UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Zod]

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Guam said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f...
Shame no one saw that coming.........

It means nothing. The useless fat little Frenchman is not in a position to dictate anything.

Is the article incorrect about the French having and being prepared to use a veto?

Considering Cameron wants some significant changes (apparently) and the fact the French have used their veto before, why should we doubt that they would block any UK demands?

the French economy is fked. They need huge indulgence from the rest of the EU. Cameron can make life difficult for the French.

[NicD]

It gets better, day by day

European judges dealt a fresh blow to the Government today after ruling foreign families of EU citizens cannot be stopped from moving to the UK.
Until now, ministers had required European nationals’ overseas family members to get a travel permit before travelling to Britain.
But the European Court of Justice found a British citizen living and working in Spain did not have to get a travel permit for his Colombian wife to visit the UK.
Ukip claimed the ruling extended the right to free movement to 'millions of people from anywhere in the world'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878913/Mi...

[PRTVR]

Zod said:

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Guam said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f...
Shame no one saw that coming.........

It means nothing. The useless fat little Frenchman is not in a position to dictate anything.

Is the article incorrect about the French having and being prepared to use a veto?

Considering Cameron wants some significant changes (apparently) and the fact the French have used their veto before, why should we doubt that they would block any UK demands?

the French economy is fked. They need huge indulgence from the rest of the EU. Cameron can make life difficult for the French.

The French economy is fked along with Greece,Italy,Spain,Portugal along with a lot of others, time to cut ourselves free, they will drag us down with them if we let them.

[NicD]

Greg66 said:

NicD said:

Greg66 said:

You have nothing to say about the poster itself. Wise. Don't try to defend the indefensible.

Oh, cant we say:

It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.

According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.

what exactly is indefensible?

Compare that to what UKIP's poster actually says.

I don't think UKIP would be very interested in your copy for a new poster.

so it is Not indefensible, it is just a political poster, just like from the other parties that can afford the sites.

you are twisting and turning so much I cant see you, (I wish I didn't have to read you).

[Esseesse]

NicD said:

It gets better, day by day

European judges dealt a fresh blow to the Government today after ruling foreign families of EU citizens cannot be stopped from moving to the UK.
Until now, ministers had required European nationals’ overseas family members to get a travel permit before travelling to Britain.
But the European Court of Justice found a British citizen living and working in Spain did not have to get a travel permit for his Colombian wife to visit the UK.
Ukip claimed the ruling extended the right to free movement to 'millions of people from anywhere in the world'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878913/Mi...

Christ sake. Proves once more that our country is the EU, and the UK is just a region of it. Our government is the EU, Westminster is closer to what we might imagine a county council is than most realise.

[XJ Flyer]

Zod said:

Guam said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f...
Shame no one saw that coming.........

It means nothing. The useless fat little Frenchman is not in a position to dictate anything.

That's what they said about Napoleon and more recently French traffic police.Luckily for us the Duke of Wellington and Nelson weren't Europhiles.The problem of Cameron,Clegg,Les Flics and Hollande are a different matter though because they are all on the same side.

[DeanR32]

Just been reading through the last two pages, and watching Mr Snail with my daughter, and the cogs a whirring.

I've got a couple of questions if anyone wants to put a div like me straight

I'm assuming we're quite a heavyweight in terms of EU nations. Why wouldn't we be able to negotiate terms of membership if we're so important to the EU? Just got me thinking, as I just saw the link saying about the French president saying his piece. If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

Also, if we did leave the EU, there's no sure way we'd still be able to trade as freely as some ukip supporters believe we could.

I think I know the goods we as a nation seem to be obsessed with that come from Germany. How much of a difference to a 30k audi would there be if we didn't get the free trade agreement if we leave the EU?

As you can see, I'm a welterweight when it comes to some on here. Bit of a knowledge novice

[NicD]

DeanR32 said:

Just been reading through the last two pages, and watching Mr Snail with my daughter, and the cogs a whirring.

I've got a couple of questions if anyone wants to put a div like me straight

I'm assuming we're quite a heavyweight in terms of EU nations. Why wouldn't we be able to negotiate terms of membership if we're so important to the EU? Just got me thinking, as I just saw the link saying about the French president saying his piece. If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

Also, if we did leave the EU, there's no sure way we'd still be able to trade as freely as some ukip supporters believe we could.

I think I know the goods we as a nation seem to be obsessed with that come from Germany. How much of a difference to a 30k audi would there be if we didn't get the free trade agreement if we leave the EU?

will have a go.

we are not a heavyweight in term of EU influence. We have not got a history of sleazy backroom deals.
On the surface, we should have influence, but in practise, we are treated a stupid and troublesome cash cow.

An Audi from Germany may cost more if the UK is no longer in a free trade area, but only because the UK applies tariffs.
We would be concerned about UK exports being hindered, not imports.

Does that help?

[XJ Flyer]

DeanR32 said:

Just been reading through the last two pages, and watching Mr Snail with my daughter, and the cogs a whirring.

I've got a couple of questions if anyone wants to put a div like me straight

I'm assuming we're quite a heavyweight in terms of EU nations. Why wouldn't we be able to negotiate terms of membership if we're so important to the EU? Just got me thinking, as I just saw the link saying about the French president saying his piece. If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

Also, if we did leave the EU, there's no sure way we'd still be able to trade as freely as some ukip supporters believe we could.

I think I know the goods we as a nation seem to be obsessed with that come from Germany. How much of a difference to a 30k audi would there be if we didn't get the free trade agreement if we leave the EU?

In which case how did we survive ( with an economy in better shape and with a trade surplus,as opposed to trade deficit with Europe ),all those years before we joined.As for the Audi if the EU want a trade war hopefully that 30k Audi will be at least 75k by the time we've taxed it out of our market.While you'll just have to settle for a VAT free Jag ( when a domestic replacement for the German trans has been sorted ) which can only help our employment and trade figures.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 17:59

[jagnet]

DeanR32 said:

If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

The EU is all about ever closer integration. Sensible terms for us tend to run completely counter to that ideal, for example restricting the free movement of labour. A United States of Europe or Federal Republic of Europe is the ideal end goal.

Dan Hannan said:

If you had asked almost any British MP over the past half-century what kind of Europe he wanted, you'd have got a similar reply. 'I believe in a Europe of nations,' he'd have said – regardless of whether he was Conservative, Liberal or Labour. 'I want a Europe of free-trading, co-operating, democratic nation-states, achieving together what they can't secure alone'.

Fine. Great. How could anyone disagree? If such a dispensation had been on offer, there'd never have been any argument. But it wasn't. Indeed, it was precisely because Britain was pushing for that deal in the 1950s – we had a scheme known as 'Plan G', which envisaged a broad and open free-trade area based on the 17-member Organisation for European Economic Co-operation – that the six original members rushed ahead with their alternative plan for federation.

Ever since, successive British leaders have fantasised about turning the EU into something that it was never supposed to be. Every prime minister since we joined has gone in for the 'enlarged, flexible Europe of nations' shtick. It started even before we became members. Harold Macmillan, launched our first application in 1961 in the hope that 'the effects of any eventual loss of sovereignty would be mitigated if resistance to Federalism on the part of some of the governments continues, which our membership might be expected to encourage'.

Even in Macmillan's day, this was wishful thinking – although, with the EU not yet five years old, it was perhaps excusable. It is less excusable today, when we have six decades of evidence that the Treaty of Rome means what it says about 'ever-closer union'. Yet still we delude ourselves, imagining that the other members are on the verge of coming round to our point of view.

Why David Cameron and Angela Merkel will never agree about the EU

[DeanR32]

NicD said:

DeanR32 said:

Just been reading through the last two pages, and watching Mr Snail with my daughter, and the cogs a whirring.

I've got a couple of questions if anyone wants to put a div like me straight

I'm assuming we're quite a heavyweight in terms of EU nations. Why wouldn't we be able to negotiate terms of membership if we're so important to the EU? Just got me thinking, as I just saw the link saying about the French president saying his piece. If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

Also, if we did leave the EU, there's no sure way we'd still be able to trade as freely as some ukip supporters believe we could.

I think I know the goods we as a nation seem to be obsessed with that come from Germany. How much of a difference to a 30k audi would there be if we didn't get the free trade agreement if we leave the EU?

will have a go.

we are not a heavyweight in term of EU influence. We have not got a history of sleazy backroom deals.
On the surface, we should have influence, but in practise, we are treated a stupid and troublesome cash cow.

An Audi from Germany may cost more if the UK is no longer in a free trade area, but only because the UK applies tariffs.
We would be concerned about UK exports being hindered, not imports.

Does that help?

Yes thanks. Nice one

I thought it'd be import and export taking a bit of a price hike. Nonetheless, if what you're saying is true, and the worry would more be on the export side, why would they want to give us free trading rights to the EU market, if imports from the EU aren't to be affected in any dramatic way?

I meant a financial heavyweight too. If we are such a financial heavyweight, why wouldn't the EU do what we want, just to appease us and keep us in the EU? If that little floater in the top corner is so financially important, why wouldn't they bend to keep us sweet?

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

Greg66 said:

NicD said:

Greg66 said:

You have nothing to say about the poster itself. Wise. Don't try to defend the indefensible.

Oh, cant we say:

It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.

According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.

what exactly is indefensible?

Compare that to what UKIP's poster actually says.

I don't think UKIP would be very interested in your copy for a new poster.

so it is Not indefensible, it is just a political poster, just like from the other parties that can afford the sites.

you are twisting and turning so much I cant see you, (I wish I didn't have to read you).

Your copy bears no relation to what the poster says.

The poster is dishonest.

The fact that you think an outright untruth is defensible surprises me not one jot.

"It is just a political poster" is a weasely little excuse of the very low variety.

"Just like from the other parties" equates UKIP to that which they claim to be so different to - the established political parties.

[NicD]

DeanR32 said:

Yes thanks. Nice one

I thought it'd be import and export taking a bit of a price hike. Nonetheless, if what you're saying is true, and the worry would more be on the export side, why would they want to give us free trading rights to the EU market, if imports from the EU aren't to be affected in any dramatic way?

I meant a financial heavyweight too. If we are such a financial heavyweight, why wouldn't the EU do what we want, just to appease us and keep us in the EU? If that little floater in the top corner is so financially important, why wouldn't they bend to keep us sweet?

Its a question of negotiation.
If the EU threaten our exports, we could tit for tat with theirs.

No, I understood your point about a 'financial heavyweight' but unfortunately, my answer applies to that point. The Eu talking heads have made it clear time after time they could care less about the UK. Just today from France:

Mr Cameron is expected to demand new powers for Britain within the EU if he remains in power following the general election next May.

But Mr Hollande will today remind Mr Cameron that any treaty change will require unanimous agreement of all EU countries, including France.

"There is no demonstration of the need for new rules and no urgency," added the source.

[XJ Flyer]

jagnet said:

DeanR32 said:

If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

The EU is all about ever closer integration. Sensible terms for us tend to run completely counter to that ideal, for example restricting the free movement of labour. A United States of Europe or Federal Republic of Europe is the ideal end goal.

Dan Hannan said:

If you had asked almost any British MP over the past half-century what kind of Europe he wanted, you'd have got a similar reply. 'I believe in a Europe of nations,' he'd have said – regardless of whether he was Conservative, Liberal or Labour. 'I want a Europe of free-trading, co-operating, democratic nation-states, achieving together what they can't secure alone'.

Fine. Great. How could anyone disagree? If such a dispensation had been on offer, there'd never have been any argument. But it wasn't. Indeed, it was precisely because Britain was pushing for that deal in the 1950s – we had a scheme known as 'Plan G', which envisaged a broad and open free-trade area based on the 17-member Organisation for European Economic Co-operation – that the six original members rushed ahead with their alternative plan for federation.

Ever since, successive British leaders have fantasised about turning the EU into something that it was never supposed to be. Every prime minister since we joined has gone in for the 'enlarged, flexible Europe of nations' shtick. It started even before we became members. Harold Macmillan, launched our first application in 1961 in the hope that 'the effects of any eventual loss of sovereignty would be mitigated if resistance to Federalism on the part of some of the governments continues, which our membership might be expected to encourage'.

Even in Macmillan's day, this was wishful thinking – although, with the EU not yet five years old, it was perhaps excusable. It is less excusable today, when we have six decades of evidence that the Treaty of Rome means what it says about 'ever-closer union'. Yet still we delude ourselves, imagining that the other members are on the verge of coming round to our point of view.

Why David Cameron and Angela Merkel will never agree about the EU

The EU agenda has in reality always been about Federalist Con politicians talking up ( blatantly lying )about the trading angle while really meaning and supporting EU federal government.That applies wether it be Cameron or Heath.

[XJ Flyer]

DeanR32 said:

NicD said:

DeanR32 said:

Just been reading through the last two pages, and watching Mr Snail with my daughter, and the cogs a whirring.

I've got a couple of questions if anyone wants to put a div like me straight

I'm assuming we're quite a heavyweight in terms of EU nations. Why wouldn't we be able to negotiate terms of membership if we're so important to the EU? Just got me thinking, as I just saw the link saying about the French president saying his piece. If we are that much bigger and mightier, why wouldn't they accept sensible terms from us?

Also, if we did leave the EU, there's no sure way we'd still be able to trade as freely as some ukip supporters believe we could.

I think I know the goods we as a nation seem to be obsessed with that come from Germany. How much of a difference to a 30k audi would there be if we didn't get the free trade agreement if we leave the EU?

will have a go.

we are not a heavyweight in term of EU influence. We have not got a history of sleazy backroom deals.
On the surface, we should have influence, but in practise, we are treated a stupid and troublesome cash cow.

An Audi from Germany may cost more if the UK is no longer in a free trade area, but only because the UK applies tariffs.
We would be concerned about UK exports being hindered, not imports.

Does that help?

Yes thanks. Nice one

I thought it'd be import and export taking a bit of a price hike. Nonetheless, if what you're saying is true, and the worry would more be on the export side, why would they want to give us free trading rights to the EU market, if imports from the EU aren't to be affected in any dramatic way?

I meant a financial heavyweight too. If we are such a financial heavyweight, why wouldn't the EU do what we want, just to appease us and keep us in the EU? If that little floater in the top corner is so financially important, why wouldn't they bend to keep us sweet?

They won't cave in because the federalist dream and end game of the EU is considered as being more important ( so far ) than their trading relationship with us assuming that relationship goes bad.I'm betting that they would cave in if/when they realise the financial implications of a full on trade war with us.If they don't then that's even better from our point of view in that we can only win such a trade war being in a position of trade deficit with them not vice versa.

The biggest fly in the ointment in this case being the UK union with Scotland being that such a trade war would require English control over North Sea Oil and Gas movement.IE in this case all European exports would need to stop and dump the extra in the domestic market to deflate our economy thereby lowering wage and cost requirements for UK industry,thereby turning us into a predatory pricing nation v the EU in terms of our exports to non EU markets.Which would translate as selling Jaguars for example in the US market at suicidal prices from the point of view of German exporters using our oil reserves to subsidise our economy.

Which is what we 'should have' done in 1973 instead of what Heath actually did.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 18:24

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 18:26

[NicD]

Greg66 said:

Your copy bears no relation to what the poster says.

The poster is dishonest.

The fact that you think an outright untruth is defensible surprises me not one jot.

"It is just a political poster" is a weasely little excuse of the very low variety.

"Just like from the other parties" equates UKIP to that which they claim to be so different to - the established political parties.

I think it is you who is indefensible! let me demolish your garbage, line by line

1. 'Your copy bears no relation to what the poster says. The poster is dishonest. '

The poster says 26 million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?'
So, how many people in Europe are unemployed?
Answer: According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.
Can they come to the UK for work?
It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.

So on the main point, you are delusional

2. you say 'The poster is dishonest. '

In what way is it dishonest? you don't say why you think this.
In the context of a political poster, it looks 100% accurate to me.

3. you say '"It is just a political poster" is a weasely little excuse of the very low variety. '
BUT that is exactly what it is. How can even you argue with that?

3. "Just like from the other parties" equates UKIP to that which they claim to be so different to - the established political parties.

So now you say it is indefensible that a UKIP poster is of a similar standard to the the other parties?


You are beyond parody, and certainly not worth wasting time on.

[jagnet]

Meanwhile within the EU the Greeks head to the polls again to elect a symbolic head of state. The Telegraph has Nine charts showing why Greece has to leave the euro.

By any sensible measure Greece should have been allowed to leave the Euro years ago, return to the Drachma, devalue and then it may have half a chance of getting its economy out of the mess that it's in. But a Grexit is seen as too high a risk to the Euro project so the EU continues to do "whatever it takes" to keep Greece in. What's best for the Greek populace just doesn't matter. 27% unemployment, over 60% youth unemployment - it doesn't matter. All just sacrifices on the altar of the Euro.

[league67]

Yazar said:

league67 said:

1 ) Who do you think made more money out of EU gravy train;
a) Farage
b) Cameron

Farage Eu salary = £79k
Cameron's father in law's Wind farms = £350k a year.

And I'm sure you know Farages could retire at any time and earn much more giving speeches

EU is paying Cameron's father? I asked about Cameron, as far as I'm concerned Samantha's father wasn't angling for cushy EU job. It's entertaining to see to what lengths the faithful will go to protect good name of Supreme Commander of People's Army. Certainly obedient, if not clever.

[handpaper]

chris watton said:

And is that something you would be prepared to say to me directly, if we ever met?

That's my guideline for this and any other forum I post on - if I wouldn't say it to someone's face, I don't type it into a post. I hope it keeps me polite.
It may, however, make me more angry than otherwise with those who don't care and post insults, misrepresentations and snide and patronising comments.

[chris watton]

handpaper said:

chris watton said:

And is that something you would be prepared to say to me directly, if we ever met?

That's my guideline for this and any other forum I post on - if I wouldn't say it to someone's face, I don't type it into a post. I hope it keeps me polite.
It may, however, make me more angry than otherwise with those who don't care and post insults, misrepresentations and snide and patronising comments.

Those are the rules I play to, too. I am not at all comfortable typing what I did, but sometimes, other's seem to cross the line and get too personal. just because of a difference in opinion.

What I wrote wasn't any kind of threat, it was a genuine question.