UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
I seem to remember Ken Clarke has already been cited on here as being UKIP's best recruitment sergeant.
"Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
"Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
mrpurple said:
I seem to remember Ken Clarke has already been cited on here as being UKIP's best recruitment sergeant.
"Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow"."Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Wombat3 said:
mrpurple said:
I seem to remember Ken Clarke has already been cited on here as being UKIP's best recruitment sergeant.
"Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow"."Tory grandee Ken Clarke has suggested he would like to see more of his Conservative colleagues defect to Ukip"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/21/ke...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702449
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Wombat3 said:
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow".
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Surely you can see how the ignorance from Tory grandees and the EU is only hardening Euroscepticism?Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Many like yourself speak a lot of sense and are strong supporters of the softly softly approach, but each time something sensible is said, you are rubbished and belittled by homegrown europhiles and the EU itself.
Will their ever come a point where yourself and others will say "You know what, we tried, we didn't give up, we were helpful and constructive in every way possible, but the EU isn't interested and has insulted us at every opportunity possible - we're off!"
Guam said:
Zod said:
They're just reminding us that there is another way of dealing with the EU. The French threaten, blackmail, don't pay fines. We toe the line. We are viewed as the bad guys because we point out what is wrong with the EU.
So is that where you think CMD is going wrong then, DAVE should just follow the French lead and stop anyone entering he pleases?Zod said:
It would be more British to negotiate first.
I wonder if there is a definitive list of how many times the French, fishermen, farmers,dockers, lorry drivers etc etc have blocked ports or motorways since the EU started.I remember it happening on a very regular basis when I was going back and forth in the 90's...perhaps we should do the same but just not British is it.Guam said:
Zod said:
It would be more British to negotiate first.
LOL, sure it would, I guess our history of "gunboat diplomacy" was just a myth then 
Thank god we never did an opium war
It does open an interesting question, one to which I have no idea of the answer.
What would happen if the UK said, we like it in the EU mostly, but we want to control immigration, benefits to immigrants or whatever.
We are not going to follow those parts of the EU treaties anymore. Parliament cannot be constrained by its predecessors. We acknowledge that other countries can alter their arrangements reciprocally with ours.
EU - you can either
1) Accept that
2) Kick us out (and lose our contributions, let alone whether there is a legal option for that)
3) Fine us, in which case we will deduct the fines from our contributions, and/or ignore them
What would the EU do in those circumstances?
I am not proposing this, and I know it wouldn't satisfy some on here, but as a hypothetical question, any idea?
What would happen if the UK said, we like it in the EU mostly, but we want to control immigration, benefits to immigrants or whatever.
We are not going to follow those parts of the EU treaties anymore. Parliament cannot be constrained by its predecessors. We acknowledge that other countries can alter their arrangements reciprocally with ours.
EU - you can either
1) Accept that
2) Kick us out (and lose our contributions, let alone whether there is a legal option for that)
3) Fine us, in which case we will deduct the fines from our contributions, and/or ignore them
What would the EU do in those circumstances?
I am not proposing this, and I know it wouldn't satisfy some on here, but as a hypothetical question, any idea?
JustAnotherLogin said:
It does open an interesting question, one to which I have no idea of the answer.
What would happen if the UK said, we like it in the EU mostly, but we want to control immigration, benefits to immigrants or whatever.
We are not going to follow those parts of the EU treaties anymore. Parliament cannot be constrained by its predecessors. We acknowledge that other countries can alter their arrangements reciprocally with ours.
EU - you can either
1) Accept that
2) Kick us out (and lose our contributions, let alone whether there is a legal option for that)
3) Fine us, in which case we will deduct the fines from our contributions, and/or ignore them
What would the EU do in those circumstances?
I am not proposing this, and I know it wouldn't satisfy some on here, but as a hypothetical question, any idea?
Google button not working?What would happen if the UK said, we like it in the EU mostly, but we want to control immigration, benefits to immigrants or whatever.
We are not going to follow those parts of the EU treaties anymore. Parliament cannot be constrained by its predecessors. We acknowledge that other countries can alter their arrangements reciprocally with ours.
EU - you can either
1) Accept that
2) Kick us out (and lose our contributions, let alone whether there is a legal option for that)
3) Fine us, in which case we will deduct the fines from our contributions, and/or ignore them
What would the EU do in those circumstances?
I am not proposing this, and I know it wouldn't satisfy some on here, but as a hypothetical question, any idea?
Art0ir said:
Wombat3 said:
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow".
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Surely you can see how the ignorance from Tory grandees and the EU is only hardening Euroscepticism?Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Many like yourself speak a lot of sense and are strong supporters of the softly softly approach, but each time something sensible is said, you are rubbished and belittled by homegrown europhiles and the EU itself.
Will their ever come a point where yourself and others will say "You know what, we tried, we didn't give up, we were helpful and constructive in every way possible, but the EU isn't interested and has insulted us at every opportunity possible - we're off!"
I think the relevant point though goes back to something I said a long while ago....it is still important that we go through a negotiation process if for no other reason than it will go some way towards settling the debate within our own country. Assuming the process is fairly fruitless (and I think it might well be) then it provides both evidence & ammunition for the Br-exit brigade and also refutes any idea or accusation that things have been done too quickly or without due consideration from the Euro-philes.
A situation where anyone (on either side) can justifiably claim that the result was jammed through without proper debate and a fair vote will not do us any good at all.
There will always be some who can not accept a democratic outcome (QED, the SNP), but most will if they think that everything & everyone got a fair hearing.
Wombat3 said:
Art0ir said:
Wombat3 said:
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow".
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Surely you can see how the ignorance from Tory grandees and the EU is only hardening Euroscepticism?Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Many like yourself speak a lot of sense and are strong supporters of the softly softly approach, but each time something sensible is said, you are rubbished and belittled by homegrown europhiles and the EU itself.
Will their ever come a point where yourself and others will say "You know what, we tried, we didn't give up, we were helpful and constructive in every way possible, but the EU isn't interested and has insulted us at every opportunity possible - we're off!"
I think the relevant point though goes back to something I said a long while ago....it is still important that we go through a negotiation process if for no other reason than it will go some way towards settling the debate within our own country. Assuming the process is fairly fruitless (and I think it might well be) then it provides both evidence & ammunition for the Br-exit brigade and also refutes any idea or accusation that things have been done too quickly or without due consideration from the Euro-philes.
A situation where anyone (on either side) can justifiably claim that the result was jammed through without proper debate and a fair vote will not do us any good at all.
There will always be some who can not accept a democratic outcome (QED, the SNP), but most will if they think that everything & everyone got a fair hearing.
Goes for a lie down.
Seriously though that's correct, even to the point where if the negotiation results in something that makes the EU a reasonable prospect then fair enough. Personally I think that won't be achieved but there it is.
But agreed there has to be a proper negotiation and also a proper adult internal to the UK debate. Without both these the trials and tribulations will never end.
Wombat3 said:
Art0ir said:
Wombat3 said:
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow".
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Surely you can see how the ignorance from Tory grandees and the EU is only hardening Euroscepticism?Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Many like yourself speak a lot of sense and are strong supporters of the softly softly approach, but each time something sensible is said, you are rubbished and belittled by homegrown europhiles and the EU itself.
Will their ever come a point where yourself and others will say "You know what, we tried, we didn't give up, we were helpful and constructive in every way possible, but the EU isn't interested and has insulted us at every opportunity possible - we're off!"
I think the relevant point though goes back to something I said a long while ago....it is still important that we go through a negotiation process if for no other reason than it will go some way towards settling the debate within our own country. Assuming the process is fairly fruitless (and I think it might well be) then it provides both evidence & ammunition for the Br-exit brigade and also refutes any idea or accusation that things have been done too quickly or without due consideration from the Euro-philes.
A situation where anyone (on either side) can justifiably claim that the result was jammed through without proper debate and a fair vote will not do us any good at all.
There will always be some who can not accept a democratic outcome (QED, the SNP), but most will if they think that everything & everyone got a fair hearing.
But no they had to resort to all the name-calling (and much worse)all of which just served to make UKIP even more popular than they were even 2 years ago. I can't speak for others but I have never had the chance to vote whether we should be in or out but have been so incensed by all the bile from the pro camp that I am now even more anti EU than I ever was (although more knowledgeable about politics).
Edited by mrpurple on Tuesday 21st October 16:02
mrpurple said:
Wombat3 said:
Art0ir said:
Wombat3 said:
IMO he (and Heseltine) are about as unhelpful to the debate as to what we do about our EU membership & relationship with the EU as are the most ardent advocates of "Exit tomorrow".
Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Surely you can see how the ignorance from Tory grandees and the EU is only hardening Euroscepticism?Neither position seems to bear much relevance (or heed) to the realities of life.
Many like yourself speak a lot of sense and are strong supporters of the softly softly approach, but each time something sensible is said, you are rubbished and belittled by homegrown europhiles and the EU itself.
Will their ever come a point where yourself and others will say "You know what, we tried, we didn't give up, we were helpful and constructive in every way possible, but the EU isn't interested and has insulted us at every opportunity possible - we're off!"
I think the relevant point though goes back to something I said a long while ago....it is still important that we go through a negotiation process if for no other reason than it will go some way towards settling the debate within our own country. Assuming the process is fairly fruitless (and I think it might well be) then it provides both evidence & ammunition for the Br-exit brigade and also refutes any idea or accusation that things have been done too quickly or without due consideration from the Euro-philes.
A situation where anyone (on either side) can justifiably claim that the result was jammed through without proper debate and a fair vote will not do us any good at all.
There will always be some who can not accept a democratic outcome (QED, the SNP), but most will if they think that everything & everyone got a fair hearing.
But no they had to resort to all the name-calling (and much worse)all of which just served to make UKIP even more popular than they were even 2 years ago. I can't speak for others but I have never had the chance to vote whether we should be in or out but have been so incensed by all the bile from the pro camp that I am now even more anti EU than I ever was (although more knowledgeable about politics).
UKIP is also only partly responsible for this debate coming to the fore (IMO). I think this day has been coming for a while & the irony is that the situation has been accelerated precisely because of the success of the UK (some would say despite being in the EU!) because that is the cause of the immigration issue.
If this place was a no hope, no jobs backwater then clearly we would not be looking at the immigration numbers we are.
mrpurple said:
In a way UKIP should be glad CMD et al had to be dragged screaming and kicking to where we are now. Had they freely given the promised referendum I am not so sure the result would have been to stay in and that would have shot UKIP's fox once and for all, as per SNP for the time being at least.
But no they had to resort to all the name-calling (and much worse)all of which just served to make UKIP even more popular than they were even 2 years ago. I can't speak for others but I have never had the chance to vote whether we should be in or out but have been so incensed by all the bile from the pro camp that I am now even more anti EU than I ever was (although more knowledgeable about politics).
I think you are giving far to much credit to UKIP. UKIP support has not been above 10/12% at general elections. I do not expect it will be much higher in 2015.But no they had to resort to all the name-calling (and much worse)all of which just served to make UKIP even more popular than they were even 2 years ago. I can't speak for others but I have never had the chance to vote whether we should be in or out but have been so incensed by all the bile from the pro camp that I am now even more anti EU than I ever was (although more knowledgeable about politics).
What you have missed is the 2010 conservative MP intake meant the party was for the first time most likely over 50% in favour of leaving the EU.
I do not think this is CMD view but the conservative party remains a broad church so can contain such diverse views as Ken Clarke and John Redwood.
As for leaving the EU the pools suggest a small majority for out, in an in/out referendum. However the margin is very small and might be swayed by the better not risk the change argument. There is a large majority for a renegotiated deal but again its not clear what people want renegotiated.
Wombat3 said:
Its also fair to say that the UKIP of today is much more co-ordinated than it was even 2 years ago. 6 years ago the comment about fruitcakes & swivel-eyed loons was also not without some foundation (IMO).
UKIP is also only partly responsible for this debate coming to the fore (IMO). I think this day has been coming for a while & the irony is that the situation has been accelerated precisely because of the success of the UK (some would say despite being in the EU!) because that is the cause of the immigration issue.
If this place was a no hope, no jobs backwater then clearly we would not be looking at the immigration numbers we are.
While I would always argue correlation is not causation. You suggest the immigration is caused by the economic growth, how about the idea the immigration has caused the economic growth.UKIP is also only partly responsible for this debate coming to the fore (IMO). I think this day has been coming for a while & the irony is that the situation has been accelerated precisely because of the success of the UK (some would say despite being in the EU!) because that is the cause of the immigration issue.
If this place was a no hope, no jobs backwater then clearly we would not be looking at the immigration numbers we are.
It's all very civil on here today. best behave myself.
Continuing with civility, Farage wishing Barroso a happy retirement
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_959_Farage-Thank-...
Continuing with civility, Farage wishing Barroso a happy retirement
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_959_Farage-Thank-...
Mrr T said:
Wombat3 said:
Its also fair to say that the UKIP of today is much more co-ordinated than it was even 2 years ago. 6 years ago the comment about fruitcakes & swivel-eyed loons was also not without some foundation (IMO).
UKIP is also only partly responsible for this debate coming to the fore (IMO). I think this day has been coming for a while & the irony is that the situation has been accelerated precisely because of the success of the UK (some would say despite being in the EU!) because that is the cause of the immigration issue.
If this place was a no hope, no jobs backwater then clearly we would not be looking at the immigration numbers we are.
While I would always argue correlation is not causation. You suggest the immigration is caused by the economic growth, how about the idea the immigration has caused the economic growth.UKIP is also only partly responsible for this debate coming to the fore (IMO). I think this day has been coming for a while & the irony is that the situation has been accelerated precisely because of the success of the UK (some would say despite being in the EU!) because that is the cause of the immigration issue.
If this place was a no hope, no jobs backwater then clearly we would not be looking at the immigration numbers we are.
What I have on file for this is dated but it throws some light on the matter, which is complicated by the fact that there is an obvious difference around the variable skill levels of those arriving in the UK.
A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research which updated the Home Office analysis of Sriskandarajah et al (2005) extended the estimation to cover 5 years of data. The IPPR analysis concluded that real revenues from migrants grew by 22% from fiscal year 1999-2000 to fiscal year 2003-2004 reaching £41.2 billion. However, the expenditure associated with immigrants reached £41.6 billion in the fiscal year 2003-2004. Therefore, the net contribution of immigrants in the fiscal year 2003-2004 was negative at £-0.4 billion. It appears to be finely balanced, but that fact compared to the level of immigration suggests that the economic position encouraged immigration.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff