UKIP - The Future

[Zod]

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Zod said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Scoobster while I am now in the UK IP camp as someone else posted before the UK gov do not HAVE to implement every single ruling nor do they have to stick to absolute specifics.

There is a degree of complacency and complicity and ineptitude from the UK gov side in all this as well.

The government does have to implement every Directive, other than any that expressly does not apply to the UK. This country has always been diligent at implementation. The Latin countries tend to be slow at implementing and then selective at enforcing. We treat the law seriously. That is why the rest of Europe thinks we are a PITA. Because we are going to have to take each measure seriously if it is promulgated, we look at the draft legislation very carefully and argue our case.

If you had even half a clue how much work goes into this, you might begin to understand. One of my strongest objections to the EU as it currently stands is that it spends vast amounts of time and resources drawing up legislation in relation to matters that most of the people involved do not understand. This makes for bad law.

I am not defending the EU here Zod personally I am for a split from the EU soon as merely pointing out it isnt as entirely one sided as some seem to think.

Don't worry. I did not think for a moment that you were defending EU law. My point was that there is little or no complacency on the UK side. There is serious engagement in every aspec tof EU lawmaking, because not engaging would result in much worse (terrifyingly so - you should see some of the stuff that gets proposed) being promulgated.

Part of government's fear about leaving the EU (and I mean British governments in general, not on a partisan basis) is of a loss of any influence on the lawmaking process, much of which would continue to affect us even outside the EU (anything trade-related - from agriculture through to banking). If we were not part of the legislative process, they would come up with even more insane crap.

[s2art]

Zod said:

Part of government's fear about leaving the EU (and I mean British governments in general, not on a partisan basis) is of a loss of any influence on the lawmaking process, much of which would continue to affect us even outside the EU (anything trade-related - from agriculture through to banking). If we were not part of the legislative process, they would come up with even more insane crap.

But with Osbourn being outvoted 26-1 we dont seem to be able to resist much. The only way is to get out and let them foul their own nest.

[Zod]

s2art said:

Zod said:

Part of government's fear about leaving the EU (and I mean British governments in general, not on a partisan basis) is of a loss of any influence on the lawmaking process, much of which would continue to affect us even outside the EU (anything trade-related - from agriculture through to banking). If we were not part of the legislative process, they would come up with even more insane crap.

But with Osbourn being outvoted 26-1 we dont seem to be able to resist much. The only way is to get out and let them foul their own nest.

We have more influence than you'd think. It's not about Osborne at meetings of finance ministers. It's about the day-to-day business of thousands of highly educated morons in Brussels working out insane new ways to legislate about every aspect of life. Believe it or not, when the British eurocrats come in and say that something is mad, people do actually listen much (sadly not all) of the time. This is a large part of the reason the Germans are desperate to keep us in the EU.

[Tallbutbuxomly]

Zod said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Zod said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

Scoobster while I am now in the UK IP camp as someone else posted before the UK gov do not HAVE to implement every single ruling nor do they have to stick to absolute specifics.

There is a degree of complacency and complicity and ineptitude from the UK gov side in all this as well.

The government does have to implement every Directive, other than any that expressly does not apply to the UK. This country has always been diligent at implementation. The Latin countries tend to be slow at implementing and then selective at enforcing. We treat the law seriously. That is why the rest of Europe thinks we are a PITA. Because we are going to have to take each measure seriously if it is promulgated, we look at the draft legislation very carefully and argue our case.

If you had even half a clue how much work goes into this, you might begin to understand. One of my strongest objections to the EU as it currently stands is that it spends vast amounts of time and resources drawing up legislation in relation to matters that most of the people involved do not understand. This makes for bad law.

I am not defending the EU here Zod personally I am for a split from the EU soon as merely pointing out it isnt as entirely one sided as some seem to think.

Don't worry. I did not think for a moment that you were defending EU law. My point was that there is little or no complacency on the UK side. There is serious engagement in every aspec tof EU lawmaking, because not engaging would result in much worse (terrifyingly so - you should see some of the stuff that gets proposed) being promulgated.

Part of government's fear about leaving the EU (and I mean British governments in general, not on a partisan basis) is of a loss of any influence on the lawmaking process, much of which would continue to affect us even outside the EU (anything trade-related - from agriculture through to banking). If we were not part of the legislative process, they would come up with even more insane crap.

Probably but my hope to a degree is that they would reach a tipping point where it all falls over.

[CommanderJameson]

What will be UKIP's undoing at the parliamentary ballot box is their failure to remember that it's the economy, stupid. Europe and immigration and gay marriage is stuff that plays well mid-term, but when the rubber meets the road: it's the economy, stupid.

[Mr Snap]

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

[s2art]

Mr Snap said:

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

I believe the 120 billion claim is based upon a UKIP manifesto from a few years ago. The critics need to revisit this.

The 200 mile national waters is merely international law. Obviously if the distance to another country is less than that then the national water is up to the mid point between the countries.

[odyssey2200]

Mr Snap said:

Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

So, If George says it, it's OK because he is a Tory?
or

George has dibs on it so no one else is allowed that one?

[Mr Snap]

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

I believe the 120 billion claim is based upon a UKIP manifesto from a few years ago. The critics need to revisit this.

The 200 mile national waters is merely international law. Obviously if the distance to another country is less than that then the national water is up to the mid point between the countries.

The fishing thing is official policy and that policy does not contain any of the qualifications you make.

UKIP policy says " Establish an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ extending 200 nautical miles from the UK’s coastline over which the UK exerts total control".
Nothing more nothing less. It's not a case of what they "obviously" mean, it's a case of what they actually say. What they actually say is cloud cuckoo land.

The £120 billion deficit is costed on current policy promises and not an old manifesto. It has been noted by writers in The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
As such it represents an impossible promise.

[s2art]

Mr Snap said:

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

I believe the 120 billion claim is based upon a UKIP manifesto from a few years ago. The critics need to revisit this.

The 200 mile national waters is merely international law. Obviously if the distance to another country is less than that then the national water is up to the mid point between the countries.

The fishing thing is official policy and that policy does not contain any of the qualifications you make.

UKIP policy says " Establish an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ extending 200 nautical miles from the UK’s coastline over which the UK exerts total control".
Nothing more nothing less. It's not a case of what they "obviously" mean, it's a case of what they actually say. What they actually say is cloud cuckoo land.

The £120 billion deficit is costed on current policy promises and not an old manifesto. It has been noted by writers in The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
As such it represents an impossible promise.

Nope the 200 mile limit is international law (with the condition of midpoints between countries when there isnt enough room for 200 miles). There is nothing unusual about their claim.

My understand is that 120 billion is based on stuff from the 2010 manifesto, which assumed (like everyone else) more growth than we have got.
Edited to add; from wiki
An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters.

Edited by s2art on Wednesday 22 May 18:07

[Mr Snap]

odyssey2200 said:

Mr Snap said:

Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

So, If George says it, it's OK because he is a Tory?
or

George has dibs on it so no one else is allowed that one?

Nope, not because George has got dibs on it, but because it isn't working. Or, if it is working, it isn't working very well. The economy has been dragging it's sorry arse along the bottom line since the Lib/Cons took over.

Even the arch monetarists on the IMF have, today, encouraged Georgeous George to lay off the austerity for a bit, in order to stimulate growth http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/time...

But, of course, Nigel knows better. He's been in business after all...

[Mr Snap]

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

I believe the 120 billion claim is based upon a UKIP manifesto from a few years ago. The critics need to revisit this.

The 200 mile national waters is merely international law. Obviously if the distance to another country is less than that then the national water is up to the mid point between the countries.

The fishing thing is official policy and that policy does not contain any of the qualifications you make.

UKIP policy says " Establish an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ extending 200 nautical miles from the UK’s coastline over which the UK exerts total control".
Nothing more nothing less. It's not a case of what they "obviously" mean, it's a case of what they actually say. What they actually say is cloud cuckoo land.

The £120 billion deficit is costed on current policy promises and not an old manifesto. It has been noted by writers in The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
As such it represents an impossible promise.

Nope the 200 mile limit is international law (with the condition of midpoints between countries when there isnt enough room for 200 miles). There is nothing unusual about their claim.

My understand is that 120 billion is based on stuff from the 2010 manifesto, which assumed (like everyone else) more growth than we have got.

Not what the fishing policy says. But, never mind, have it your way.

How much it will cost to police it? Never mind, we can hide it under that humongous £120 billion deficit costed out of current policy, not a manifesto.

Presumably the economic argument will be that, since growth is so low, UKIP will need to make greater cuts to public spending...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[brenflys777]

Mr Snap said:

Not what the fishing policy says. But, never mind, have it your way.

This is their current fishing policy, can't find the bit you've referred to?

http://www.ukip.org/index.php/issues/policy-pages/...

[s2art]

Mr Snap said:

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

odyssey2200 said:

Do. Any of the other parties policies stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 May 16:23

They stand up to greater scrutiny than UKIP's because, up until present, they've had to. The big three scrutinise each other's policies endlessly, seeking out mistakes errors and omissions.
Thus far UKIP hasn't had that level of scrutiny, partly because the big three have (foolishly) ignored them.

For instance :

Please explain how they will pay the £120 billion deficit created if their current policies were to be implemented.
Don't say it can be achieved by growth because that's what George Osborne says.

Please explain how UKIP will create a 200mile exclusive fishing zone around the UK?
How precisely will persuade Ireland, France, Spain & the Netherlands etc to accept such utter nonsense?
(Is that why Nigel wants to beef up the armed forces - so that we can send gunboats to Europe?)

I could go on; but here are two examples of implausible promises that UKIP can't possibly keep without explaining how.

Due to the ongoing scrutiny, however much you may disagree with them, the big three TEND to make relatively plausible promises. UKIP makes utterly implausible ones and there's a huge difference in believing plausible promises that fail to be kept and believing utterly implausible promises that can't possibly be kept.

If you think the big three have failed you because they can't keep promises, wait until UKIP is in a position where it has to make good its promises.
Oh! But that's right - they don't want power, they want to be "influential".

"Influential" = more politicians doing what politicians always do.

I believe the 120 billion claim is based upon a UKIP manifesto from a few years ago. The critics need to revisit this.

The 200 mile national waters is merely international law. Obviously if the distance to another country is less than that then the national water is up to the mid point between the countries.

The fishing thing is official policy and that policy does not contain any of the qualifications you make.

UKIP policy says " Establish an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ extending 200 nautical miles from the UK’s coastline over which the UK exerts total control".
Nothing more nothing less. It's not a case of what they "obviously" mean, it's a case of what they actually say. What they actually say is cloud cuckoo land.

The £120 billion deficit is costed on current policy promises and not an old manifesto. It has been noted by writers in The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
As such it represents an impossible promise.

Nope the 200 mile limit is international law (with the condition of midpoints between countries when there isnt enough room for 200 miles). There is nothing unusual about their claim.

My understand is that 120 billion is based on stuff from the 2010 manifesto, which assumed (like everyone else) more growth than we have got.

Not what the fishing policy says. But, never mind, have it your way.

How much it will cost to police it? Never mind, we can hide it under that humongous £120 billion deficit costed out of current policy, not a manifesto.

Presumably the economic argument will be that, since growth is so low, UKIP will need to make greater cuts to public spending...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

They say establish an exclusive economic zone. This a well understood internationally defined term for the sea around countries. That couldnt be clearer, and it is part of their fishing policy. I really cant understand your problem with it.

Cost of policing it? A tiny fraction of the benefit we get from restoring our fishing grounds.

If you have a reference to how this 120 billion figure was arrived at it would help the discussion hugely.

[brenflys777]

irocfan said:

ewenm said:

brenflys777 said:

If this is about equality why did the Conservatives not agree with the amendment to make civil partnerships available to heterosexual couples? Mores to the point why did it need an amendment, if this was truly about equality it would have been drafted to allow this from the start.

With the equality that the Conservatives have championed, gay couples can have all the legal trappings of a civil partnership or a marriage. Heterosexual couples will not. Heterosexual couples will still be able to get church, mosque synagogue approved marriages, gay couples won't. The whole thing seems a waste of time and effort.

Easy solution, discard the divisive civil partnership legislation and just have marriage.

sounds like a good idea, logical and quick I wonder why none of the main parties thought of that

I'd have no problem with it and I'm a UKIP supporter. Like the other two parties there is probably quite a strong divide amongst their members too. UKIP's stated policy is that they:

"The UK Independence Party's position on this issue may be stated simply: while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage.

As a democratic libertarian Party, we believe that The State should play only a minimal role in the lives of the people of the United Kingdom; more particularly, given the scope of this consultation, in the lives of the people of England and Wales. As such we support the concept of civil partnerships.

Civil partnerships represent an entirely common sense way of allowing gay men and women in our country to register in a formal way their longterm commitment to one another and to take advantage of various laws relating to, for example, succession and financial planning in the same way as heterosexual couples." Quoted from UKIP website.

None of that seems anti-gay or unreasonable, although I disagree and would rather we just had marriage. Having said that some of my friends have issues with the religious aspect of marriage but have had or would be happy to be in a civil partnership. Equality is a great goal and I think the latest bill just moves the inequality around without fixing it.

[powerstroke]

CommanderJameson said:

What will be UKIP's undoing at the parliamentary ballot box is their failure to remember that it's the economy, stupid. Europe and immigration and gay marriage is stuff that plays well mid-term, but when the rubber meets the road: it's the economy, stupid.

Yes I supose having an energy policy based on keeping the lights on and
afordable for industry instead of aiming to solve a non existant problem wont help the economy..
Nor will limiting imigration to people with skils the county needs instead of
loads of low skiled folk from eastern europe coming and depressing wages and making it almost imposible for home grown low skiled school leavers to find work wont either.
maybe it is the economy but quality of life and security must rank quite highly in peoples lives as well. best if we vote lib dem

[rudecherub]

TTwiggy said:

Esseesse said:

TTwiggy said:

Also, and I'm sure this has been mentioned before, the EU and the ECHR are not the same thing.

No but (this is a guess) if you want to be part of the EU you must comply with the ECHR? Please confirm if (not) true.

I don't really know, but as Fluff confirms above, the ECHR pre-dates the EU. I also happen to think that the ECHR is a good thing, for while the likes of the Daily Wail love to trot out examples of its failings, it has its place in protecting the populace from their governments.

EU membership is conditional on membership of the ECHR, so while they are technically different - they are intrinsically linked. If we left the ECHR we would be expelled from the EU.

I have no doubt the founders of the ECHR would not recognise the modern institution - it has strayed far from the envisioned purpose.

I was also shocked to read the only qualification to be a "judge" of the court was a law degree - not time served as an actual judge.

As Thatcher said, having invented Human Rights Britain doesn't need foreign Judges to instruct us on them.

[Globs]

Zod said:

Globs, you complain about time being wasted on the gay marriage bill (on which little time would have been spent, but for the silly tactics of the objectors), but yet you want to waste time on private member's bills that have no hope of bening passed.

You call them 'silly objections', however you should make an effort to recognise democracy when you see it.

As for 'wasting time on private member's bills that have no hope of bening passed', you are actually describing the death of the tory party here, ironic because we both know it has little chance of getting through, but the difference is a popular tory party representing it's members and voters interests, and a dead tory party heading down the tubes fast. I.e. the passing of the bill is not the issue here, it is one of being seen to try: i.e. _politics_.

That they chose to die instead of embracing one of the greatest PR coups of modern times says a lot about their mentality.

[fluffnik]

Esseesse said:

No but (this is a guess) if you want to be part of the EU you must comply with the ECHR?

It's a prerequisite for civilisation.

[fluffnik]

s2art said:

Nope the 200 mile limit is international law (with the condition of midpoints between countries when there isnt enough room for 200 miles). There is nothing unusual about their claim.

...and pretty much all the bits extending 200 miles are Scottish.