UKIP - The Future
Discussion
mattnunn said:
I suppose a second language would be out the question!
I mean why would you need to communicate or understand anyone outside the ivory tower?
I was referring to the language spoken and taught in this country, fluent English should be the absolute minimum requirement to survive and integrate here, don't you think?I mean why would you need to communicate or understand anyone outside the ivory tower?
einsign said:
I was referring to the language spoken and taught in this country, fluent English should be the absolute minimum requirement to survive and integrate here, don't you think?
integrate into what?I only speak english so it's tough cheddar (or lucky) if you don't, other than that who cares?
mattnunn said:
einsign said:
I was referring to the language spoken and taught in this country, fluent English should be the absolute minimum requirement to survive and integrate here, don't you think?
integrate into what?I only speak english so it's tough cheddar (or lucky) if you don't, other than that who cares?
s2art said:
FiF said:
How many attempts has Gove had now? One could argue that the education policy of the current lot isn't completely crystal.
Dont underestimate the difficulty Gove has in taking on the educational establishhment (the blob). Even Maggie quailed at that.FiF said:
s2art said:
FiF said:
How many attempts has Gove had now? One could argue that the education policy of the current lot isn't completely crystal.
Dont underestimate the difficulty Gove has in taking on the educational establishhment (the blob). Even Maggie quailed at that.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkbGj1GkOo
Regulation is what keeps bankers out of prison - Godfrey Bloom
Regulation is what keeps bankers out of prison - Godfrey Bloom
FiF said:
s2art said:
FiF said:
How many attempts has Gove had now? One could argue that the education policy of the current lot isn't completely crystal.
Dont underestimate the difficulty Gove has in taking on the educational establishhment (the blob). Even Maggie quailed at that.
t do, he removes it. I would never tire of punching him and if I did I'd be sure to have a can of Red Bull standing by just in case.
Tory education policy and competence are currently mutually exclusive terms.
Mr Tim Congdon
Economics Spokesman, writes:
I have just had an article in Standpoint published, I have two main points in the article. First, almost everyone accepts that, sooner or later, a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU is inevitable. No one knows whether it will be in 2014, 2017, 2021 or later, but it must happen in due course. A key point in the article is that a vote to leave the EU may not settle the matter. Our country has an ‘elite’ that has handed over the government of Britain ‘to an alien bureaucracy in a foreign land’ (as I describe it). That ‘elite’ (the three ‘main’ parties, the top civil servants, the heads of quangos, editors of most of the leading newspapers, and large numbers of commentators and academics) will remain in place before, during and after the referendum vote. My surmise is that – since the governing ‘elite’ has been in favour of the handover of the government of Britain to the EU for a long time (at least 30 or 40 years) – it would remain in favour of the continuation of this handover after a referendum vote to leave the EU.
Might the members of the ‘elite’ then try to obstruct the popular will? Perhaps. I know it might seem far-fetched to imagine the ‘elite’ group in a liberal democracy like Britain deliberately subverting the majority verdict of the people. Let us remember that the French and Dutch people both voted against ‘the European Constitution’ in 2005. But the European ‘governing elite’ (I mean the European Commission and the related bureaucracies in both EU institutions and at the national level) were determined to override the French and Dutch referendum results. And they did so. Within less than five years the Lisbon Treaty – which incorporated the European Constitution more or less in toto – was accepted by all member state governments and ratified by all national parliaments.
The Conservatives say that a vote for them is a vote for a referendum, because Cameron has given a commitment to holding a referendum in 2017. Really? As far as Europe is concerned, the Conservatives have always been the party of appeasement and compromise. Cameron has also made plain that the planned renegotiation is not to be about fundamentals and that he regards the UK’s departure from the EU as ‘madness’. He cannot be trusted. The historical record of the Conservative Party in our relations with Europe is appalling. Let it never be overlooked that the Conservative Party is the party of Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and Ted Heath. I wish I could say that David Cameron were not in the same mould.
A high risk is that he would seek a half-way house – like the Norwegian ‘solution’ – in which the UK remains in the European Economic Area, incorporates much of the acquis in our own law and pays money to the EU ‘for access to the single market’. That would be better than the full EU membership we now have, but it would be a betrayal and a mistake. The British people deserve full independence from the dysfunctional and failing European Union. They deserve to be like the great majority of the world’s population, in the 160 or so countries – including our fellow Commonwealth members, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – that do not belong to the EU at all.
An unfortunate debate has already started about article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out the procedure for a nation state to leave the EU as the EU sees the matter. Article 50 has been described as ‘the only hope’ for the recovery of full British independence from the EU. Rubbish. (I wonder if any of our colonies regarded an Act of the British Parliament as their ‘only hope’ for independence. Tell that the American Tea Party! And did any nation of Eastern Europe see a treaty with the Soviet Union as ‘the only hope’ of quitting Comecon, the Warsaw Pact and Russian tyranny?) But I have numerous discussions with UKIP supporters about the irksome and irrelevant article 50. Such discussions are a waste of time. Too many people are conned by this sort of thing, which – let me emphasize – is devised by the EU bureaucracy to divert us from our one and only goal, which must be full independence. (I mean full independence from the EU, just as Australia, Canada and over 150 other countries have.)
My second point is that UKIP does not need to hurry. The EU is – as I said – a dysfunctional failure. That will become ever more obvious as the years go by. There is a risk that in, say, 2017 we have an Out referendum result under a government full of what one might term ‘closet Europhiles’. In other words, we have an Out referendum under an In government. (Who cares whether that government is led by the Conservatives or Labour or is a coalition government? Who cares, since they are pretty much the same on domestic policy and all of them want of us in the EU?) The argument of my article is that UKIP must avoid deals with the other parties. Sure enough, one resolution of the problem would be for one of the three other parties to elect a leader who – genuinely and without reservation – wants Britain out of the EU. Fine, and let that party then fight a general election on a platform that included full withdrawal from the EU. Fine. And what might happen to the leadership of that party if it lost the general election? And how would our own supporters, and the branch network, feel if – because of a deal – they had stood down candidates and not campaigned in the general election? Our ex-Labour supporters would be furious if we did a deal with the Conservatives; our ex-Conservative supporters would be livid if we did a deal with Labour; and we would be stark raving mad to do a deal with the illiberal and anti-democratic LibDems.
In my view UKIP must never, in any sphere, be a party of appeasement and compromise. We must not appease the other parties in any way; we must not compromise our position for illusory and short-term electoral ‘gains’. No, we must present the case for withdrawal – knowledgeably, in detail, and with sincerity and conviction – until we secure the full independence of our country from the European Union.
…………
Economics Spokesman, writes:
I have just had an article in Standpoint published, I have two main points in the article. First, almost everyone accepts that, sooner or later, a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU is inevitable. No one knows whether it will be in 2014, 2017, 2021 or later, but it must happen in due course. A key point in the article is that a vote to leave the EU may not settle the matter. Our country has an ‘elite’ that has handed over the government of Britain ‘to an alien bureaucracy in a foreign land’ (as I describe it). That ‘elite’ (the three ‘main’ parties, the top civil servants, the heads of quangos, editors of most of the leading newspapers, and large numbers of commentators and academics) will remain in place before, during and after the referendum vote. My surmise is that – since the governing ‘elite’ has been in favour of the handover of the government of Britain to the EU for a long time (at least 30 or 40 years) – it would remain in favour of the continuation of this handover after a referendum vote to leave the EU.
Might the members of the ‘elite’ then try to obstruct the popular will? Perhaps. I know it might seem far-fetched to imagine the ‘elite’ group in a liberal democracy like Britain deliberately subverting the majority verdict of the people. Let us remember that the French and Dutch people both voted against ‘the European Constitution’ in 2005. But the European ‘governing elite’ (I mean the European Commission and the related bureaucracies in both EU institutions and at the national level) were determined to override the French and Dutch referendum results. And they did so. Within less than five years the Lisbon Treaty – which incorporated the European Constitution more or less in toto – was accepted by all member state governments and ratified by all national parliaments.
The Conservatives say that a vote for them is a vote for a referendum, because Cameron has given a commitment to holding a referendum in 2017. Really? As far as Europe is concerned, the Conservatives have always been the party of appeasement and compromise. Cameron has also made plain that the planned renegotiation is not to be about fundamentals and that he regards the UK’s departure from the EU as ‘madness’. He cannot be trusted. The historical record of the Conservative Party in our relations with Europe is appalling. Let it never be overlooked that the Conservative Party is the party of Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and Ted Heath. I wish I could say that David Cameron were not in the same mould.
A high risk is that he would seek a half-way house – like the Norwegian ‘solution’ – in which the UK remains in the European Economic Area, incorporates much of the acquis in our own law and pays money to the EU ‘for access to the single market’. That would be better than the full EU membership we now have, but it would be a betrayal and a mistake. The British people deserve full independence from the dysfunctional and failing European Union. They deserve to be like the great majority of the world’s population, in the 160 or so countries – including our fellow Commonwealth members, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – that do not belong to the EU at all.
An unfortunate debate has already started about article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out the procedure for a nation state to leave the EU as the EU sees the matter. Article 50 has been described as ‘the only hope’ for the recovery of full British independence from the EU. Rubbish. (I wonder if any of our colonies regarded an Act of the British Parliament as their ‘only hope’ for independence. Tell that the American Tea Party! And did any nation of Eastern Europe see a treaty with the Soviet Union as ‘the only hope’ of quitting Comecon, the Warsaw Pact and Russian tyranny?) But I have numerous discussions with UKIP supporters about the irksome and irrelevant article 50. Such discussions are a waste of time. Too many people are conned by this sort of thing, which – let me emphasize – is devised by the EU bureaucracy to divert us from our one and only goal, which must be full independence. (I mean full independence from the EU, just as Australia, Canada and over 150 other countries have.)
My second point is that UKIP does not need to hurry. The EU is – as I said – a dysfunctional failure. That will become ever more obvious as the years go by. There is a risk that in, say, 2017 we have an Out referendum result under a government full of what one might term ‘closet Europhiles’. In other words, we have an Out referendum under an In government. (Who cares whether that government is led by the Conservatives or Labour or is a coalition government? Who cares, since they are pretty much the same on domestic policy and all of them want of us in the EU?) The argument of my article is that UKIP must avoid deals with the other parties. Sure enough, one resolution of the problem would be for one of the three other parties to elect a leader who – genuinely and without reservation – wants Britain out of the EU. Fine, and let that party then fight a general election on a platform that included full withdrawal from the EU. Fine. And what might happen to the leadership of that party if it lost the general election? And how would our own supporters, and the branch network, feel if – because of a deal – they had stood down candidates and not campaigned in the general election? Our ex-Labour supporters would be furious if we did a deal with the Conservatives; our ex-Conservative supporters would be livid if we did a deal with Labour; and we would be stark raving mad to do a deal with the illiberal and anti-democratic LibDems.
In my view UKIP must never, in any sphere, be a party of appeasement and compromise. We must not appease the other parties in any way; we must not compromise our position for illusory and short-term electoral ‘gains’. No, we must present the case for withdrawal – knowledgeably, in detail, and with sincerity and conviction – until we secure the full independence of our country from the European Union.
…………
Listening to radio yesterday on the way back from work.
They were interviewing younger people first one they interviewed instantly said they wouldn't vote for ukip because they're a 'racist' party...
I really despair each time I hear this I guess it's why the main three never talk about immigration in the same way as ukip..
They were interviewing younger people first one they interviewed instantly said they wouldn't vote for ukip because they're a 'racist' party...
I really despair each time I hear this I guess it's why the main three never talk about immigration in the same way as ukip..
petrolsniffer said:
Listening to radio yesterday on the way back from work.
They were interviewing younger people first one they interviewed instantly said they wouldn't vote for ukip because they're a 'racist' party...
I really despair each time I hear this I guess it's why the main three never talk about immigration in the same way as ukip..
Typically lefty students go too much air time, probably doing a degree about climate change on uranus or some sh!te.They were interviewing younger people first one they interviewed instantly said they wouldn't vote for ukip because they're a 'racist' party...
I really despair each time I hear this I guess it's why the main three never talk about immigration in the same way as ukip..
FiF said:
I get the racist comment instantly from a politics student currently on course for a first/2.1 at a Russell group uni and with a plan to teach. No possibility to discuss or even engage to look at it objectively. And she knows I don't vote UKIP.
Doomed Capt Mainwaring. Doomed we are.
"I have never agreed with the lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist. Immigration is not an issue for fringe parties nor a taboo subject. It is a question at the heart of our politics, a question about what it means to be British; about the values we hold dear and the responsibilities we expect of those coming into our country; about how we secure the skills we need to compete in the global economy; about how we preserve and strengthen our communities."Doomed Capt Mainwaring. Doomed we are.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff