UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Gaspode]

tangerine_sedge said:

You could argue that people on both sides of the debate believe in sky fairies though couldn't you? Both positions are pretty much faith based, i.e. until the UK leaves the EU we won't really know the impact (positive or negative). It just happens that one lot think we are better off in, and the other lot better off out, and facts/projections are cherry picked to support their viewpoint.

That's the big problem with economics and politics, there just aren't sufficiently good models to provide sound predictive capabilities. The European dream of a group on countries acting in harmony to promote common interest is looking increasingly shaky, and the Euro experiment has proven pretty conclusively what we all suspected - you can't have a common currency without common (i.e. federal) fiscal control.

Some people (UKIP) believe that it's all a failure and should be abandoned. Some people (the rest of us) feel that the advantages outweigh the issues and that it's worth pursuing a better arrangement through negotiation with our European partners. Neither camp is capable of proving its position is 'correct', because there isn't a right and wrong, it's just a question as to what sort of future would you prefer?

Sometimes I think the simplest solution would be for each country to retain local control of absolutely everything apart from fiscal matters, and give that job to the Germans. They are the only country who have demonstrated a credible track record of success in the area, the rest of us have messed it up big time.

[anonymous-user]

Yazar said:

Many of those who want to leave would accept the risk of a possible negative impact financially in return for getting back to a sovereign state.

How many of those have an informed idea of either the extent of the possible negative impact financially, or the magnitude of the risk, I wonder?

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

The problem is the debate is much too complicated for it to be approached from what are, essentially, polarised opinions. The other problem is that at the moment what is a changing situation could end up in having to decide on a very binary decision. I'm sure there are anumber of nations who agree that the EU needs serious reform but dare not show any agreement with UK.

Likewise there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but dare not show any support for UKIP.

Why would someone who thinks the EU needs serious reform even consider supporting UKIP, much less be concerned at daring to show support for it? UKIP wants out of the the EU, not to reform it.

[brenflys777]

Greg66 said:

FiF said:

The problem is the debate is much too complicated for it to be approached from what are, essentially, polarised opinions. The other problem is that at the moment what is a changing situation could end up in having to decide on a very binary decision. I'm sure there are anumber of nations who agree that the EU needs serious reform but dare not show any agreement with UK.

Likewise there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but dare not show any support for UKIP.

Why would someone who thinks the EU needs serious reform even consider supporting UKIP, much less be concerned at daring to show support for it? UKIP wants out of the the EU, not to reform it.

I don't think it's an illogical position.

I want a referendum on EU membership, my preferred result would be leaving the EU and regaining national sovereignty.

However, before any referendum I'd support reform in British interests. The referendum might result in us staying in too, so if we stay in the EU I'd want us to make the best of it and that would include reforming the way the EU operates. Obvious areas that would be ripe include the waste of Strasburg/Briussels commute, wasting money on vanity projects, over reaching their remit, corruption and so on.

The fact no significant reforms have happened and that the French and Germans are prepared to veto them means UKIPs reward vs risk is still attractive to me.

[Zod]

NicD said:

Greg66 said:

(actually, I don't want to repeat your BS)


so if you reduce all your back pedalling and wasted, self justifying prose down, it comes to this:

YOU and only YOU have magically turned this simple question (rather like gold into turds):

'And whose jobs are they after?'

into 'The message is that there are 26 million job seekers in Europe, and they are ALL coming here (even though some of them are British nationals), NOW, and they ARE going to be coming here to take YOUR job from YOU.
All of them. Every last one of them. They want to take YOUR job. From YOU. They're not coming to "look for work" - to window shop for jobs. They coming to take jobs. Your job. The one that pays your mortgage and feeds your family. And there's not a damned thing you can do to stop it, except vote UKIP. '

This is on a political poster, not a school text.
Do you think, everyone who reads the poster is as thick as you and needs your help to reassure them and explain the obvious?

Perhaps because of your twisted imagination, you feel justified in slagging me off, for the sin of calling you to account.

As I said, you are beyond parody.

I will let others judge who is the 'confused old fool with comprehension difficulties.' and by others, I don't mean your fellow trollposse.

I'll debunk you in one go: unless any of the 26 million is qualified as a solicitor in England and Wales and has twenty years of experience in international corporate finance, they cannot be coming for my job. I suspect that goes for many or even most of us, even the kippers.

How many jobs might the 26 million (they're all the same, of course, with the same skills and qualifications) actually have a chance of securing? Two million? If that's the number, then 28 million people will be fighting for those two million jobs. That would be quite something!

edit: fked up the quoting twice!

Edited by Zod on Friday 19th December 12:22

[FiF]

brenflys777 said:

Greg66 said:

FiF said:

The problem is the debate is much too complicated for it to be approached from what are, essentially, polarised opinions. The other problem is that at the moment what is a changing situation could end up in having to decide on a very binary decision. I'm sure there are anumber of nations who agree that the EU needs serious reform but dare not show any agreement with UK.

Likewise there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but dare not show any support for UKIP.

Why would someone who thinks the EU needs serious reform even consider supporting UKIP, much less be concerned at daring to show support for it? UKIP wants out of the the EU, not to reform it.

I don't think it's an illogical position.

I want a referendum on EU membership, my preferred result would be leaving the EU and regaining national sovereignty.

However, before any referendum I'd support reform in British interests. The referendum might result in us staying in too, so if we stay in the EU I'd want us to make the best of it and that would include reforming the way the EU operates. Obvious areas that would be ripe include the waste of Strasburg/Briussels commute, wasting money on vanity projects, over reaching their remit, corruption and so on.

The fact no significant reforms have happened and that the French and Germans are prepared to veto them means UKIPs reward vs risk is still attractive to me.

Greg's position seems to me to be typical of those who only wish to look at one issue and one largely binary aspect.

There could be someone who absolutely does not want more of the same regarding the EU, but on balance could be persuaded either way with significant reforms. The only reason, let's be honest and adult about this, the only reason that EU reform and/or a referendum is on the table from the main parties is in response to the pressure / stress that UKIP has created.

They could also support one of UKIP's other policies but oppose others and the personalities involved.

It's not at all illogical in my mind with the current changing situation and the very binary way that people are approaching an extremely complicated situation with significant unknowns on both sides of the argument.

I have a similar position to brenflys that having carefully considered the issues, then as things stand at the moment I am for out. But if their is reform then can be persuaded to stay in.

Nevertheless even if a referendum went against me regardless of which way voted then that's the democratic decision, pick up and get on with it.

[Zod]

FiF said:

I have a similar position to brenflys that having carefully considered the issues, then as things stand at the moment I am for out. But if there is reform then can be persuaded to stay in.

Nevertheless even if a referendum went against me regardless of which way voted then that's the democratic decision, pick up and get on with it.

That is exactly my position. I just come at it at a different angle from you.

[BGARK]

tangerine_sedge said:

both sides of the debate believe

What I believe is sensible judgement should be made and that people with the best skills are needed to make such important decisions.

For example I would suggest business owners, (people that directly employ others) entrepreneurs and net contributors should have far more of a sound judgement in such matters than say nurses or teachers. In the same way that if we needed advise on caring for people and teaching the opposite would be true.

This isn't to say one group of people are better or worse but if you spend your working life dedicated to a subject it makes sense to me that they should have more of a say in that topic.

Politicians by the way should not have a say in anything unless they have worked in real jobs in the first place and can demonstrate real life skills. Their bloated bellies are only getting bigger because of this disastrous EU experiment, and real people are being directly affected by it, wake up!

[JustAnotherLogin]

BGARK said:

tangerine_sedge said:

both sides of the debate believe

What I believe is sensible judgement should be made and that people with the best skills are needed to make such important decisions.

For example I would suggest business owners, (people that directly employ others) entrepreneurs and net contributors should have far more of a sound judgement in such matters than say nurses or teachers. In the same way that if we needed advise on caring for people and teaching the opposite would be true.

This isn't to say one group of people are better or worse but if you spend your working life dedicated to a subject it makes sense to me that they should have more of a say in that topic.

Politicians by the way should not have a say in anything unless they have worked in real jobs in the first place and can demonstrate real life skills. Their bloated bellies are only getting bigger because of this disastrous EU experiment, and real people are being directly affected by it, wake up!

Interesting post because you are I believe in favour of leaving. Whereas most of business is I believe in favour of staying - albeit in favour of reform


I certainly am in favour of reform, but I think the UK will do better inside the EU than out. Even if I did not believe that (and I have certainly wavered) then I could not support UKIP because their policies as a whole are too weak and would not be good for the UK

[tangerine_sedge]

BGARK said:

tangerine_sedge said:

both sides of the debate believe

What I believe is sensible judgement should be made and that people with the best skills are needed to make such important decisions.

For example I would suggest business owners, (people that directly employ others) entrepreneurs and net contributors should have far more of a sound judgement in such matters than say nurses or teachers. In the same way that if we needed advise on caring for people and teaching the opposite would be true.

This isn't to say one group of people are better or worse but if you spend your working life dedicated to a subject it makes sense to me that they should have more of a say in that topic.

Politicians by the way should not have a say in anything unless they have worked in real jobs in the first place and can demonstrate real life skills. Their bloated bellies are only getting bigger because of this disastrous EU experiment, and real people are being directly affected by it, wake up!

The problems with letting just one group of people decide (even if they are the experts) is that they will choose what is best for them. Whereas, the impact is not just monetary, but also includes other factors. For some UKIPpers it's about sovereignty(*), and for some pro-EU people it's about a single European community.

Unfortunately, the least worst option (IMO) is to let the people decide...

(*) what a difficult word to spell correctly!

[blindswelledrat]

FiF said:

The problem is the debate is much too complicated for it to be approached from what are, essentially, polarised opinions. The other problem is that at the moment what is a changing situation could end up in having to decide on a very binary decision. I'm sure there are anumber of nations who agree that the EU needs serious reform but dare not show any agreement with UK.

Likewise there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but dare not show any support for UKIP.

Almost agree except for the last part.
I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

[wc98]

Greg66 said:

(By the way, point 4 comes after point 3. You don't do point 3 again. Sequential numbering doesn't work like that).

Once more, you expose your meagre reading comprehension skills. I didn't say what you've attributed to me. I said the poster itself was indefensible. You made the point that it was just like those from other parties; I just pointed out that this is a bad argument from a party that claims to be different those parties.


Next time perhaps you shouldn't rush to play the "I'm right and going to be condescending to you because you're stupid and wrong" game.

if that is your takeaway from a poster i take it you work in one of the "creative" industries ? or do a lot of acid ( please take this in the lighthearted manner it is intended, too many angry people on this thread even for me, and i do like a bit of angry now and again )

[allergictocheese]

blindswelledrat said:

Almost agree except for the last part.
I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Pretty much matches my thoughts.

I'd like to see our involvement with the EU reduced to that of a trading partner with some streamlining of commercial ties, but without the social inclusion. I'd hazard a guess that that matches what a lot of Tory MPs and public would like, too. In my case it's just coincidence that UKIP to some extent agree with something I agree with, but that doesn't mean I then ignore all their bonkers stuff and start supporting them as a political animal.

To put it in simpler terms; that neither of us likes the EU in its present form does not bring to bear that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[FiF]

blindswelledrat said:

FiF said:

The problem is the debate is much too complicated for it to be approached from what are, essentially, polarised opinions. The other problem is that at the moment what is a changing situation could end up in having to decide on a very binary decision. I'm sure there are anumber of nations who agree that the EU needs serious reform but dare not show any agreement with UK.

Likewise there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but dare not show any support for UKIP.

Almost agree except for the last part.
I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Fair enough, have no problem with that whatsoever.

Which opens up a question which is possibly unanswerable, is the "shape" of UKIP a product of the issues, or the way those issues have been discussed, or perhaps not discussed in some cases.

[ClaphamGT3]

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

[Digga]

blindswelledrat said:

I would re-phrase that as 'there's lots of people in the UK who agree the same about the EU but think that UKIP is a terrible vehicle to achieve it'

Granted being anti UKIp and pro-EU reform are not mutually exclusive, but I would say there is a noisy element, especially but not only from the left of centre who still insist on tarring UKIP and its supporters as bigots and racists.

[s2art]

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

What? That many people casually use 'chinky' when referring to going for a chinese meal? He is completely correct, therefore any sane person is forced to agree with him.

[wc98]

FiF said:

Greg's position seems to me to be typical of those who only wish to look at one issue and one largely binary aspect.

There could be someone who absolutely does not want more of the same regarding the EU, but on balance could be persuaded either way with significant reforms. The only reason, let's be honest and adult about this, the only reason that EU reform and/or a referendum is on the table from the main parties is in response to the pressure / stress that UKIP has created.

They could also support one of UKIP's other policies but oppose others and the personalities involved.

It's not at all illogical in my mind with the current changing situation and the very binary way that people are approaching an extremely complicated situation with significant unknowns on both sides of the argument.

I have a similar position to brenflys that having carefully considered the issues, then as things stand at the moment I am for out. But if their is reform then can be persuaded to stay in.

Nevertheless even if a referendum went against me regardless of which way voted then that's the democratic decision, pick up and get on with it.

i would hazard a guess that is a similar position to the majority of new converts to ukip. the utter clusterfk that is the eu has polarised every issue surrounding it ,and the weakening of uk sovereignty (perceived or actual) is something many people disagree with.
the situation in southern europe regarding mass youth unemployment shows the ideal is more important than the people of europe ,which should be setting alarm bells off for most people interested in having a say over who governs them.

[BGARK]

s2art said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

And he's at it again;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-far...

I defy any same person to stand by what he has said here.

What? That many people casually use 'chinky' when referring to going for a chinese meal? He is completely correct, therefore any sane person is forced to agree with him.

Sorry darling! I'll tell you what we can do, why don't we take him down the chinky, that should cheer him up, eh Rodders? Do you want to come with us Trig? No, I ain't sure Del.
My niece'll be here in a minute.
She's come up from the country for a few days.
You remember little Lisa don't you? Lisa, oh your sister's kid? Yeah, I remember her.
I'd better see what she fancies doing.
Listen, I'm gonna have a chat with Albert, jolly him up a bit.
Jolly him up.
Thanks Trigger, you're a pal.

[FiF]

Apologies, just noticed in an earlier post I have used "their" when I meant "there." Bloody phone, be getting lose and loose mixed up next. Only solution to that is a bottle of whisky, the service weapon and retire to a quiet place.