UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Disastrous]

don4l said:

Do you think that Connie St Louis should be praised, or punished, for her expose of Sir Tim Hunt's recent comments?

Strange question. I don't think she should be praised or punished. She sounds like an awful pain in the arse to be frank. I don't approve of what she did and haven't got much time for those who are offended by everything, but I don't think she should be punished. I think she should be ignored.

Why do you ask?

[4v6]

Strawman said:

Why bother wasting time typing an answer when you are stone blind and stone deaf.

Arrogance personified. Work for the eu?

The answer to your little poser there would be that it would silence the likes of me.
I could have my carer translate your reply into braille.

Strawman said:

Fif mentioned earlier the requirement for a demos in order for there to be a democracy, and I feel I have more in common with the average French/German/Irish w'ev citizen than I do with a kipper, so that is my demos not the small minority of rabid isolationists who support UKIP.

So youre exactly the kind of scarecrow I expected then. Someone who hates britain and its people.
You can always leave though, its not like anyone will miss you.

[4v6]

Strawman said:

In every which way and all possible meanings of the term. No to immigration, no to membership of the EU, no to climate change emission regulation etc. etc.

And no to freedom of self determination eh?

Strawman said:

Meanwhile if you don't want to take part in global or continent wide agreements what can you offer the world that they can't get from some other country that wants to be a team player? Jack is the answer.

See thats what I like about strawman arguments, absolutely nothing, "if I only had a brain..."
You suggest that because we wouldnt be attached politically and fiscally to the eu that we couldnt have any co operation....which is just plain idiotic.

[4v6]

Greg66 said:

4v6 said:

Still no answers

Yes there was. It is a misconceived question based on a false premise. Which is not surprising, as you seem both incapable of and unwilling to enter into anything resembling a sensible discussion about anything EU-related.

Where was the answer printed in case I missed it Gregory?

You call it misconceived, thats because you cant answer it, there is NO good reason britain cant and and should not run its own affairs, after all its the democratically elected representatives jobs to do just that, not some unelected, unaccountable officious individuals ( In a borg collective?) to wield the rod of power.

You want a sensible discussion, try starting off by answering my bloody question.

[4v6]

Greg66 said:

Yes, we have it.

Do you?

Greg66 said:

We live in Parliamentary democracy where first past the post matters, and losing doesn't.

Annnnd no he dont.

Greg66 said:

Your party went into the election knowing this.

What other system currently exists for a political party to try and get elected, Oh intellectually massive one?
All parties at present are constrained by FPP, bit obvious no?

Greg66 said:

It got crunched.

Despite the voices of 4.5 million people saying otherwise.....fair, very fair.

Greg66 said:

Now you have to live with that. No voice, no influence. Understand?

Clearly you do not.
Crunch away and see the resentment grow amongst those who you so disdainfully cast aside.

Greg66 said:

Now, how about you to stand with the wilfully stupid idiots in the corner with the pointy hats. They may not be white or cover your face, but I'm sure they will suit you just the same.

Wow, der racist card! I never expected that.
Was the the attempt at a "sensible" discussion?

[Strawman]

4v6 said:

You suggest that because we wouldnt be attached politically and fiscally to the eu that we couldnt have any co operation....which is just plain idiotic.

If the UK leaves the EU would it be a) more connected to the rest of the EU or b) less connected.

[Scuffers]

Strawman said:

If the UK leaves the EU would it be a) more connected to the rest of the EU or b) less connected.

define connected?

[Mojocvh]

Mr_B said:

Greg66 said:

Now, how about you to stand with the wilfully stupid idiots in the corner with the pointy hats. They may not be white or cover your face, but I'm sure they will suit you just the same.

I'm sure you aren't referring to a KKK hood and screaming racist without actually wanting to say it.

Oh dear, that's desperate indeed.

What's coming next if it ramps up, Saville? Is there no depths "those" posters will not plumb??

Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 28th June 10:23

[WinstonWolf]

Einion Yrth said:

dirk01 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Disastrous said:

WinstonWolf said:

Newbie jumping straight in as if he's been here for years

You think it's Farage himself?

I think it's probably a bannee returning under a new guise.

No, but I'm seeing the way the site works quickly. A couple of days posting in here and you're already resorting to ad hominem attacks

Only bothered to go back a couple of pages, haven't seen you be the butt of any ad homs. It's plain that a number of posters think you're a bit of a tosser but that doesn't make an ad hominem.

It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, lots of bannees return under new guises.

[anonymous-user]

Mr_B said:

Greg66 said:

Now, how about you to stand with the wilfully stupid idiots in the corner with the pointy hats. They may not be white or cover your face, but I'm sure they will suit you just the same.

I'm sure you aren't referring to a KKK hood and screaming racist without actually wanting to say it.

Scuffers outed himself as a racist earlier in this volume . Nothing new there.

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

Scuffers outed himself as a racist earlier in this volume . Nothing new there.

oh do FO

To try and paint me as racist is quite simply laughable.

(just watching Sunday Politics, and the parallels to your stance are striking - ie people denying ISIS is not a problem of Islam etc.)

[anonymous-user]

Guam said:

Greg66 said:

Guam said:

That would be the same polling companies that forecast a neck and neck result between the Tories and Labour and a hung parliament.

Isn't that what you were forecasting?

Nope I said according to polling they were neck and neck however no one really has any clue so they were largely guessing
FIF made the same point
I also suggested that UKIP would hurt labour as much if not more than the Tories
I further suggested that there was a larger undercurrent of those trending towards UKIP than was being taken into account in certain areas of the UK
I further suggested that if they took advantage of this by getting properly organised that should deliver between 6 and 10 seats
They didn't so it didn't
Right I have covered all the points I made on these matters
So you can save your usual trite baiting for someone else and I can go back to ignoring you.

You seem to be addressing a different forecast (how many seats UKIP might get). The forecast in question was a hung parliament with Can/Lab neck and neck.

Now given that one of your predictions was a second GE late in 2015 because of a hung parliament being returned in May, it seems to me that your second reply should have replaced "Nope" with "Yes" and then stopped.

You can add "ignoring the question" and "ignoring your previous posts" to "ignoring other posters" on your list of things to do.

[brenflys777]

slyelessar said:

I'm surprised there is a thread even about UKIP on the forum...

On the plus side, gay marriage in America.

I'm surprised if you're really surprised!

UKIP got 4 million votes nationally and 120 second place results in GE. It won the last EU elections in the UK. Now some can dismiss that but I think it's notable. So not really surprising that it's worth a thread?

However since the election I've been unimpressed with UKIPs internal direction and lack of focus, but UKIP remains significant because of events in the EU and at home. On top of that 4 million direct support, we know there is significant opposition to the EU within the conservative and Labour votes, but both parties are campaigning to remain in the EU and won't explain what changes the EU must make to reform. There are lots of voters who don't support UKIP, don't want them in power or even think they are racist... but they are the only party campaigning and speaking out to leave.

The situation in Greece, the migration problems in the Med and Hungary are all things that UKIP have confronted and opposition have labelled them racist or xenophobic for. Whilst Cameron is politely ignored around the EU, situations outside of his control in Greece etc could dramatically alter the balance of the EU. With all this going on UKIP are as relevant today as on May 6th in stopping consensus politics preventing debate on the EU and asking difficult questions.

[anonymous-user]

4v6 said:

Greg66 said:

4v6 said:

Still no answers

Yes there was. It is a misconceived question based on a false premise. Which is not surprising, as you seem both incapable of and unwilling to enter into anything resembling a sensible discussion about anything EU-related.

Where was the answer printed in case I missed it Gregory?

You call it misconceived, thats because you cant answer it, there is NO good reason britain cant and and should not run its own affairs, after all its the democratically elected representatives jobs to do just that, not some unelected, unaccountable officious individuals ( In a borg collective?) to wield the rod of power.

You want a sensible discussion, try starting off by answering my bloody question.

The penny's just dropped. You're the nihilist/anarchist who wants to abolish money, aren't you? So really you're the sort of person who will always push hard against the status quo, whether it is the EU, a British Govt outside the EU, or anything else, until you have your own personal nirvana imposed on everyone else.

Think I will bow out of this discussion now. It's not going anywhere I'm interested in going.

[MGJohn]

Andrew Neil is being given an education by Farage on Sunday Politics BBC1 right now. Cameron's most recent failure falling at the first fence on the long renegotiation track. Many more obstacles to re"negotiate" all with the same result as NF has predicted many times in the past. Fat chance of that satisfactory renegotiation ever happening. Dave C has two and a half years to "stitch up" the IN-OUT referendum and failing miserably at this first and subsequent fences will no doubt help his overt and covert IN agenda no end.

The questions posed by suggest Neil doesn't understand the scale of the situation or is he just being BBC PC? Although, of all the BBC media luvvies, he does usually come across as less PC-Riddled than many of his other BBC luvvy colleagues. Not just those with a severe lefty bent.

[MGJohn]

brenflys777 said:

However since the election I've been unimpressed with UKIPs internal direction and lack of focus, but UKIP remains significant because of events in the EU and at home. On top of that 4 million direct support, we know there is significant opposition to the EU within the conservative and Labour votes, but both parties are campaigning to remain in the EU and won't explain what changes the EU must make to reform. There are lots of voters who don't support UKIP, don't want them in power or even think they are racist... but they are the only party campaigning and speaking out to leave.

The situation in Greece, the migration problems in the Med and Hungary are all things that UKIP have confronted and opposition have labelled them racist or xenophobic for. Whilst Cameron is politely ignored around the EU, situations outside of his control in Greece etc could dramatically alter the balance of the EU. With all this going on UKIP are as relevant today as on May 6th in stopping consensus politics preventing debate on the EU and asking difficult questions.

This is how I now see the scenario. Even if Farage were to now disappear completely from the Political Scene, he has served a very useful purpose by alerting many to the various, many, continuing and increasingly negative effects of our membership of the so called European Union.

For that I for one thank Farage.

It's now all down to Dave C and his team to address these ever more important matters... effectively to the benefit of the nation as a whole, not just a slim "I'm alright Jack" segment thereof with huge influence within the Tory Party. As Mr. R. Zimmerman once wrote, money doesn't talk... It SHOUTS!

[dirk01]

Guam said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, lots of bannees return under new guises.

And it is pure coincidence of course that he whines about someone being binned for remarks he wouldn't have read at the time in a thread he had no history on and over a poster he can't possivly know or care about
Just utter coincidence

Where the hell did I whine about anyone being binned or all the rest of the tripe you just asserted?

Having read the last few pages its not exactly friendly in here is it.
I appreciate that the accusations being made about me are small beer compared to what I have just been reading about other people, but still seems more than a little unwelcoming to a newbie

[grantone]

Strawman said:

In every which way and all possible meanings of the term. No to immigration, no to membership of the EU, no to climate change emission regulation etc. etc.
Meanwhile if you don't want to take part in global or continent wide agreements what can you offer the world that they can't get from some other country that wants to be a team player? Jack is the answer.

I think you misunderstand just how interesting the UK is to the rest of the world. We have a unique position in the world being halfway between Asia and America, it makes us ideally positioned for trade. That is what London is, a global trading hub. There are alternatives, Paris, or Luxembourg, etc... but they are not quite as attractive as London for reasons I don't really understand, but possibly language, culture and business conditions all play their part.

We also have world class companies, including manufacturers (Nissan Sunderland is more productive than all those German car plants). Foreign direct investment in the UK is because we're a large productive country, not just because we're part of the EU. Our trading relationship with the rest of the EU is unlikely to change significantly even if we leave because there's no benefit for the EU to change it, Germany is practical, not vindictive. We have momentum and history behind us as well, we have great relationships with most countries round the world in no small part due to our (not welcome at the time) colonial history.

The UK has a lot to offer and leaving the EU does not exclude us from being a team player, you're using emotion to counter logic, because for a lot of people the logical arguments for staying in the current format of the EU do not stack up. Emotion about being a team player, averting war and portraying limiting unskilled immigration as 'uncaring' do not alter the fundamental logical problems with the EU. My two major fundamental logical problems with the EU are:

1/ The rest of the EU currently uses or are compelled to use the Euro, currency union without political union doesn't work (see Greece), so the rest of the EU will have to become politically closer. As the UK does not, is not compelled to use and is unlikely to use the Euro, we need a different political position to better suit our currency.

2/ The wealth of the UK is in it's people, we have no particularly special mineral or agricultural wealth to fall back on. Therefore for the continued relative wealth of the UK, our people need to continue to be more highly skilled than average. Uncontrolled unskilled immigration could bring the average of the country down, so would logically weaken our relative wealth.

I am not a UKIP supporter, but I do think their position on continued UK membership of the EU is correct.

[AJS-]

What is it though, that you think Cameron wants or will try to extract?

Freedom of Movement is off the agenda as this would require treaty change.

UK law not being subject to EU law would defy the whole point of European Union and would require actually ripping up the treaties.

If we could opt out of CFP and CAP this would be worthwhile but I so far haven't seen any discussion of this. Nor do I think it likely that other members would allow this.

Welfare reform is largely a domestic issue and to the best of my knowledge Spain already has a contributory welfare system where you can't claim state assistance until you have contributed for a period of time (2 years I think?). Getting permission from the EU to do this would hardly constitute a major victory in my book for a large, wealthy and notionally democratic country.

So what is he even asking for? What can he credibly promise to the public if we stay in, when there is little appetite for treaty change and no prospect of Cameron recommending an Out vote?

Yes we are major contributors but short of leaving altogether we have no real levers of influence over the shape of the EU, and the so called negotiations are a sham.

[Mojocvh]

Scuffers said:

Greg66 said:

Scuffers outed himself as a racist earlier in this volume . Nothing new there.

oh do FO

To try and paint me as racist is quite simply laughable.

(just watching Sunday Politics, and the parallels to your stance are striking - ie people denying ISIS is not a problem of Islam etc.)

Yes saw that along with the NO YOU'RE WRONG shouty talkover attitude from the coloured <gentleman> in the discussion.

It's like we're wrong to deduce that the teaching of ISLAM can be configured to brainwash human beings to commit such atrocities on others of their own faith, let alone "kaffirs"...