UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
Mr_B said:
Hmmm, something makes me suspect the vote was actually on something else, but with one of the consequences was the ivory trade.
I suspect the creator of that poster wasn't inclined to share what the real vote was for but has cherry-picked and emotive consequence of it to fit. Will be interesting to see what that vote was for.
There is a recent report here:I suspect the creator of that poster wasn't inclined to share what the real vote was for but has cherry-picked and emotive consequence of it to fit. Will be interesting to see what that vote was for.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip...
Voting details here;
http://www.votewatch.eu/en/combating-wildlife-crim...
It seems the 6 UKIP MEPs (including Farage) are part of the 2% who voted against stronger controls against the Ivory trade.
http://www.votewatch.eu/en/combating-wildlife-crim...
It seems the 6 UKIP MEPs (including Farage) are part of the 2% who voted against stronger controls against the Ivory trade.
santona1937 said:
Yes on finances they are very very much against any privatization of State interests and against free trade. It would appear that they are taking the lib dem route to influence; concentrating on local elections in urban areas to consolidate a power base and then using that as a platform for national politics.
The Area around us which is not traditionally FN voting has been more and more voting FN. Immigration is a big issue; not because immigrants are taking jobs, because the French tend not to do that if they can help it (France has always been a very homogeneous place) but because the locals here feel that immigrants are changing the way of life, and they do not like it- those locals include the North African immigrants who have been here a very long time.
UKIP's economic position may give them difficulty retaining loyalty from low income voters in the long term - they are pretty much Tories on economics.The Area around us which is not traditionally FN voting has been more and more voting FN. Immigration is a big issue; not because immigrants are taking jobs, because the French tend not to do that if they can help it (France has always been a very homogeneous place) but because the locals here feel that immigrants are changing the way of life, and they do not like it- those locals include the North African immigrants who have been here a very long time.
Guam said:
it would also include all stockpiles of Ivory in Europe being destroyed, as the trade is already illegal, are there any?
Would that include historical Ivory art in collections, Museums private collections etc. it seems strange at face value to vote against it,however there seems a paucity of detail on this issue.
There's plenty of detail if you click on the link through to it from the VoteWatch Europe page.Would that include historical Ivory art in collections, Museums private collections etc. it seems strange at face value to vote against it,however there seems a paucity of detail on this issue.
To make life easier, the motion is here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type...
Whilst preparing your defence, bear in mind only 14 of 671 voters voted against this (6 of which are UKIP). Either UKIP spotted something unconscionable in the motion that nobody else did, or they have some strange opinions.
Mr_B said:
Hmmm, something makes me suspect the vote was actually on something else, but with one of the consequences was the ivory trade.
I suspect the creator of that poster wasn't inclined to share what the real vote was for but has cherry-picked and emotive consequence of it to fit. Will be interesting to see what that vote was for.
Trading in ivory is already illegal.I suspect the creator of that poster wasn't inclined to share what the real vote was for but has cherry-picked and emotive consequence of it to fit. Will be interesting to see what that vote was for.
UKIP voted against the destruction of existing stocks of ivory, which would have done nothing to protect elephants.
don4l said:
Trading in ivory is already illegal.
UKIP voted against the destruction of existing stocks of ivory, which would have done nothing to protect elephants.
The resolution includes about 40 different actions. Only one of those relates to the destruction of stockpiles of illegal ivory.UKIP voted against the destruction of existing stocks of ivory, which would have done nothing to protect elephants.
Much of it is encouraging greater harmony in member states about how they treat the offences and cooperation with states outside of the EU in preventing and dealing with the illegal trade.
To be fair to UKIP if (as per the Indy article) they vote against (Y'know, when they can be arsed turning up 
) any and all legislation aimed at expanding EU power then these votes are fair enough, even if they do seem a little daft. The question it does raise is how the other UKIP MEPs voted, because if they voted for the legislation it does make UKIP look like they're lacking cohesion.
) any and all legislation aimed at expanding EU power then these votes are fair enough, even if they do seem a little daft. The question it does raise is how the other UKIP MEPs voted, because if they voted for the legislation it does make UKIP look like they're lacking cohesion.As I understand it, the problem is this:
The resolution states;
"11. Calls on the Member States to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching;
12. Calls on the Member States to join other CITES Parties in sending out a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products by destroying their stockpiles of illegal ivory;"
In conservation circles, there is some concern that stopping the legal trade in existing stocks of ivory and destroying existing stockpiles reduces the amount of ivory in circulation and makes any new ivory to come onto the market more valuable.
There is a concern that driving the trade in ivory underground puts in further into the hands of criminals and makes it even harder to regulate.
So on the face of it, some well intentioned people have proposed a course of action that could in fact make the poaching situation worse as the rewards for doing so become ever greater. Not sure I'd vote for that unless I could be sure it wasn't the case.
The resolution states;
"11. Calls on the Member States to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching;
12. Calls on the Member States to join other CITES Parties in sending out a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products by destroying their stockpiles of illegal ivory;"
In conservation circles, there is some concern that stopping the legal trade in existing stocks of ivory and destroying existing stockpiles reduces the amount of ivory in circulation and makes any new ivory to come onto the market more valuable.
There is a concern that driving the trade in ivory underground puts in further into the hands of criminals and makes it even harder to regulate.
So on the face of it, some well intentioned people have proposed a course of action that could in fact make the poaching situation worse as the rewards for doing so become ever greater. Not sure I'd vote for that unless I could be sure it wasn't the case.
10 Pence Short said:
don4l said:
Trading in ivory is already illegal.
UKIP voted against the destruction of existing stocks of ivory, which would have done nothing to protect elephants.
The resolution includes about 40 different actions. Only one of those relates to the destruction of stockpiles of illegal ivory.UKIP voted against the destruction of existing stocks of ivory, which would have done nothing to protect elephants.
Much of it is encouraging greater harmony in member states about how they treat the offences and cooperation with states outside of the EU in preventing and dealing with the illegal trade.
The destruction of existing ivory can only increase the price of ivory, and therefore increase the rewards for those who engage in illegal poaching.
Elephants are magnificent creatures who display clear signs of sentience. We should do everything that we can to protect them.
elephantstone said:
Not sure if this has been posted yet..
http://michaelrawlins.co.uk/2014/04/nigel-farage-p...don4l said:
The destruction of existing ivory can only increase the price of ivory, and therefore increase the rewards for those who engage in illegal poaching.
How so? AIUI the stockpiles are what has been confiscated and aren't in circulation. This vote seems to be geared at enforcing existing CITES legislationotolith said:
elephantstone said:
Not sure if this has been posted yet..
http://michaelrawlins.co.uk/2014/04/nigel-farage-p...I shall never vote UKIP
What was Osbourne doing at this point?
Folding towels
As smear attempts pointing out someone has been outside of the poltical circles it is pretty piss poor.
don4l said:
Clearly, your irrational hatred of UKIP outweighs any concern that you may have for elephants.
The destruction of existing ivory can only increase the price of ivory, and therefore increase the rewards for those who engage in illegal poaching.
Elephants are magnificent creatures who display clear signs of sentience. We should do everything that we can to protect them.
On your first point, I try to take a look actions when judging politicians and political parties. I don't hate UKIP, though I find them amusingly hypocritical.The destruction of existing ivory can only increase the price of ivory, and therefore increase the rewards for those who engage in illegal poaching.
Elephants are magnificent creatures who display clear signs of sentience. We should do everything that we can to protect them.
On your second, I would presume stockpiles of illegal ivory are stockpiled somewhere where they cannot be bought and sold freely. In which case, it already ceases to be on the black market, in which case, it cannot affect the price or desirability of ivory. Where would the logic lie in preserving stocks of ivory that cannot be bought, sold or used?
Lastly, you intimate that in voting 'no', the 14 (2% of those voting) MEPs who took that choice, are somehow the ones who are protecting the species. That in turn suggests that 96% of the MEPs either didn't understand or didn't care about the effect on elephants. Do you really believe this is a believable scenario?
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 24th April 10:37
I watched sky news the other day with a woman called Kay Burley asking Farage a number of questions as his party was doing a rally in York.
It was, what can only be called a pitiful and painful attempt by her to try and infer that UKIP were a racist party by continuously asking questions regarding the colour of the skin of a girl that appears on a UKIP advert.
The only racist on display there was Kay Burley.
But the mainstream media with editors and owners of mainstream party swings will no doubt be running a little scared of the rapidly growing popularity of UKIP and it is clear through the likes of BBC and SKY that UKIP are a 'target'.
I expect to see much more negatively biased and gutter journalism of UKIP to be aired to the public on the run up to any future referendum or election.
All to attempt to wade the public back to the mainstream b0llicks that we've been force fed over the last number of decades.
It was, what can only be called a pitiful and painful attempt by her to try and infer that UKIP were a racist party by continuously asking questions regarding the colour of the skin of a girl that appears on a UKIP advert.
The only racist on display there was Kay Burley.
But the mainstream media with editors and owners of mainstream party swings will no doubt be running a little scared of the rapidly growing popularity of UKIP and it is clear through the likes of BBC and SKY that UKIP are a 'target'.
I expect to see much more negatively biased and gutter journalism of UKIP to be aired to the public on the run up to any future referendum or election.
All to attempt to wade the public back to the mainstream b0llicks that we've been force fed over the last number of decades.
AA999 said:
But the mainstream media with editors and owners of mainstream party swings will no doubt be running a little scared of the rapidly growing popularity of UKIP and it is clear through the likes of BBC and SKY that UKIP are a 'target'.
I see the 'running scared' comment a lot. I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, the reason being I don't think they're under any more scrutiny than any of the other major parties.Previously UKIP have been sufficiently under the mainstream radar that they don't justify the kind of attention normally reserved for the 'big three'. Now UKIP are trying to establish themselves, with heavy campaign funding and courting of the press, they are quite rightly finding themselves in the spotlight more than they have enjoyed before.
The kind of questioning and analysis they're receiving from the press seems to be no more voracious or unpleasant than that received by the other parties (and a level playing field with the other parties is what UKIP and its supporters seem to want). With that parity comes the good, and the bad.
In the next year, as we run up to the election, I would expect the journalists to take their examinations of UKIP up a notch, with undercover reporters probably infiltrating various echelons as we speak, as they do with the other parties.
Welcome to the big leagues!
AA999 said:
I watched sky news the other day with a woman called Kay Burley asking Farage a number of questions as his party was doing a rally in York.
It was, what can only be called a pitiful and painful attempt by her to try and infer that UKIP were a racist party by continuously asking questions regarding the colour of the skin of a girl that appears on a UKIP advert.
The only racist on display there was Kay Burley.
But the mainstream media with editors and owners of mainstream party swings will no doubt be running a little scared of the rapidly growing popularity of UKIP and it is clear through the likes of BBC and SKY that UKIP are a 'target'.
I expect to see much more negatively biased and gutter journalism of UKIP to be aired to the public on the run up to any future referendum or election.
All to attempt to wade the public back to the mainstream b0llicks that we've been force fed over the last number of decades.
I'll still waiting for someone to tell me how treating everyone in the world equally is racistIt was, what can only be called a pitiful and painful attempt by her to try and infer that UKIP were a racist party by continuously asking questions regarding the colour of the skin of a girl that appears on a UKIP advert.
The only racist on display there was Kay Burley.
But the mainstream media with editors and owners of mainstream party swings will no doubt be running a little scared of the rapidly growing popularity of UKIP and it is clear through the likes of BBC and SKY that UKIP are a 'target'.
I expect to see much more negatively biased and gutter journalism of UKIP to be aired to the public on the run up to any future referendum or election.
All to attempt to wade the public back to the mainstream b0llicks that we've been force fed over the last number of decades.
What is racist about asking a polish plumber to go through exactly the same immigration process as an indian plumber
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff