UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[DJRC]

Mojocvh said:

DJRC said:

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.

Ah yes, the usual tactics again.

Question, do you support or have ever joined UKIP?

I have never joined any political party. What kind of bloody stupid idiot does that?

Have I ever supported or voted UKIP? Of course I have. They were the main European opposition party for most of the last 10 yrs in Europe. Of course if you had ever lived in mainland Europe you would know that. But you haven't. So you know fk all about the hows and whats of UKIP in Europe.

[DJRC]

Mojocvh said:

MGJohn said:

Scuffers said:

MGJohn said:

Only a matter of time. For some time now no Ford vehicles are made here despite my heighbour castigating the good folks of Dagenham for the reliability of her Fiesta. If Ford and the rest could totally upsticks and leave they would do so immediately always provided they could still vend their stuff here at UK prices and margins.

Yup

Remind us again where ford moved transit production?

Now's the time to Talk Turkey.

Oooh yeahhh... "EU allocations for IPA 2014-2020: €4,453.9 million (not including the allocation for Cross-border Cooperation)"

Ref. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/fundin...

Where's Zod/DJRC to call us all morons and imbeciles ?

You are a moron and an imbecile.

Why am I calling you a moron and an imbecile this time?

[zygalski]

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?

What are the objections to this wording?
Sounds to me like the "no" camp are getting the excuses in early, especially after the abysmal failure of UKIP at the GE & the subsequent fleeting resignation of head kipper. Truth is, whining is second nature to the kipper - whining about a neutral question much as they'll whine after the vote, should we stay in. What next... vote rigging allegations & the frothsters requesting another referendum within a couple of years?

[NicD]

zygalski said:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?

What are the objections to this wording?
Sounds to me like the "no" camp are getting the excuses in early, especially after the abysmal failure of UKIP at the GE & the subsequent fleeting resignation of head kipper. Truth is, whining is second nature to the kipper - whining about a neutral question much as they'll whine after the vote, should we stay in. What next... vote rigging allegations & the frothsters requesting another referendum within a couple of years?

This sounds like an example of whining, in fact the only one I have read.

I myself think leaving is a high hill because of the recent polls.

Interestingly, the Guardian has an article on the importance of the wording:
'Psychologists also believe that the implication of a downside (or possible loss) can produce a stronger negative reaction than the positive response usually triggered by mention of an upside (or eventual gain) – which is partly why “Should Britain leave the European Union?” and “Should Britain stay …” are each, to some extent, biased no matter where you stand on the issue.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015...

[Strawman]

Cameron and the moderate conservatives are in favour of staying in the EU, they won the election so they get to write the question. While it is true that the wording might slightly favour a yes and the reverse a no, for a decision that will have major implications for the future of the UK I hope the vote is decisive one way or another and not a close thing.

[968]

Strawman said:

Cameron and the moderate conservatives are in favour of staying in the EU, they won the election so they get to write the question. While it is true that the wording might slightly favour a yes and the reverse a no, for a decision that will have major implications for the future of the UK I hope the vote is decisive one way or another and not a close thing.

There was a piece on radio 4 this week which showed that in referendums around the world, no is usually more successful than yes, statistically. I'll see if I can find it.

[NicD]

This from the up-till-now strongly anti UKIP DM:

'Meanwhile, legal migration to the UK continues to rise – adding 318,000 to our population last year, the second highest total in history, and putting further strain on already creaking public services.
David Cameron’s partial solution is to reduce the pull factor for Eastern European migrants, by limiting their access to in-work benefits.
But, in comments that hardly bode well for his attempt to renegotiate with Europe in the run-up to the in-out referendum, this idea was yesterday rejected as discrimination by his Polish counterpart.
During the election, all the main parties (except Ukip) were desperate to avoid discussing immigration – with Mr Cameron only doing so after being urged to speak up by this paper.
However, as events once again show, it remains the burning issue of our time. How the Prime Minister responds will define his second term – for good or ill.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3103268/...

[anonymous-user]

MGJohn said:

Wow ... 92% ... who would have guessed ....

So bluddy what. No surprises there.

There again, in the more distant past, many of those same Foreign owned Manufacturers based here have stated that when it suits them, they will be gone. That years before any mention of exiting EU membership considerations. The traders part of SMMT will always have stuff to sell whether in or out.

Only a matter of time. For some time now no Ford vehicles are made here despite my heighbour castigating the good folks of Dagenham for the reliability of her Fiesta. If Ford and the rest could totally upsticks and leave they would do so immediately always provided they could still vend their stuff here at UK prices and margins.

So because they may leave anyway we should just tell employers of hundreds of thousands of UK people that we don't care about them or their opinion of whether the UK should stay in the EU? Yes you may be right and they don't care so much about the UK people and would move production if it was cheaper but:

"All of the Renault Nissan Alliance plants are ranked annually across a series of efficiency and Total Delivered Cost measures. Nissan’s Sunderland Plant is consistently in the top three highest ranked plants globally, which gives it a competitive edge when bidding for new models sold in the EU."

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland it won't get as many models to produce and the 7,500 people who work there may find their jobs at risk.

[NicD]

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland .

I don't know either way (its not knowable at this stage), but why do you say this?

Why would it become more expensive - trade barriers?

[zygalski]

NicD said:

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland .

I don't know either way (its not knowable at this stage), but why do you say this?

Why would it become more expensive - trade barriers?

You can hear what the CEO of Nissan thinks about the whole issue....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486

[NicD]

Sorry but this doesn't say much.

'When asked how Nissan would react if the UK were to leave the EU, Mr Ghosn said: "If anything has to change, we [would] need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future."'

[zygalski]

NicD said:

Sorry but this doesn't say much.

'When asked how Nissan would react if the UK were to leave the EU, Mr Ghosn said: "If anything has to change, we [would] need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future."'

Well he also said that "Sunderland is a European plant based in the UK. If that changes we will have to reconsider..."
Hardly a stamp of approval for Brexit from your man.

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland .

I don't know either way (its not knowable at this stage), but why do you say this?

Why would it become more expensive - trade barriers?

Possibly, or even if we remain a part of the EU free trade area restrictions on free movement of people, or more likely being cut out of the free trade agreements already in place or under negotiation, for example an FTA with Japan is already in negotiation (has been for 4 years).

So, yes '5th biggest economy in the world', but to put it bluntly in two years following a 'Brexit' vote the ability to wrap up FTA's to replace those we have through the EU would be very limited (or we would start negotiations 10 years behind the ones already in progress with the EU), and this could put Britain at a big competitive disadvantage.

[brenflys777]

zygalski said:

NicD said:

Sorry but this doesn't say much.

'When asked how Nissan would react if the UK were to leave the EU, Mr Ghosn said: "If anything has to change, we [would] need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future."'

Well he also said that "Sunderland is a European plant based in the UK. If that changes we will have to reconsider..."
Hardly a stamp of approval for Brexit from your man.

Ghosn in 2002. The Euro.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2271521.stm

[brenflys777]

eharding said:

brenflys777 said:

That is exactly what worked for Cameron/conservatives in the GE though.

I disagree. There may have been some negative aspects to the Conservative campaign in the closing stages of the General Election in the same way that a sign saying 'Danger - Highly Radioactive Waste. Avoid" gives off a negative vibe - but both are fundamentally safety issues. Ignore either message, and bad things happen.

The difference here is that some parts of the 'kipper tendency seem to have given up already. This isn't healthy, doesn't help the 'No' cause, and frankly looks lazy.

The two parties who campaigned for votes most negatively ( and IMO cynically ) were the two best performances of the election in turning votes into seats. Conservatives scaremongering about Labour/SNP and SNP scaremongering about conservatives.

This is great for the conservatives and the SNP but I don't think it bodes well for future political campaigns or the public. The press reports were across the board negative and alarmist too (Telegraphs vote UKIP - suicide note day before election springs to mind..) the conservatives were quick to say UKIP were scaremongering about immigration, that was definitely a negative attack not a safety note, whilst the latest net immigration figures show UKIP concerns were well founded.

UKIPS failure to turn votes into seats is their failing alone, just as if Cameron hadn't won it wouldn't have been UKIPS fault, however, I do think this election was a victory for tribal politics over issues based politics. Cameron has the opportunity to do some good, I don't think UKIP have gone away yet, but I think a reasonable position is to see if Wombats Euro engagement produces anything worthwhile or just more spin.

Edited by brenflys777 on Saturday 30th May 11:43

[MGJohn]

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland it won't get as many models to produce and the 7,500 people who work there may find their jobs at risk.

"Less economically advantageous" ... that can happen irrespective of our EU membership. Those jobs are permanently at risk anyway. There's a good reason why Ford Transits are no longer produced in Hampshire or cars in Essex.

That always as long as foreign owned and controlled companies are in control. Simple as that. When it suits they will be gone. They will still want access to our "fair play" market for their high mark up product irrespective of where made to take "advantage" of the volumes and wider margins here. The UK provides BMW with the largest profit of all the other member states of the EU. Pure coincidence ... yeah .. right.

We've formed queues to pay over the odds for foreign product for far too long.

With so much of our Nation's life blood infrastructure, manufacturing production, energy supply etc etc in foreign control, this Nation's long term well-being is permanently at risk. Simple economics.

[Scuffers]

zygalski said:

NicD said:

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland .

I don't know either way (its not knowable at this stage), but why do you say this?

Why would it become more expensive - trade barriers?

You can hear what the CEO of Nissan thinks about the whole issue....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486

that was back on 2013...

views change as do circumstances.

[s2art]

cookie118 said:

Possibly, or even if we remain a part of the EU free trade area restrictions on free movement of people, or more likely being cut out of the free trade agreements already in place or under negotiation, for example an FTA with Japan is already in negotiation (has been for 4 years).

So, yes '5th biggest economy in the world', but to put it bluntly in two years following a 'Brexit' vote the ability to wrap up FTA's to replace those we have through the EU would be very limited (or we would start negotiations 10 years behind the ones already in progress with the EU), and this could put Britain at a big competitive disadvantage.

Dont be so sure. The reason it takes the EU so long is that they have to keep 28 members happy, in particular France. The UK has traditionally been a free trader, we would sign up to an FTA with (say) Japan in days not years. Similarly for the USA, talks with the EU have been going on for years, but if free, the UK would simply join NAFTA tomorrow if offered. No questions asked.

[NoNeed]

Scuffers said:

zygalski said:

NicD said:

cookie118 said:

If we leave the EU and it becomes less economically advantageous to produce in Sunderland .

I don't know either way (its not knowable at this stage), but why do you say this?

Why would it become more expensive - trade barriers?

You can hear what the CEO of Nissan thinks about the whole issue....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486

that was back on 2013...

views change as do circumstances.

I doubt that will change as Renault will pull the strings.

[FiF]

brenflys777 said:

The two parties who campaigned for votes most negatively ( and IMO cynically ) were the two best performances of the election in turning votes into seats. Conservatives scaremongering about Labour/SNP and SNP scaremongering about conservatives.

This is great for the conservatives and the SNP but I don't think it bodes well for future political campaigns or the public. The press reports were across the board negative and alarmist too (Telegraphs vote UKIP - suicide note day before election springs to mind..) the conservatives were quick to say UKIP were scaremongering about immigration, that was definitely a negative attack not a safety note, whilst the latest net immigration figures show UKIP concerns were well founded.

UKIPS failure to turn votes into seats is their failing alone, just as if Cameron hadn't won it wouldn't have been UKIPS fault, however, I do think this election was a victory for tribal politics over issues based politics. Cameron has the opportunity to do some good, I don't think UKIP have gone away yet, but I think a reasonable position is to see if Wombats Euro engagement produces anything worthwhile or just more spin.

Edited by brenflys777 on Saturday 30th May 11:43

Generally agree with this post. If one looks back it was me as the first person iirc to raise the awful prospect of a Lab-SNP cooperation in Westminster. The very next post was from Gregg66 with something along the lines of yikes hadn't thought of that.

What's clear is that the losing parties have to figure out what they have done wrong during and in the lead up to the GE and figure out where to go.

As this is the UKIP thread will just deal with them. It's clear that while they had a successful campaign in respect of gaining vote share, let's be honest about that, they failed miserably in terms of turning it into seats.

They ignored advice that they really had to sort out candidate selection.
They ignored advice to some extent that they didn't have the resources to do a nationwide campaign and initially spread too thinly.
Then they went to the other extreme and threw everything into the Farage/Thanet S cause to see that go up the Swanee.
That resulted in eye off the ball in a handful of seats that they should have taken. They need to figure out why that happened.
Was it the lack of resources / eye off the ball? Was it the Labour / SNP spectre? Was it the duff polling misleading? Was it just the Cons running a better than expected campaign?
They need to figure it out and sharpish as the whole thing they've worked towards for years is coming, the European referendum. If they can't get the in house act together with regards to the infighting then they will harm the EU out cause.

Still maintain that Farage should have gone and stayed gone. They still have the problem of sorting out direction and issues of succession regardless and the eye is off the ball once again. Repeat of 2010 in a way, except things more urgent.

Let's assume Cameron gets some concessions and puts it to an early referendum with the recommendation that on balance it is better to be in. The out campaign will lose again, badly and then UKIP has no future.

That of course doesn't mean there is not still a place for a centrist 'none of this usual shower' party, because there clearly is, just not UKIP in current guise.