UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[MGJohn]

BJG1 said:

steveT350C said:

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

How has it massively increased the number of likely Labour voters? How many Poles have taken up UK Citizenship?

Irrespective of whether it has or has not, the fact that increased immigration was allowed to happen that way on that basis is bar far the more important question needing to be asked.

[Halb]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Who are the 'stupid' in that thread?

[BJG1]

MGJohn said:

BJG1 said:

steveT350C said:

The last wave of immigrants encouraged by the Labour Party was not for the benefit of the country / ordinary working folk but orchestrated by Labour to 'rub the noses of the Tories' and massively increase the number of likely Labour voters.

How has it massively increased the number of likely Labour voters? How many Poles have taken up UK Citizenship?

Irrespective of whether it has or has not, the fact that increased immigration was allowed to happen that way on that basis is bar far the more important question needing to be asked.

It didn't happen on that basis. Labour did not let in EU migrants to gain them vote share. I know that because it is obvious, even to a child, that it will make little to no difference to their vote share, aside from the damage the decision could cause with disenfranchised working class voters.

You do know you have to be a UK citizen (some commonwealth countries excepted) to vote in a General Election, right?

[AW111]

Personally, I blame iron.
Nasty stuff, hard to work, and it is a boring grey colour to look at. Then it rusts

Bronze, on the other hand, is a living metal. It has a lovely sheen that endures : have you ever seen iron jewellery? No, and there's a reason for that.

Bronze is immune to water, malleable, decorative, and easy to smelt, work and cast. What's not to like?

Our civilization took a wrong turn some years ago, but this can be rectified, if we can just get past the vested interests promoting so-called progress.

[TTwiggy]

Disastrous said:

2). Need a new sail for the boat - any recommendations?

Main or stay? If you're on a budget, I can recomend these folks

http://www.cjmarine.co.uk/c/19/used-sail-agency

[anonymous-user]

MGJohn said:

News just in. UK Motor manufacturers: EU demand is in decline. British (? Based ) motor manufacturers are now increasingly looking inwards to the home UK market because of this and no doubt markets outside the EU too. So, the EU are not buying "our" cars as well as we are told they once did.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 28th May 11:06

Old news:
49% of UK produced cars go to the EU market. 92% of the members of the SMMT want to remain part of the EU.

http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/S...

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

No need to suspect, actually what labour did.

Bordering on treason, but then Tony Blair sorted that little law out as well.

All links are way back in this thread. Bloody annoyed, should have backed up, but easy enough to find via giggle

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 22:21

Nonsense. It was clearly politically motivated behaviour by the Labour government, but it is not remotely close to treason. Furthermore, the only change Blair's government made to the treason legislation was to abolish the death penalty that we would never have applied anyway.

I'm afraid that after your "confession" of last week, everything you post will be viewed with a large pinch of [establishment] salt.

Once agin you are scouring the postings on PH to add the establishment views, you even defend Bliar, what more needs to be said about your motivations?

Confession? That I actually spend some of my time working on influencing the content of Directives in the UK's interest?

How am I defending Blair by correcting a manifest error? There is a vast amount of material to justify criticism of Blair, so false accusations are a waste of time.

If you people showed at least a good level of understanding of that which you criticise, you might be taken more seriously.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 28th May 11:46

[Mrr T]

Strawman said:

It's mainly Saudi Arabia dumping oil on the market in an effort to deflate the price of energy, they know the game is up for oil as alternatives gain pace, the dogs in the street can see that.

Its more to do with a down turn in China and an increase in fracking in the US.

As for renewable gaining pace please stop me from laughing. Windmills and solar remain an expensive irrelevant.

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Nothing like as much as it used to be.

These days, the us hedgefunds and banks have more influence.

To my knowledge no banks and very few hedge funds trade oil these days. Far to much risk on the physical or of a squeeze on the futures rolls.

[Disastrous]

TTwiggy said:

Disastrous said:

2). Need a new sail for the boat - any recommendations?

Main or stay? If you're on a budget, I can recomend these folks

http://www.cjmarine.co.uk/c/19/used-sail-agency

Excllent! This thread finally delivers some sense!

[Esseesse]

Was it in this thread where we were recently discussing the EU's influence on UK taxation?

Berlin and Paris Devise EU Tax Plans to Destroy Britain’s Competitive Advantage

[Mojocvh]

Esseesse said:

Was it in this thread where we were recently discussing the EU's influence on UK taxation?

Berlin and Paris Devise EU Tax Plans to Destroy Britain’s Competitive Advantage

I wonder if Zod has any, albeit "small", input to these plans probably not as it's big boys stuff.

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 28th May 13:18

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Esseesse said:

Was it in this thread where we were recently discussing the EU's influence on UK taxation?

Berlin and Paris Devise EU Tax Plans to Destroy Britain’s Competitive Advantage

I wonder if Zod has any, albeit "small", input to these plans??

You cannot be as stupid as you try to portray yourself.

If I were a UK tax lawyer, why would I support these plans? It is in the UK's and my tax colleagues' terser that we retain the freedom to set competitive tax rates.

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

No need to suspect, actually what labour did.

Bordering on treason, but then Tony Blair sorted that little law out as well.

All links are way back in this thread. Bloody annoyed, should have backed up, but easy enough to find via giggle

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 22:21

Nonsense. It was clearly politically motivated behaviour by the Labour government, but it is not remotely close to treason. Furthermore, the only change Blair's government made to the treason legislation was to abolish the death penalty that we would never have applied anyway.

I'm afraid that after your "confession" of last week, everything you post will be viewed with a large pinch of [establishment] salt.

Once agin you are scouring the postings on PH to add the establishment views, you even defend Bliar, what more needs to be said about your motivations?

Confession? That I actually spend some of my time working on influencing the content of Directives in the UK's interest?

How am I defending Blair by correcting a manifest error? There is a vast amount of material to justify criticism of Blair, so false accusations are a waste of time.

If you people showed at least a good level of understanding of that which you criticise, you might be taken more seriously.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 28th May 11:46

" If you people" oh really, who would you class as "you people"

Your utter arrogance shines through.

[TKF]

Esseesse said:

Was it in this thread where we were recently discussing the EU's influence on UK taxation?

Berlin and Paris Devise EU Tax Plans to Destroy Britain’s Competitive Advantage

A Breitbart rehash of an Express article. For a site which claims the BBC is biased you don't half use some questionable sources for your facts.

[FiF]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I find it amusing that you didn't comment on this when it was posted a few days ago sourced from Telegraph and then use gratuitous snipes at Express and Breitbart.

You really are transparent.

Then engage in semantics. Yes whoever used the word undercut was probably technically incorrect, perhaps they meant undermine the position of countries with low corporation tax. Luxembourg and Ireland would be affected more than Britain. This was all covered in the Telegraph where it was speculated that the minimum would be pitched above the UK level, though it was a very oblique speculation admittedly.

As pointed out on the earlier post this possible move would lead to another stupid tribal discussion along the lines of the recent VAT and EU influence or not. This was what Essesse referred to in the opening post above.

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

No need to suspect, actually what labour did.

Bordering on treason, but then Tony Blair sorted that little law out as well.

All links are way back in this thread. Bloody annoyed, should have backed up, but easy enough to find via giggle

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 22:21

Nonsense. It was clearly politically motivated behaviour by the Labour government, but it is not remotely close to treason. Furthermore, the only change Blair's government made to the treason legislation was to abolish the death penalty that we would never have applied anyway.

I'm afraid that after your "confession" of last week, everything you post will be viewed with a large pinch of [establishment] salt.

Once agin you are scouring the postings on PH to add the establishment views, you even defend Bliar, what more needs to be said about your motivations?

Confession? That I actually spend some of my time working on influencing the content of Directives in the UK's interest?

How am I defending Blair by correcting a manifest error? There is a vast amount of material to justify criticism of Blair, so false accusations are a waste of time.

If you people showed at least a good level of understanding of that which you criticise, you might be taken more seriously.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 28th May 11:46

" If you people" oh really, who would you class as "you people"

Your utter arrogance shines through.

Oh, it's a small group, but you're a charter member. As for complaints about my manner of addressing you, look to your own posts first. Some of you are relentlessly offensive without even being right.

[DJRC]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

No need to suspect, actually what labour did.

Bordering on treason, but then Tony Blair sorted that little law out as well.

All links are way back in this thread. Bloody annoyed, should have backed up, but easy enough to find via giggle

Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 27th May 22:21

Nonsense. It was clearly politically motivated behaviour by the Labour government, but it is not remotely close to treason. Furthermore, the only change Blair's government made to the treason legislation was to abolish the death penalty that we would never have applied anyway.

I'm afraid that after your "confession" of last week, everything you post will be viewed with a large pinch of [establishment] salt.

Once agin you are scouring the postings on PH to add the establishment views, you even defend Bliar, what more needs to be said about your motivations?

Confession? That I actually spend some of my time working on influencing the content of Directives in the UK's interest?

How am I defending Blair by correcting a manifest error? There is a vast amount of material to justify criticism of Blair, so false accusations are a waste of time.

If you people showed at least a good level of understanding of that which you criticise, you might be taken more seriously.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 28th May 11:46

" If you people" oh really, who would you class as "you people"

Your utter arrogance shines through.

Morons, fkwits and muppets?

Nothing with being arrogant when you are right. Zod's problem there was he talked of you understanding like some namby pamby softy liberal tart instead of just saying if you weren't such a dick. We already know Zod is an arrogant supercilious pompous arse - he is a London lawyer FFs! That doesn't stop him being right in this case or you being a dick and being wrong.

[FiF]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Prefer my interpretation of your input frankly.

As covered elsewhere it's a proposal to discuss, nothing more. At this stage. Anyone going to bet against something like it coming into being, because I wouldn't.

Just one more step in the direction of more control and greater integration. Problem with the EU is that it sees a policy not working, the solution is always more control and greater integration. When that's seen to still not work the next step is always more integration. The answer is more integration now what's the question.

I didn't vote for this in 75, in fact voted against it based on the issues did understand e.g. CAP but one example. The majority vote went against me, and that's fair enough, that's what democracy is supposed to be about. 40 years later and in a completely different world from then the case needs to be made once again.

There are very few, it seems even amongst Euro-philes, that think the EU is perfect as it is and doesn't need reform. When they're asked what reforms are absolutely needed as a red line they seem strangely unable to articulate any reasonable response.

Of course it may be possible to reform such that it's worthwhile to continue membership. Personally have my doubts but willing to be persuaded, but the discussion needs to be held and the EU needs to wind its neck in. That's just for the sake of the nations who wish to remain.

[Mrr T]

FiF said:

Prefer my interpretation of your input frankly.

As covered elsewhere it's a proposal to discuss, nothing more. At this stage. Anyone going to bet against something like it coming into being, because I wouldn't.

Just one more step in the direction of more control and greater integration. Problem with the EU is that it sees a policy not working, the solution is always more control and greater integration. When that's seen to still not work the next step is always more integration. The answer is more integration now what's the question.

It is only a discussion because corporate tax rates (and methods of calculation) are a sovereign state competency. To change this would require a treaty change with unanimous voting.