The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
PRTVR said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think Cookie118 has a good point here.
Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
Things will not change if the vote is to remain, well they might, I can see a lot of conservative voters switching to UKIP after the way Cameron has acted, UKIP in the EU will get stronger and alliances with the rising anti EU groups that are growing throughout Europe, what not the vision of the future you imagined? Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
Einion Yrth said:
///ajd said:
100 million % agree.
Tells me as much as I need to know about your grasp of arithmetic. The odd or two would be fine, but when that makes up 90% of your posts it gets a bit predictable.
I'd be interested in reading the odd expansive post from you.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Einion Yrth said:
///ajd said:
100 million % agree.
Tells me as much as I need to know about your grasp of arithmetic. The odd or two would be fine, but when that makes up 90% of your posts it gets a bit predictable.
I'd be interested in reading the odd expansive post from you.
zbc said:
PRTVR said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think Cookie118 has a good point here.
Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
Things will not change if the vote is to remain, well they might, I can see a lot of conservative voters switching to UKIP after the way Cameron has acted, UKIP in the EU will get stronger and alliances with the rising anti EU groups that are growing throughout Europe, what not the vision of the future you imagined? Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
t or go hungry, the menu is off limits. Oh, the power.The idea that there might be no counterpoint from MEPs opposed to the EU is itself totalitarian, but that suits the EU which treats direct responsive democracy as an inconvenience at best. Technocrat insertion, voting re-run, referenda going against the EU's positions...
"It’s Gotten So Bad in Europe, Even Eurocrats Begin to Worry."
http://wolfstreet.com/2016/04/14/eu-breakup-brexit...
Link said:
You know that things are bad when even the firmest believers begin questioning their faith. That’s what’s starting to happen in Europe, where the EU faces a dizzying constellation of threats and challenges and even the staunchest of eurocrats are beginning to express doubts.
Many people have lost trust in “entire institutions, whether national or European,” laments European Parliament Chief Martin Schulz. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine, he warned over a possible “implosion of the EU” due to the blossoming Euroskeptic movements in member states.
The main reason for Schulz’s gloomy disposition is the Dutch referendum vote last week against an EU-Ukraine trade agreement. It was the third referendum in a row that has gone against the EU’s interests, following Greece’s rejection last summer of the Troika’s latest plan and Denmark’s decision earlier this year not to seek closer security cooperation with Brussels.
In time-honored fashion, the EU’s response was to carry on regardless...
A fitting and democratic place to make a snip.Many people have lost trust in “entire institutions, whether national or European,” laments European Parliament Chief Martin Schulz. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine, he warned over a possible “implosion of the EU” due to the blossoming Euroskeptic movements in member states.
The main reason for Schulz’s gloomy disposition is the Dutch referendum vote last week against an EU-Ukraine trade agreement. It was the third referendum in a row that has gone against the EU’s interests, following Greece’s rejection last summer of the Troika’s latest plan and Denmark’s decision earlier this year not to seek closer security cooperation with Brussels.
In time-honored fashion, the EU’s response was to carry on regardless...
Soooo, was just thinking how many people would vote UKIP as a vote to achieve a "No to the EU" vote in the event we get a 'stay in' vote to the EU referendum?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Mr Whippy said:
Soooo, was just thinking how many people would vote UKIP as a vote to achieve a "No to the EU" vote in the event we get a 'stay in' vote to the EU referendum?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Interesting point... Scotland voted to stay in the Union, then this was the FPTP election result 1 year later.Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Mr Whippy said:
Soooo, was just thinking how many people would vote UKIP as a vote to achieve a "No to the EU" vote in the event we get a 'stay in' vote to the EU referendum?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
An interesting thought or two - not sure what you mean about the no general election thing - but c'mon Mr Whippy, the correct term is FAR-RIGHT! FAR-RIGHT! We must use upper case and repetition to show apt levels of horror at anything other than the usual failed dripping wet left-illiberalism with which the EU is infested and which people across the EU are understandably rejecting at national level.Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Hugh Jarse said:
Mr Whippy said:
Soooo, was just thinking how many people would vote UKIP as a vote to achieve a "No to the EU" vote in the event we get a 'stay in' vote to the EU referendum?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Interesting point... Scotland voted to stay in the Union, then this was the FPTP election result 1 year later.Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
I'd like to think that I'd try and make the best of a brexit vote, but as our GDP slipped and trading was not the push over promised, it would be hard not to say - "see?!".
No doubt any bad news from the EU whatsoever will be gripped upon by the brexit side.
All a bit pointless really this referendum, all it will achieve is division, just to try and keep the tories in power. That is not going too well though is it? It will be quite some achievement if this bickering lets corbyn in (now that would be a disaster - it would make brexit look like a slight inconvenience).
Hugh Jarse said:
Interesting point... Scotland voted to stay in the Union, then this was the FPTP election result 1 year later.
I think it is unlikely we will see a "UKIP" version of this happening in the UK.The advantage the SNP had is that with the combination of Alex Salmond, John Swinney, and Nicola Sturgeon, they created a very good impression in the eyes of many of appearing to represent the best interests of Scottish people.
There isn't a comparable team of credible politicians on the Leave side IMO.
Plus, if Leave lose (which is looking likely), they are going to implode in one massive row of finger pointed at each other as to who was to blame. It will not be pretty.
///ajd said:
Hugh Jarse said:
Mr Whippy said:
Soooo, was just thinking how many people would vote UKIP as a vote to achieve a "No to the EU" vote in the event we get a 'stay in' vote to the EU referendum?
Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
Interesting point... Scotland voted to stay in the Union, then this was the FPTP election result 1 year later.Surely if we get an 'in' vote, we'll quickly get a much stronger UKIP showing at the next general election, council elections etc?
Or do we think once we vote 'in' that something will suddenly happen meaning we can no longer have a general election?
Ie, EU wanting to stamp out far right/left parties gaining power during a "critical time" which turns into forever?
I'd like to think that I'd try and make the best of a brexit vote, but as our GDP slipped and trading was not the push over promised, it would be hard not to say - "see?!".
No doubt any bad news from the EU whatsoever will be gripped upon by the brexit side.
All a bit pointless really this referendum, all it will achieve is division, just to try and keep the tories in power. That is not going too well though is it? It will be quite some achievement if this bickering lets corbyn in (now that would be a disaster - it would make brexit look like a slight inconvenience).
People are starting to wake up I think, and see Labour and Cons as basically the same old lies and self-serving parties.
People may be wanting to see a real change, and the only way to get that is not voting for those parties.
LibDem + UKIP coalition?
Liberals surely by their very nature should want to be out of the EU, since the EU stands for illiberalism?
Dave
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think Cookie118 has a good point here.
Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
here we agree, if we vote to remain it is a vote for greater integration, better making the most of it by sending people that will at least attempt to argue on our behalf. i voted ukip during the last european elections , there will be no point in doing so next time around.Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
wc98 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
I think Cookie118 has a good point here.
Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
here we agree, if we vote to remain it is a vote for greater integration, better making the most of it by sending people that will at least attempt to argue on our behalf. i voted ukip during the last european elections , there will be no point in doing so next time around.Going back 6 months, I hadn't given much thought to how the European Parliament operated.
What is clear to me now is that it is very important we elect people who can form alliances with other groups and can cooperate to get things done which are in our best interest.
We (the public) have used our allocation of MEPs to elect the single largest group of people who, out of principle, refuse to participate or engage. This is despite there being issues like fisheries policy which could be of great benefit to the UK if it could be improved.
If we vote to stay in, we need to think very carefully who we elect in future to represent us as MEPs. I honestly now think in electing UKIP as the largest group as our MEPs we have inadvertently 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.
Part of me thinks that if you're in the EU parliament but are not a voice of dissent, you're a voice of silent consent to the whims of Brussels central leadership and not your electorate.
wc98 said:
here we agree, if we vote to remain it is a vote for greater integration, better making the most of it by sending people that will at least attempt to argue on our behalf. i voted ukip during the last european elections , there will be no point in doing so next time around.
You missed the bit from TB explaining that whoever you vote for is immaterial,the power doesn't reside with who we elect, changing your vote will make no difference whatsoever, but if it gives you a sense of control go for it.Hugh Jarse said:
Interesting point... Scotland voted to stay in the Union, then this was the FPTP election result 1 year later.
The EU question isn't nearly as decisive and issue as the Scotland Indy one though, so whilst it may help UKIP it isn't going to propel them to broad sunlit uplands, plus the SNP had about eight months between the referendum and general election, UKIP would have nearly four years.If the Tories don't implode after this referendum is dealt with, that is.
Mr Corbyn for PM by February 2017.
PRTVR said:
wc98 said:
here we agree, if we vote to remain it is a vote for greater integration, better making the most of it by sending people that will at least attempt to argue on our behalf. i voted ukip during the last european elections , there will be no point in doing so next time around.
You missed the bit from TB explaining that whoever you vote for is immaterial,the power doesn't reside with who we elect, changing your vote will make no difference whatsoever, but if it gives you a sense of control go for it.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff