UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Zod said:
France and Italy take the attitude to the EU Treaties that they comply with as much or as little as they want when they want.
this is one thing that should be highlighted. much of the perceived problems with eu rules and regulations we bring upon ourselves by allowing uk civil servants to gold plate legislation much of the rest of europe ignores. as much as i want out of the eu,i have a strong suspicion that if/when we do leave,it will highlight significantly more failings in the way we run our country than even those we know of now.
REALIST123 said:
I won't point out the obvious difficulties in your idea to opt out of the global market, but you must realise that the reason we can't compete any more is because it is too expensive to carry out many manufacturing processes here because we ARE in a global market.
As for your ideas on energy, they are again little more than pie in the sky IMO. BTW regarding FRACKING you do realise that we have been carrying out comparable processes, for different resources, for decades don't you? And whilst they've not been without issue, they have been very beneficial over all.
Finally, again IMO thatcher was right to hit the unions, they were the biggest danger to our economy back in the 70s and were, maybe still are, a driver behind our lack of ability to manufacture. I'm not saying unions don't have a place but British unions are hardly a shining example of the ilk.
i do get your first point to a degree, but i liken that outlook to the eu kicking the current problems down the road. at some point in the future the rest of the globe will end up with a similar standard of living,all countries will have a lrge middle class.where does all the sAs for your ideas on energy, they are again little more than pie in the sky IMO. BTW regarding FRACKING you do realise that we have been carrying out comparable processes, for different resources, for decades don't you? And whilst they've not been without issue, they have been very beneficial over all.
Finally, again IMO thatcher was right to hit the unions, they were the biggest danger to our economy back in the 70s and were, maybe still are, a driver behind our lack of ability to manufacture. I'm not saying unions don't have a place but British unions are hardly a shining example of the ilk.
t get made cheaply when that happens ?on fracking agreed, much ado about nothing.
again agreed the unions needed sorting out (some still do,well maybe just give len mcluskey a good leathering) but the social cost to the country really was a price not worth paying. better to have purely addressed the union issue in some other way,rather than decimate an entire section of society .
steveT350C said:
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
I want politicans who do the right thing, not just spout plausible platitudes and sound-bites
Are you having a laugh?Who is it exactly your campaign is in aid of?
Those 100 "reasons to vote UKIP" are a laugh:
1) Leave EU
2) Control Immigration
3) 98 other things that we haven't really thought through so we've made them as vague as possible; and/or subtopics of 1 and 2 because it our core vote won't actually get past #2
fatboy18 said:
don4l said:
fatboy18 said:
Im not at all keen on the Fracking idea, splitting rocks to get out gas sounds like a recipe for an environmental disaster and having seen some documentaries about the pitfalls in the USA, it makes me very worried. Water is life and if fracking buggers that up we have no chance.
Fracking takes place at about 6000 feet underground. Aquafiers are at about 200 feet.Fracking has absolutely no impact on drinking water.
Fracking has been taking place in Britain for more than 70 years... without a single incident of water pollution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_m-yxNgb-Y
You got shares in the industry then?
Gas risesJustAnotherLogin said:
steveT350C said:
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
I want politicans who do the right thing, not just spout plausible platitudes and sound-bites
Are you having a laugh?Who is it exactly your campaign is in aid of?
Those 100 "reasons to vote UKIP" are a laugh:
1) Leave EU
2) Control Immigration
3) 98 other things that we haven't really thought through so we've made them as vague as possible; and/or subtopics of 1 and 2 because it our core vote won't actually get past #2
wc98 said:
Zod said:
France and Italy take the attitude to the EU Treaties that they comply with as much or as little as they want when they want.
this is one thing that should be highlighted. much of the perceived problems with eu rules and regulations we bring upon ourselves by allowing uk civil servants to gold plate legislation much of the rest of europe ignores. as much as i want out of the eu,i have a strong suspicion that if/when we do leave,it will highlight significantly more failings in the way we run our country than even those we know of now.
At last somebody on the diametrically opposite side of the argument to me has sussed it.
The problem with the EU for the UK is not the EU,it is Whitehall's interpretation of EU directives. And should we leave the EU, these feckers will still be there interfering in the minutiae of our lives.
And by the way, I'm not used to this. I added a couple of contentious posts on the UKIP thread last night and nobody has disagreed with me yet. What's the matter with you lot - was I right all along?
steveT350C said:
steveT350C said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Excuse me. Other things got in the way and I think it will take longer than I thought to collect some of the bits of data. Some are proving elusive. You would only criticise a half baked job, so you'll have to wait
Of course, no worries. 
rs1952 said:
wc98 said:
Zod said:
France and Italy take the attitude to the EU Treaties that they comply with as much or as little as they want when they want.
this is one thing that should be highlighted. much of the perceived problems with eu rules and regulations we bring upon ourselves by allowing uk civil servants to gold plate legislation much of the rest of europe ignores. as much as i want out of the eu,i have a strong suspicion that if/when we do leave,it will highlight significantly more failings in the way we run our country than even those we know of now.
At last somebody on the diametrically opposite side of the argument to me has sussed it.
The problem with the EU for the UK is not the EU,it is Whitehall's interpretation of EU directives. And should we leave the EU, these feckers will still be there interfering in the minutiae of our lives.
And by the way, I'm not used to this. I added a couple of contentious posts on the UKIP thread last night and nobody has disagreed with me yet. What's the matter with you lot - was I right all along?
HTH!
rs1952 said:
The Lord (whoever he or she is...) Be Praised!!!
At last somebody on the diametrically opposite side of the argument to me has sussed it.
The problem with the EU for the UK is not the EU,it is Whitehall's interpretation of EU directives. And should we leave the EU, these feckers will still be there interfering in the minutiae of our lives.
And by the way, I'm not used to this. I added a couple of contentious posts on the UKIP thread last night and nobody has disagreed with me yet. What's the matter with you lot - was I right all along?
Gimme five minutes, just sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches! At last somebody on the diametrically opposite side of the argument to me has sussed it.
The problem with the EU for the UK is not the EU,it is Whitehall's interpretation of EU directives. And should we leave the EU, these feckers will still be there interfering in the minutiae of our lives.
And by the way, I'm not used to this. I added a couple of contentious posts on the UKIP thread last night and nobody has disagreed with me yet. What's the matter with you lot - was I right all along?
poor Nigel, victim of the MSM conspiracy. If only he had time for another 19m one-on-one beers.don4l said:
Zod said:
Esseesse said:
Mrr T said:
The Conservatives promised a vote on the Lisbon treaty. However, the Lisbon treaty was already signed by the time they came to power so any referendum would have been a complete waste of money at a time of serious economic difficulties.
Why can there not be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it has been signed? Why can it not be 'unsigned'?I go out for a little walk in the countryside - and I come back to this utter horses
te!We don't have to "unsign" the treaty. We can "revoke" it. We have done this many times before without any problems... as you well know.
If we revoke the Lisbon treaty, then we would have to re-negotiate our position within the EU, or leave.
I'm quite happy with the "leave" option because I don't subscribe to the "ever closer union" option.
No, we'd be out. We can try to renegotiate and see where we get to. We can't just rip up the treaty. We can breach it and dare them to do something about it.
fatboy18 said:
don4l said:
fatboy18 said:
Im not at all keen on the Fracking idea, splitting rocks to get out gas sounds like a recipe for an environmental disaster and having seen some documentaries about the pitfalls in the USA, it makes me very worried. Water is life and if fracking buggers that up we have no chance.
Fracking takes place at about 6000 feet underground. Aquafiers are at about 200 feet.Fracking has absolutely no impact on drinking water.
Fracking has been taking place in Britain for more than 70 years... without a single incident of water pollution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_m-yxNgb-Y
You got shares in the industry then?
Gas risesI'm at a loss to understand the difference between stupidity and gullibility.
Fracking at 6000 feet has no effect on water supplies at 200 feet.
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
steveT350C said:
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
I want politicans who do the right thing, not just spout plausible platitudes and sound-bites
Are you having a laugh?Who is it exactly your campaign is in aid of?
Those 100 "reasons to vote UKIP" are a laugh:
1) Leave EU
2) Control Immigration
3) 98 other things that we haven't really thought through so we've made them as vague as possible; and/or subtopics of 1 and 2 because it our core vote won't actually get past #2
don4l said:
fatboy18 said:
don4l said:
fatboy18 said:
Im not at all keen on the Fracking idea, splitting rocks to get out gas sounds like a recipe for an environmental disaster and having seen some documentaries about the pitfalls in the USA, it makes me very worried. Water is life and if fracking buggers that up we have no chance.
Fracking takes place at about 6000 feet underground. Aquafiers are at about 200 feet.Fracking has absolutely no impact on drinking water.
Fracking has been taking place in Britain for more than 70 years... without a single incident of water pollution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_m-yxNgb-Y
You got shares in the industry then?
Gas risesI'm at a loss to understand the difference between stupidity and gullibility.
Fracking at 6000 feet has no effect on water supplies at 200 feet.
Apologies, I missed #3
3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
JustAnotherLogin said:
Apologies, I missed #3
3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
Yes, it was mentioned on the Andrew Marr interview. Its 3G a year funded from the savings made by not paying the EU 10-12 billion a year.3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Apologies, I missed #3
3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
Yes, it was mentioned on the Andrew Marr interview. Its 3G a year funded from the savings made by not paying the EU 10-12 billion a year.3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
Is that an increase of £3bn in the annual NHS expenditure across the length of the next parliament? In which case the NHS will be shrinking as a % of GDP (so less than any major party) or £3bn each year? In which case it is a massive and unfunded expenditure?
Or is it deliberately vague?
Any Kipper able to tell me?
The NHS budget this year is roughly £100bn
- Are UKIP proposing that in 2016 it will be £103bn; £106bn in 2017 and so on to £215bn by the end of parliament?
- Or just £103bn by the end of parliament?
- Or is it £3bn on top of inflation, so approx £106bn at current rates of inflation?
- Or £3bn a year plus inflation. in which case it is £221bn
I think you are suggestion the first of those 4 options, in which case it has used up all the EU budget savings before we even get to the remaining 95 proposals.
It is just odd to say a £3bn increase when they mean a £15bn increase over the parliament
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff