UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
t happens even in well established parties. vonuber said:
Blimey, she was expelled!!!!
powerstroke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
For goodness sake XJ. How many more times are you going to keep repeating your delusional twaddle about the Tories being socialist. You have been called on it many times and it has been demonstrated several times that you are talking rubbish.
TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery
Yes but you have to admit there has been more than a little drift to the left under Cameron which lost them the last and most likely will lose them next year's election .TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery
handpaper said:
I wonder if this was what the famously impartial Nick Robinson was attempting to draw attention to/fabricate last week. He did a short report to the effect that a very dirty fight was going on over the UKIP candidacy in Thurrock, since it is a seat that seems likely to go to the party.
Something for UKIP to be wary of for sure, but not a dealbreaker for most, at this time.
To be fair, there was some dirty in-fighting going on there. The letter that was "leaked" addressed to him regarding his expenses was plainly written with the intention of it making it to the public. That was a planned knife in the back, obviously from someone at the centre of UKIP. Something for UKIP to be wary of for sure, but not a dealbreaker for most, at this time.
Where the dirt came from on Kerry Smith I can only speculate on, though I see the BBC suggests it was an ally of Tim Aker
I must admit that I put Thurrock down as a one-off, not unexpected in a way. But the media enjoy a series of similar-ish incidents. They make even the most benign set of statistically random events into a pattern. So they will definitely be looking for more now.
steveT350C said:
picture of the comic with customary hopelessly misleading weather prediction removed
The poll data is here: http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/europeana...Question 2 is "If there was a referendum tomorrow in your country on whether Afghanistan should remain a part of the European Union, would you vote to stay in the European Union or to leave the European Union?"
51% of UK respondents said they'd vote to leave, vs 49% who said they'd vote to stay.
So 100% thought Afghanistan is part of the EU? No one said "are you a bit fick, mate? Afghanistan is well miles away from Europe. It's not even in the Eurovision Song Contest, like".
Where do they get these respondents from? Or is this a recognised (if incomprehensible) polling technique?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st December 22:39
Greg66 said:
steveT350C said:
picture of the comic with customary hopelessly misleading weather prediction removed
The poll data is here: http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/europeana...Question 2 is "If there was a referendum tomorrow in your country on whether Afghanistan should remain a part of the European Union, would you vote to stay in the European Union or to leave the European Union?"
51% of UK respondents said they'd vote to leave, vs 49% who said they'd vote to stay.
So 100% thought Afghanistan is part of the EU? No one said "are you a bit fick, mate? Afghanistan is well miles away from Europe. It's not even in the Eurovision Song Contest, like".
Where do they get these respondents from? Or is this a recognised (if incomprehensible) polling technique?
Edited by Greg66 on Sunday 21st December 22:39
RE daily express (tongue in cheek)-Quick the result will go the way our readers want it to-hold a referendum!!!
I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
cookie118 said:
RE daily express (tongue in cheek)-Quick the result will go the way our readers want it to-hold a referendum!!!
I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
These standards, electronics, automobile safety etc are set by supranational standards bodies, including the WTO. At the moment we only have the EU representative influencing them, i.e we only have approx 1 in 28th of a seat. Outside the EU we would have our own man at each of the tables. We have lost global influence by ceding our place to the EU.I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
Esseesse said:
The Tories are socialist. Big government and centralised control.
That definition alone actually just describes federalist not socialist which we know anyway being the Conservative 'Unionist' Party and Heath's obvious federalist agenda when taking us into the EEC/EU.While it would take a few more pointers than just that as to defining a socialist agenda.Which as I said probably doesn't describe the Cons agenda that being more a case of the exploitative form of Capitalism which just 'takes advantage' of the historic,erroneous,socialist agenda of Labour because it keeps the expectations of the working class just where the Cons want them.Just as it takes advantage of the the totalitarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party to provide cheap labour to make more profits for the few at the top and Labour's socialist pro immigration ideology to over supply the domestic labour market.The end result being an agenda which is 'effectively' 'just as bad as' and 'similar to' socialism while still being effectively a 'form of' Capitalism.Which leaves the question of the inconsistency in UKIP's anti federalist message regarding the EU.But Federalist/Unionist one regarding the UK.Or UKIP's stated protectionist aims,regarding the removal of cheap labour east european immigration.While seeming to want to keep its free market options open in most/all other regards.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st December 23:07
steveT350C said:
Greg66 said:
steveT350C said:
picture of the comic with customary hopelessly misleading weather prediction removed
The poll data is here: http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/europeana...Question 2 is "If there was a referendum tomorrow in your country on whether Afghanistan should remain a part of the European Union, would you vote to stay in the European Union or to leave the European Union?"
51% of UK respondents said they'd vote to leave, vs 49% who said they'd vote to stay.
So 100% thought Afghanistan is part of the EU? No one said "are you a bit fick, mate? Afghanistan is well miles away from Europe. It's not even in the Eurovision Song Contest, like".
Where do they get these respondents from? Or is this a recognised (if incomprehensible) polling technique?
Edited by Greg66 on Sunday 21st December 22:39
(I am definitely in the UK btw)
cookie118 said:
RE daily express (tongue in cheek)-Quick the result will go the way our readers want it to-hold a referendum!!!
I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
Which is just another argument in favour of staying in the EU based on not wanting to take on EU protectionism head on by imposing a protectionist policy of our own.In which case the question isn't one of what do we do if/when the EU impose trade barriers/demands in whatever form.It is one of what do we have to lose in the form of the resulting trade war if the EU doesn't back down regarding 'our' demands if/when we impose barriers against them from a trade deficit position.I kinda feel there's another EU thing that hasn't been addressed yet.
That is-to sell goods into the EU they often have to conform to EU directives. Now at the moment UK companies get the ability to lobby and influence these directives and this can have a profound influence on competitive advantage.
For example if the UK was to leave the EU JLR would have no input into new emissions and safety legislation within the EU.
As a far flung example-say the EU mandate video cameras and screens to cover off blindspots and ensure 360 degree vision for the driver. JLR have spent time and effort developing and patenting transparent pillars to give enhanced vision. It gives them a big cost reduction because they don't have to buy and build in the screens and electrics with it.
However if we weren't in the EU JLR cannot lobby to have the EU mandate 360 degree visibility rather than a solution-and under the weight of VAG, PSA and others the EU mandates cameras and screens. JLR will therefore lose their competitive advantage to EU manufacturers in the EU. This couldn't just happen in Automotive sectors, it could happen across pretty much any sector that makes stuff to sell into the EU.
In this (rather out of the ordinary) case the trade agreements etc would make little difference because the UK product is made uncompetitive and unattractive to EU nations.
Is there a UKIP solution to this at the moment? I couldn't find anything on their website??
As for UKIP's position on that if even its own voter base doesn't know exactly where the party stand,regarding the inevitable trade war scenario with the EU if/when we leave,probably because UKIP hasn't actually even reached a Party position on that question yet,then it seems obvious that answer won't be there for anyone else either.All the signs are so far that UKIP can talk the talk but wether it has the bottle to take on the EU in the national interest is another matter.Which isn't surprising being that the country has been conditioned to a CBI agenda of selling out the country's interests to the EU in return for the privilege of a massive trade deficit since we joined the scam in 1973.
steveT350C said:
Blimey, she was expelled!!!!
How many councillors & party members does Labour have in comparison to UKIP?As far as scandal to member ratio goes UKIP is far, far ahead of everyone else.
You're just making yourself look daft tbh. And more so with each weekly UKIP scandal & sacked member...
zygalski said:
How many councillors & party members does Labour have in comparison to UKIP?
As far as scandal to member ratio goes UKIP is far, far ahead of everyone else.
You're just making yourself look daft tbh. And more so with each weekly UKIP scandal & sacked member...
how did you work that out?As far as scandal to member ratio goes UKIP is far, far ahead of everyone else.
You're just making yourself look daft tbh. And more so with each weekly UKIP scandal & sacked member...
the last two so called UKIP scandals are not even councillors/MP's or MEP's?
I would also argue that there is a vast difference between somebody saying something that is then branded offencive and somebody with a criminal record for everything from fraud to peodophilia don't you think?
Mud slinging is all very well, but the old expression about glass houses comes to mind.
Esseesse said:
powerstroke said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
For goodness sake XJ. How many more times are you going to keep repeating your delusional twaddle about the Tories being socialist. You have been called on it many times and it has been demonstrated several times that you are talking rubbish.
TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery
Yes but you have to admit there has been more than a little drift to the left under Cameron which lost them the last and most likely will lose them next year's election .TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery
Not individuals ..
Scuffers said:
how did you work that out?
the last two so called UKIP scandals are not even councillors/MP's or MEP's?
I would also argue that there is a vast difference between somebody saying something that is then branded offencive and somebody with a criminal record for everything from fraud to peodophilia don't you think?
Mud slinging is all very well, but the old expression about glass houses comes to mind.
the last two so called UKIP scandals are not even councillors/MP's or MEP's?
I would also argue that there is a vast difference between somebody saying something that is then branded offencive and somebody with a criminal record for everything from fraud to peodophilia don't you think?
Mud slinging is all very well, but the old expression about glass houses comes to mind.
ah, I see we are at the let's put two random statistics together stage?
the fact one of them was a former Policeman must be worth another stat surely?
the most you can get from it is that UKIP threw them out, unlike the other parties that still have MP's and members with criminal records.
All that said, pales into insignificants compared to the levels of depravity and peopdophilia in the other parites.
the fact one of them was a former Policeman must be worth another stat surely?
the most you can get from it is that UKIP threw them out, unlike the other parties that still have MP's and members with criminal records.
All that said, pales into insignificants compared to the levels of depravity and peopdophilia in the other parites.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff