

I don't particularly think the current big three parties are an attractive vote but i'm not about to vote for UKIP because of that. I do not trust them.
However I would like to see the smaller parties become a bit bigger so we can have a bigger shake up of parties. If the big three lost about half their seats to other parties it'd be a nice shake up.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, its not a red herring because I think we should leave the EU, and have that points system apply to everyone, whether you're European, African, Asian, or American.

Okay. But generally, you accept the reasoning I gave before, which is:

Ketara wrote:The only thing you really could do to bring down immigration, is to seriously beef up funding for the border police to stop illegal immigration, or leave the EU.

The question one truly has to grapple with after coming to that conclusion, is why is immigration a problem? And secondly, If it is a bad thing, is it a problem of such a large magnitude so as to be worth causing massive diplomatic and economic upheaval which leaving the EU would cause?

I await your answer with interest.

Yes.

Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making?
Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?
Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?
Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?
Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.
Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?

I'm 23. I have never been consulted on my views of the EU. Vast swathes of my country's laws, immigration included, are made by an international government of foreign politicians, unelected Bureaucrats, Presidents and appointed Commissioners that we have no power to challenge and remove by voting against them. The only referendum that this country has ever had was on the European Economic Community. No government has since sought electoral approval for mass open door immigration, or for undermining British democracy (which has always been fragile and tenuous) by surrendering British sovereignty to a foreign government.


Ukrainians are waging a Civil War for the right to be a sovereign, independent nation in control of its own fate, free from the interference of Russia and are encouraged and applauded for it by European governments.

Why is it so wrong to ask for the same democratic and sovereign independence for Britain?

PFI was a Conservative invention BTW.

I looked some more and they are the tea party minus the religious fervor. They want to increase defense spending, don't care about human rights, don't believe in climate change, cut important services while cutting the taxes of corporations (and apparently lacking the ability to do math), and are extremely anti-immigration and nationalist, apparently thinking that their country is the best and no other country is any good at all.

 purplefood wrote:
I don't particularly think the current big three parties are an attractive vote but i'm not about to vote for UKIP because of that. I do not trust them.
However I would like to see the smaller parties become a bit bigger so we can have a bigger shake up of parties. If the big three lost about half their seats to other parties it'd be a nice shake up.

Exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
PFI was a Conservative invention BTW.

The use of which Labour expanded, despite supposedly being ideologically opposed to the concept.

Do you support raising income tax on the poorest 88% so that the richest 12% get a tax cut?

2010 manifesto (the last actual manifesto for a general election) had the flat rate set at 30%, do you think that we could have a flat rate of less than that without running a massive deficit?

Cutting education spending to increase military spending?

Again, 2010 manifesto had increase of the military budget by 40% whilst reducing spending on new schools.

we probably need more military spending. If a country is frequently going to war and helping America police the world

We have the 4th largest spending in the world, more money for the military is certainly not needed, especially so if you wish to pursue an isolationist foreign policy.

Making it legal for a husband to rape his wife?

As you can see from that graphic, this stems from the voting records and the views of major donor Demetri Marchessini.

Cancelling paid maternity and holiday pay?

That is what leaving the EU means, our employment rights stem from the EU.

Privatising the NHS?

I know how kippers love to 'whatabout so and so', but that isn't an actual argument. Whilst Labour have introduced some appalling practices they haven't yet said they plan to charge people to see their GP.

Abolishing all human rights?

I think it needs to be reformed - Human Rights law is far too imbalanced in favour of criminals, with the human rights of victims of crime being poorly protected. I think the ultimate court responsible for Human Rights law in the UK should be our own Supreme Court, not the European Court.

Exactly which rights in the ECHR do you take issue with?
Also, a lot of cases taken to the European Court are against the government, personally I would rather someone actually independent preside over them.

I'm libertarian

UKIP aren't, everything points toward a very socially authoritarian way of governing if they were ever to get any sort of power.

Considering the €13.8bn that we contribute to the EU, and the fact that I want the UK to withdraw from the EU - and UKIP is the only party that is promising this, I'd say thats money well spent. Better than the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats using their expenses to fund their parties, anyway.

14bn out of 888bn (£720bn converted to Euros), is quite frankly bugger all for the benefits we gain. This is rather like the UKIP "cancel all foreign aid" argument, it sounds a lot until you compare it to overall spending, and then it doesn't.

So why do UKIP feel it necessary to send the police around to a blogger who hadn't broken the law, but had simply documented their less savoury policies? Or send the police round to someone who put a 14 second film on youtube of themselves laughing at a UKIP sign?

I've not heard about that. Please elaborate?

Here you are...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/05/ukip-call-police-on-man-who-laughed-at-their-election-sign/

Also, for something to be a smear, it has to be false, reporting the idiotic things that UKIP candidates get up to isn't slander, its simply reporting facts.

So you gave an example of a party in power smearing the one that was its competition and then provided the exact same example.

All other UKIP stories are generated through their own members being racist morons or themselves being afraid of criticism.

I'm glad you're very supportive of a party that calls the police on those who criticise it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


]Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making?

We are. Our sovereign and democratically elected Government decided to sign a treaty and abide by the terms inside. We could choose to break that treaty tomorrow if we wanted. As long as that remains the case, we are not forced to do anything. We signed a treaty saying that anyone from the rest of the EU could come and work here. Voluntarily. And as UKIP would like us to do, we can stop that being the case by leaving the EU.

Thus, we are a sovereign country in control of our own borders and lawmaking.

Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?

We do. The Home Secretary can still block individuals from entering the country.

Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?

We are. And those democratically elected Governments and Institutions decided to allow some other institutions to make rules which they permit to apply within their country.

Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?

You do. Hence the ability to vote for UKIP. If you had no power to remove them through the ballot box, UKIP wouldn't be an option. You're not living in a dictatorship here.

Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.

We actually begged to join. After Old Labour drove this country into the ground, and Harold Wilson went cap in hand to the IMF because Britain was bankrupt, we joined Europe. We even took a referendum on it two years later. You might say that this has nothing to do with the EU today, but generally speaking, the British public doesn't vote on the continuation of every foreign policy or economic treaty every fifteen years.

Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?

Sorry? That's a lot of hokum. People have been emigrating to this country in whole waves for the last two centuries. From the Jews of the East End, to the Commonwealth immigrants in the 1960's. Enoch Powell said this about it back then:

Enoch Powell wrote:'Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.'

Sound familiar? This was back in 1968. It's known as the 'Rivers of Blood' speech. The numbers he's referring to are lower, but so was the population of the country back then. He goes on about foreigners monopolising hospital beds, etcetc. Yet the funny thing is that the country still runs, fifty years later. Despite all his talk of the dangers of immigrants swallowing up the country and killing native culture, I can still get a pint at the pub, the fish and chip shops still run, and the Daily Mail is still a load of garbage. In other words, he was wrong.

To sum up, 90% the stuff you've listed about Europe has nothing to with immigration. You have yet to prove that immigration is actually a problem. Let alone a large enough one to be worth leaving Europe over. I have no problem with the concept of leaving Europe (I'm not fond of it myself), but saying we should do it because of immigration, a truly peripheral issue if one at all, is just daft.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should a sovereign country not be in control of its own borders and law-making?
Should we not have the right to choose who is permitted into this country?
Should we not be governed by Governments, and judicial institutions, that are directly accountable to the British people?
Should we not be instituting laws that are in Britain's best interests, rather than laws designed and passed by foreign bureaucrats who we have no power to remove and replace through the ballot box?
Should we not have been consulted via referenda on whether Britain joined the European Union? - a failed political project that is now crumbling, as seen in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, and shown by the rise of anti-EU parties (UKIP) and Far Right extremist parties (the Greek Golden Dawn, Bulgarian Jobbik etc) all over Europe.
Should the British people not have been consulted over whether to allow mass immigration to reform beyond recognition British culture and society through the influx of millions of people with radically different values?

I'm 23. I have never been consulted on my views of the EU. Vast swathes of my country's laws, immigration included, are made by an international government of foreign politicians, unelected Bureaucrats, Presidents and appointed Commissioners that we have no power to challenge and remove by voting against them. The only referendum that this country has ever had was on the European Economic Community. No government has since sought electoral approval for mass open door immigration, or for undermining British democracy (which has always been fragile and tenuous) by surrendering British sovereignty to a foreign government.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The EU parliament, if it exist at all, should not be dictating UK policy, especially when, as you point out, we as the public did not choose to be part of it, or it's policies.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Everybody who voted UKIP: Why?

Because they are the only party that currently even comes close to representing my views.
Because I view LibLabCon as a corrupt, out of touch clique lead by a bureaucratic elite.
Because a UKIP surge acts as a kick up the arse to LibLabCon, and increases the likelihood that they'll begin to pay attention and change their ways.

This too. The status quo needs shaking up, and UKIP are our best bet for that.

The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.

To me, that is not a situation that should exist.

The EU parliament doesn't even dictate EU policy. The Council, made up out of the heads of government of the member states, is still by far the most powerful EU institution. It becomes awkward when government parties complain about EU involvement when their prime minister is actually one of the people in charge of the EU policy making.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.

To me, that is not a situation that should exist.

We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.

This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.

I won't be able to vote for this elections because of an administrative issue (moved to a new town last year and couldn't register on the electoral lists in time), but honestly I don't miss it.

It's not that I fail to see the importance of this election, but rather that the choices we have in France are not appealing.

The National Front, led by the Le Pen family and relatives is a strongly populist party is given for the winner of the elections.

It's followed by the UMP (conservative right wing party) with a strong tendency to change it's mind about Europe according to whether or not it could be used as a scapegoat might come in second.

Then the Socialist Party ends on the third step of the podium, suffering from the pathetic last two years of president Hollande's mandate (and the even more pathetic prime minister Ayrault who resigned a month ago.

After that the greens are following, as well as a radicals/communists coalition.

My view is that the National Front is a terrible party and can not be trusted since they have no real solutions or proposition for Europe except making it as difficult as possible to work correctly. However, they benefit from two elements : Marine Le Pen and her number two are good communicants and they know how to exploit the general resentment of the population against the political class.

UMP is a disbanded party since Sarkozy lost the presidency ( a chaos that he is told to voluntarily maintain within his own party to ensure his return as a providential man for the Nextel presidential election). Their not-too-keen-on-federalism position should seduce a large part of the population who still consider voting for the National Front as something "dirty"

The socialist party is discredited because while they have been the opposition for ten years they were all but prepared to be in charge and spent two years repeating that if their policy showed no result yet it was because the UMP did a terrible job before them. Yéti they Stills havé a string elective base.

Greens are simply not serious, they are the political remains of the broken dreams from the post 68 years.

Communists...well...would you believe me if I told you they are as caricatural as you expect them to be?

France is (sadly) a powder keg, and the result of this election won't prevent it to explode whithin the next fifteen years. People feel betrayed by the whole political an mediatical class (not whithout any reason by the way). The European Union is not what was promised by the political leaders of the 80s.

Of course that's just my point of view, but I feel that here, it's mainly an election between Kang, Kodos, and Tahiti Bob

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.

To me, that is not a situation that should exist.

We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.

This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.

But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.

 Paradigm wrote:

But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.

I believe the Conservatives have just pledged to renegotiate or leave? And Thatcher negotiated a rebate previously whilst threatening to leave? And the Conservatives are currently part of the Coalition Government? Therefore, the logical thing to do if you believe the EU to be such a large issue would be to vote Conservative, as Labour and Lib Dem have refused to even address the issue, and UKIP haven't got a hope in hell of getting anywhere (the xenophobia issue to one side).

Regardless of all that though, the fact we choose to abide by the agreement we made kind of draws the teeth from the concept that the EU is infringing on our sovereignty and enforcing their will upon us. Likewise, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument about immigration that doesn't rely on heavily spun figures and basic xenophobia.

So are we looking for a majority conservative parliament? Yeah, sure that'll go well, though I suppose there's been plenty of conservatives in power for years. Maybe the word I was looking for was introverted. Yes, just how many of the parties that will secure seats this time are like Britain's UKIP? The EU isn't the most well oiled machine at the best of times, having fethheads like those parties (who btw I don't even understand why their running for seats, given that its their goal to abolish said seats) in it is hardly going to make that any better.

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.

To me, that is not a situation that should exist.

We only abide by those rules for so long as we wish to abide by our treaty. There is no EU police or army to crush us should we choose to no longer do so.

Not yet. It is on the agenda however.

This repeated viewpoint in which abiding by the terms of an agreement that you chose to make is somehow slavery is somewhat bizare.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Not yet. It is on the agenda however.

There are many things on the agenda in the European Parliament, along with many different viewpoints. But If we considered every single Bill and amendment proposed in the House of Commons to be official Government policy, we wouldn't get very far.

Thats your word, not ours.

Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.

 Ketara wrote:

Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.

I am aware that we have the freedom to not follow any EU policy we choose, so it's not slavery, but my issue is that we have a government and MEPs that do follow that policy, whereas UKIP seem able to stand up to said policies when they aren't in the interest of the nation.

Also, on a different note, I'd point out that I probably wouldn't vote UKIP in a general election where the EU matter wasn't so prominent. I don't want them running the country at all. However, they seem at the moment to be the best way to motivate the LibLabCon into actually doing something policy-wise that goes back to the respective ideologies, which is something that does need to happen. The reason LibLabCon don't get my vote at the moment is because they aren't, in my opinion, showing any interest in the people, only in power. I know that kind of comes with the territory of being a politician, but I would like at least some idealism to creep back into main-party politics.

And if we need to use UKIP to do that, then frankly I'd rather have them in a European parliament where they can be of some use but without being in charge than in a British Parliament where some of the more mental policies might get through.

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

But if we break the treaty,then why bother being a part of the EU at all? My point is, British policy should be made by the British government in the interest of British residents. The EU rules, which we do choose to abide by whether we have to or not (and really the option are agree or leave), are not always in the interest of the nation, and I'd rather vote for party that is willing to challenge them rather than just smiling and waving.

I believe the Conservatives have just pledged to renegotiate or leave?

Their pledge is disingenuous, because they know full well that renegotiation of powers is not possible. Not one article in the Lisbon Treaty permits renegotiation. The only method by which renegotiation is possible is by invoking Article 50. The Four Freedoms are not up for renegotiation and a power once ceded will never be returned - for that to happen would be the death knell for the EU.

And Thatcher negotiated a rebate previously whilst threatening to leave?

Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.

And the Conservatives are currently part of the Coalition Government? Therefore, the logical thing to do if you believe the EU to be such a large issue would be to vote Conservative, as Labour and Lib Dem have refused to even address the issue,

And you think the Conservatives are trustworthy? They, who lie and make all manner of promises to swindle our vote, then refuse to fulfill those promises?

I will vote for the Conservatives when they deliver on their promises of European reform and a referendum on Britain's exit. Not before.

I remember the last time the Tories made a promise on the EU. They called it a "Cast Iron Pledge", but attached a get out clause in the small print that they used to wiggle out of it. I will not settle for and give them my vote for vague ifs, buts and maybes. If they want me to ever vote for them, then they must take the initiative and deliver on their promises, without excuses.

If it takes a surge in support for UKIP and hell, even extremist parties like the BNP to get them to pull their finger out of their collective arse and listen, then so be it.

and UKIP haven't got a hope in hell of getting anywhere (the xenophobia issue to one side).

A surge in support does however have a chance of making it clear to the mainstream parties that resentment, voter alienation and anti-EU sentiments is a problem that will not go away, no matter how much they try to ignore it or smear it as racist and xenophobic. My hope is that rising support for UKIP will force the Conservatives to support British independence. It sure as hell will not happen without UKIP - the Tories are in favour of British membership, just like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and David Cameron has made it clear that even if in the unlikely event that they keep their word and give us an In / Out referendum, the Conservatives will be campaigning for the Status Quo, to remain in the EU.

Regardless of all that though, the fact we choose to abide by the agreement we made kind of draws the teeth from the concept that the EU is infringing on our sovereignty and enforcing their will upon us. Likewise, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument about immigration that doesn't rely on heavily spun figures and basic xenophobia.

And I havn't heard an argument in favour of the EU that does not also rely on heavily spun figures, propaganda, scare mongering, Ad Hominem insults and hysterical accusations of "Racist! Racist!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do I want UKIP running the country?
No. As I said, they're an amateur party, and I don't necessarily agree with all of their polices (their social conservatism for example - given that I'm an atheist libertarian). But I voted for them because they're setting the agenda on Europe and forcing the other parties to reconsider their own stances.

Will I vote for UKIP in a General Election?
Yes. I live in a North East safe Labour seat (Tony Blair's own constituency, actually) so theres little prospect of my vote actually putting a non Labour candidate into office.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Their pledge is disingenuous, because they know full well that renegotiation of powers is not possible. Not one article in the Lisbon Treaty permits renegotiation. The only method by which renegotiation is possible is by invoking Article 50. The Four Freedoms are not up for renegotiation and a power once ceded will never be returned - for that to happen would be the death knell for the EU.

Thatcher managed to get some cash back. Blair might have given it away again, but the precedent exists for negotiation.

Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.

Wasn't the fishing debate one of the ones the UKIP MEPS were too busy out wining and dining to bother attending?

And you think the Conservatives are trustworthy?

Trustworthy politicans? Aren't those mutually exclusive words?

I will vote for the Conservatives when they deliver on their promises of European reform and a referendum on Britain's exit. Not before.

I remember the last time the Tories made a promise on the EU. They called it a "Cast Iron Pledge", but attached a get out clause in the small print that they used to wiggle out of it. I will not settle for and give them my vote for vague ifs, buts and maybes. If they want me to ever vote for them, then they must take the initiative and deliver on their promises, without excuses.

Their argument would be that they're in a coalition government, not a majority one, and the Lib Dems are so pro-EU they couldn't pass any anti-EU legislation if they wanted to. And quite frankly, that's not even wiggling particularly, it's accurate. Clegg would refuse to lend Lib Dem support to any such venture, and the coalition would dissolve there and then.

A surge in support does however have a chance of making it clear to the mainstream parties that resentment, voter alienation and anti-EU sentiments is a problem that will not go away, no matter how much they try to ignore it or smear it as racist and xenophobic. My hope is that rising support for UKIP will force the Conservatives to support British independence. It sure as hell will not happen without UKIP - the Tories are in favour of British membership, just like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and David Cameron has made it clear that even if in the unlikely event that they keep their word and give us an In / Out referendum, the Conservatives will be campaigning for the Status Quo, to remain in the EU.

Nothing wrong with a protest vote. The funny thing is though, is that most of the Conservative backbench is anti-EU. Conservatives are inherently suspicious of anything from the Continent, and Cameron's had a lot of trouble over the years trying to draw their venom enough that he can hold a working government together.

And I havn't heard an argument in favour of the EU that does not also rely on heavily spun figures, propaganda, scare mongering, Ad Hominem insults and hysterical accusations of "Racist! Racist!"

I'm not making an argument in favour of the EU. I'm asking you to substantiate the views you've espoused against immigration. Which you have yet to do.

 Ketara wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.

We appear to have different views on the definition of Slavery.

My problem with the EU is not that its enslaved us. Thats nonsensical hyperbole. My problem is that its undemocratic, in the areas that matter most.

A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?

Who's deriding? I'm not saying we should stay in the EU, or even that it's a good thing. I've offered very little in the way of personal opinion at all. I just keep pressing you to substantiate your own views on it.

On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that someone is ruled over by laws and rules which he cannot change is a slave to them? I don't believe I'm using too inaccurate a word to describe the viewpoint of the EU being proposed here by some people.

We appear to have different views on the definition of Slavery.

My problem with the EU is not that its enslaved us. Thats nonsensical hyperbole. My problem is that its undemocratic, in the areas that matter most.

A lot of Scots want home rule, to be governed by a Scottish Government making decisions and laws in Scotland's interests but they're not derided by the MSM and mainstream political parties as racist and xenophobic. But anyone who wants a British exit from the EU is. Why the double standard?

It's not a double standard because you don't see the Yes campaign members and SNP politicians going around mentioning nationalities as a major reason why we need the vote. That's really not what the debate is about and to draw a comparison to UKIP is utter hyperbole and a red herring as the issues are completely unrelated

 Ketara wrote:
Thatcher managed to get some cash back. Blair might have given it away again, but the precedent exists for negotiation.

That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.

Then Tony Blair gave most of it back for very little in return. No renegotiation of the CAP. No protections for Britain's now decimated fishing industry.

Wasn't the fishing debate one of the ones the UKIP MEPS were too busy out wining and dining to bother attending?