UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Wombat3]

Esseesse said:

Result: No

That's all I can be bothered to dig up right now, but there are plenty more.

So with the exception of the first one, all those appear to be things that have NOT happened.....

....but your accusation was that they have embedded us further into the EU.

Granted they have not taken us out - but that does not equate to taking us further in, now does it?

[Wombat3]

don4l said:

Wombat3 said:

Scuffers said:

Wombat3 said:

Any examples of this skulduggery?

are you for real?

Lisbon treaty ring any bells?

Are you for real? That was signed by Brown, you specifically cited the coalition....

In case you have forgotton, Cameron promised a referendum.

...if the treaty had not been ratified. It had been ergo stable door, horse bolted.

But you know that.

[Esseesse]

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Result: No

That's all I can be bothered to dig up right now, but there are plenty more.

So with the exception of the first one, all those appear to be things that have NOT happened.....

....but your accusation was that they have embedded us further into the EU.

Granted they have not taken us out - but that does not equate to taking us further in, now does it?

Depending on how the question is worded the correct result could be either a yes or a no.

Point is they have consistently vote to not resist the EU.

[Wombat3]

Esseesse said:

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Result: No

That's all I can be bothered to dig up right now, but there are plenty more.

So with the exception of the first one, all those appear to be things that have NOT happened.....

....but your accusation was that they have embedded us further into the EU.

Granted they have not taken us out - but that does not equate to taking us further in, now does it?

Depending on how the question is worded the correct result could be either a yes or a no.

Point is they have consistently vote to not resist the EU.

What a load of tinfoil hat wearing tosh.

and besides, why would they? Essentially the view is that we should stay in if the thing can be modified...

Now, back to what it is that they have done specifically to "embed us more deeply into the EU" ?

[Esseesse]

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Result: No

That's all I can be bothered to dig up right now, but there are plenty more.

So with the exception of the first one, all those appear to be things that have NOT happened.....

....but your accusation was that they have embedded us further into the EU.

Granted they have not taken us out - but that does not equate to taking us further in, now does it?

Depending on how the question is worded the correct result could be either a yes or a no.

Point is they have consistently vote to not resist the EU.

What a load of tinfoil hat wearing tosh.

and besides, why would they? Essentially the view is that we should stay in if the thing can be modified...

Now, back to what it is that they have done specifically to "embed us more deeply into the EU" ?

Why would they? Because the Tory's like to make out that they 'stand up to the EU', and that they're a EU-sceptic party. MP's have had several occasions to stand up to the EU, and on the whole have passed up the opportunity (in favour of their careers).

Either they should, or you should concede that they're as pro-EU as the Labour party would be.

Edit: On the Conservative website they say "Labour and the Liberal Democrats will not stand up for Britain in Europe", which implies that they will stand up for Britain in the EU. They repeat this message in various formats frequently. It is a lie, evidenced by the results of the votes in parliament that I have provided above.

Edited by Esseesse on Friday 24th October 15:41

[FiF]

Seems it is not only the liberal lefties who only see what they want to see.

[AJS-]

Guam said:

Nope no problems with East European migrants in the Eastern Counties, none at all zilch, nada.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526685/Migrant-sq...

In fairness that's as much a case of useless and lazy policing as it is of out of control immigration.

[Wombat3]

Esseesse said:

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Wombat3 said:

Esseesse said:

Result: No

That's all I can be bothered to dig up right now, but there are plenty more.

So with the exception of the first one, all those appear to be things that have NOT happened.....

....but your accusation was that they have embedded us further into the EU.

Granted they have not taken us out - but that does not equate to taking us further in, now does it?

Depending on how the question is worded the correct result could be either a yes or a no.

Point is they have consistently vote to not resist the EU.

What a load of tinfoil hat wearing tosh.

and besides, why would they? Essentially the view is that we should stay in if the thing can be modified...

Now, back to what it is that they have done specifically to "embed us more deeply into the EU" ?

Why would they? Because the Tory's like to make out that they 'stand up to the EU', and that they're a EU-sceptic party. MP's have had several occasions to stand up to the EU, and on the whole have passed up the opportunity (in favour of their careers).

Either they should, or you should concede that they're as pro-EU as the Labour party would be.

Edit: On the Conservative website they say "Labour and the Liberal Democrats will not stand up for Britain in Europe", which implies that they will stand up for Britain in the EU. They repeat this message in various formats frequently. It is a lie, evidenced by the results of the votes in parliament that I have provided above.

Edited by Esseesse on Friday 24th October 15:41

Long on opinion (which you are entitled to) , very short on facts (IMO)

(whilst also avoiding the question )

Edited by Wombat3 on Friday 24th October 16:13

[Axionknight]

Seems fairly "long" on facts to my eyes, half a dozen or so examples and an implied statement from the Tories own website.....

[Esseesse]

Wombat3 said:

Long on opinion (which you are entitled to) , very short on facts (IMO)

(whilst also avoiding the question )

Fair enough and as you say, we're each entitled to opinions. Mine is that voting records are a better indicator of a parties attitudes than soundbites designed to win some votes close to election times. My point was really to the original post by Zod, that I don't think the Labour party would vote any differently WRT EU matters.

[FiF]

Nested in the above quotes of quotes is the statement that "essentially the view that we should stay in if the thing can be modified. ..."

Which takes us back to the question of modified but how and to what extent. What are lines in the sand that if we don't achieve these then a vote for out will be the recommendation.

Without some indication of this, with the Tories track record, there is no hope of getting sufficient people to put their trust in a vote for CMD. Certainly not me. Certainly for a lot of people of the " won't get fooled again" mindset.

[Wombat3]

Esseesse said:

Wombat3 said:

Long on opinion (which you are entitled to) , very short on facts (IMO)

(whilst also avoiding the question )

Fair enough and as you say, we're each entitled to opinions. Mine is that voting records are a better indicator of a parties attitudes than soundbites designed to win some votes close to election times. My point was really to the original post by Zod, that I don't think the Labour party would vote any differently WRT EU matters.

Good for you, still doesn't answer the question re substantiating the outlandish claim you made.

We all know what Labour would do re the EU, which is just as well really because it won't be a surprise when you lot deliver them the mandate to do it!

[Wombat3]

FiF said:

Nested in the above quotes of quotes is the statement that "essentially the view that we should stay in if the thing can be modified. ..."

Which takes us back to the question of modified but how and to what extent. What are lines in the sand that if we don't achieve these then a vote for out will be the recommendation.

Without some indication of this, with the Tories track record, there is no hope of getting sufficient people to put their trust in a vote for CMD. Certainly not me. Certainly for a lot of people of the " won't get fooled again" mindset.

The only thing most people seem to get fooled by is their own ears, because they don't actually listen to what is said (IMO of course ). Too many people (IMO) just hear what they want to hear & the end result is a lot of seething and ranting, bouncing off the walls & a great deal of of "Scweem & scweem & sceem until I'm sick!" Its neither helpful nor constructive.

[McWigglebum4th]

Wombat3 said:

What a load of tinfoil hat wearing tosh.

and besides, why would they? Essentially the view is that we should stay in if the thing can be modified..

AH HA

So you don't want us to leave

No wander you are stting yourself over UKIP

[Pesty]

Is there a list anywhere of anti eu conservative is who may swap after this latest EU blow?

[dandarez]

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Nested in the above quotes of quotes is the statement that "essentially the view that we should stay in if the thing can be modified. ..."

Which takes us back to the question of modified but how and to what extent. What are lines in the sand that if we don't achieve these then a vote for out will be the recommendation.

Without some indication of this, with the Tories track record, there is no hope of getting sufficient people to put their trust in a vote for CMD. Certainly not me. Certainly for a lot of people of the " won't get fooled again" mindset.

The only thing most people seem to get fooled by is their own ears, because they don't actually listen to what is said (IMO of course ). Too many people (IMO) just hear what they want to hear & the end result is a lot of seething and ranting, bouncing off the walls & a great deal of of "Scweem & scweem & sceem until I'm sick!" Its neither helpful nor constructive.

Stop talking about yourself in those terms wombie. You'll end up needing ADs.

[don4l]

Wombat3 said:

The only thing most people seem to get fooled by is their own ears, because they don't actually listen to what is said (IMO of course ). Too many people (IMO) just hear what they want to hear & the end result is a lot of seething and ranting, bouncing off the walls & a great deal of of "Scweem & scweem & sceem until I'm sick!" Its neither helpful nor constructive.

You are absolutely correct. The phenomenon even has a name - "cognitive bias".

Which begs the question - Why do you trust Cameron when he has told you so many lies? We have told you about these lies many times in this thread - and you just cannot see it. And yet you seem to know that people only see what they want to see.

Today's big deception was Cameron's assertion that he will not pay the £1.7Bn. As with everything that Cameron says, you need to study the small print very carefully indeed. He will either pay £1.6Bn by the first of December, or he will pay £1.7Bn on the second.

Which option do you think he will choose?

[FiF]

don4l said:

Wombat3 said:

The only thing most people seem to get fooled by is their own ears, because they don't actually listen to what is said (IMO of course ). Too many people (IMO) just hear what they want to hear & the end result is a lot of seething and ranting, bouncing off the walls & a great deal of of "Scweem & scweem & sceem until I'm sick!" Its neither helpful nor constructive.

You are absolutely correct. The phenomenon even has a name - "cognitive bias".

Which begs the question - Why do you trust Cameron when he has told you so many lies? We have told you about these lies many times in this thread - and you just cannot see it. And yet you seem to know that people only see what they want to see.

Today's big deception was Cameron's assertion that he will not pay the £1.7Bn. As with everything that Cameron says, you need to study the small print very carefully indeed. He will either pay £1.6Bn by the first of December, or he will pay £1.7Bn on the second.

Which option do you think he will choose?

To be fair all sides only hear or perhaps more correctly give weight to things which confirm their own opinions, bias or prejudice. As you say there is a name for it.

Again as posted earlier this will be paid in full or nearly in full at some point. There will be a lot of associated spin but it will be buried there somewhere one day.

I still don't know if it's legal or not. Does anyone know this definitively? Certainly unfair and unprofessional.

[don4l]

FiF said:

I still don't know if it's legal or not. Does anyone know this definitively? Certainly unfair and unprofessional.

Actually, it appears to be perfectly legal. In fact we benefitted from this mechanism a few years ago.

Certainly gave UKIP a boost. I wonder how many people signed up for membership today?

Speaking of which... my membership pack arrived today! It includes a dvd about useless wind farms, which I will watch later.

[johnxjsc1985]

don4l said:

You are absolutely correct. The phenomenon even has a name - "cognitive bias".

Which begs the question - Why do you trust Cameron when he has told you so many lies? We have told you about these lies many times in this thread - and you just cannot see it. And yet you seem to know that people only see what they want to see.

Today's big deception was Cameron's assertion that he will not pay the £1.7Bn. As with everything that Cameron says, you need to study the small print very carefully indeed. He will either pay £1.6Bn by the first of December, or he will pay £1.7Bn on the second.

Which option do you think he will choose?

Yes we will all wait for the declaration of his tremendous success in renegotiating a £50 rebate.
When did we become such an easy touch