Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the Euro had been set up properly Grease, Portugal, Spain, Italy and probably Ireland would never have been allowed to join and the current problems would not be happening. I am not against a single currency for Europe but the way the current Euro was set up was totally wrong and, as such, I was opposed to both Britain joining and the currency being set up at all. I just thank god the Uncle Gordon did at least one thing right and kept us out. Maybe if Britain had had more commitment and therefore a bigger say in its implementation, it would have been set up correctly. However, even with us not being in the Euro Zone, and so having little say in how it works, we will still be very seriously affected by its possible failure. If we were to leave the EU (European Union) we would still be affected by any bad decisions that it made, as with the Euro, but have absolutely no say in making those decisions. Surely that's not in Britain's interests. If the EU fails, surely we will be much harder hit if we remain part of a failing economy than if we are out of it? I know from previous threads that you think we are better off being in than out. Why? Surely we are better off trying to tie ourselves economically to the real power broker, the US, and/or the growing markets like India and China? I see little benefit in trying to tie ourselves to either China or India and I'm pretty sure that allowing free movement of labour between Britain and either India or China would raise far more concerns by far more people than the current free movement of labour in the EU. As far as closer ties with the North America and/or the Antipodes (Oz and NZ); short of becoming the 51st state of the Union, I'm totally in favour of that. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, I'm fact I see them as part of the same move towards truly free trade in the parts of the world that are truly free. Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you? And we already have those sort off agreements with many other countries through the WTO so what extra are you suggesting? Better ones than currently exist between those countries and the EU! That's a little vague, could you possibly give an example of some of these better arrangements?" No as I don't have the power or authority to have access to all the trade tariffs and agreements that we have with EU and non EU countries, just as you won't " So basically what you’re saying is that we should tear up the trade agreements we have with the EU and that you have no idea what current arrangements we have with India, China, the US or anywhere but that some other agreement with them, which you also have no idea about, would be better. If that’s not what you’re saying then please clarify exactly what you are saying. " Can you give evidence that trading terms are better for EU states trading with China, India and the US compared with non EU states?? " There are many things that affect trade between nations it’s not really possible to do a direct comparison between states within the EU and states outside of the EU in relation to other states and also not really relevant. What is relevant is the total amount of trade a state does. So lets take UK exports as an example. 51% of exports go to the EU. 13% of exports go to the US. To keep things simple we’ll call that a 4 to 1 in favour of the EU If, as a result of tearing up our EU agreements our trade with the EU dropped by 25% then these new trade agreements we might have with the US would have to increase trade with the US by 100% just to keep our total exports the same. You could argue that some of that loss might be made up by increased trade with other parts of the world using these new and better agreements (which you still have not told us how they would be better than the current ones) but we’d have to negotiate each one of these new deals individually with each country in world. That’s simple economics but real peoples jobs, homes and wealth your putting in the line. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are UKIP other policies other than immigration and europe. I do agree with his views on immigration and that's not me being racist. But there's no more room at the inn I feel. I lived in Hereford for three years and there's more Polish and Portuguese than Herefordians. The thing that pissed me off more than anything was that my ex couldn't get a council place and had to go private. Had to apply for houses thru a newspaper and there's say local connection required (my ex is Hereford born) but when she did Avon and went around the council houses area, mostly foreigners. And now I see Merthyr going the same way. I think enough is enough " Whilst I'm definitely in favour of our continued membership of the EU that does not mean that I think everything about the EU is perfect. I think most people would accept that reform is badly needed, especially in the area of provision of state benefits and services to EU citizens who are not UK citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"zzzzzzzzzzzzz anyone want to fuck my throat??? "OK, you talked me into it. LOL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. " Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. " It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. " It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ " Surely what you really want is one world government! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. " Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play. At the end of the day its about the UK taking back control of its borders (which David Cameron said he was going to do). Cameron has had an epic fail on that one, as you can't control your borders and remain inside the EU. The 2 things just don't go together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ Surely what you really want is one world government!" The EU didn't FORCE free movement of labour on us. That was part of the deal we voted in in the 1970s and had been a basic benefit of community members since 1957. "Voicing concern" doesn't mean much, does it?. After all people in the uk voice concern about the right wing views of certain parties but it doesn't mean that they'll change those views does it? Voicing concern is a healthy thing to happen in a democracy. It doesn't follow that anything should change because some people voice concern. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play. At the end of the day its about the UK taking back control of its borders (which David Cameron said he was going to do). Cameron has had an epic fail on that one, as you can't control your borders and remain inside the EU. The 2 things just don't go together. " Didn't the uk retain control of its borders by staying outside the Schengen Agreement? What do the uk immigration authorities do if they don't protect the borders? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ Surely what you really want is one world government! The EU didn't FORCE free movement of labour on us. That was part of the deal we voted in in the 1970s and had been a basic benefit of community members since 1957. "Voicing concern" doesn't mean much, does it?. After all people in the uk voice concern about the right wing views of certain parties but it doesn't mean that they'll change those views does it? Voicing concern is a healthy thing to happen in a democracy. It doesn't follow that anything should change because some people voice concern." . Actually it was Margret Thatcher in 1985 ish that voted through the treaty allowing freedom of movement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play. At the end of the day its about the UK taking back control of its borders (which David Cameron said he was going to do). Cameron has had an epic fail on that one, as you can't control your borders and remain inside the EU. The 2 things just don't go together. Didn't the uk retain control of its borders by staying outside the Schengen Agreement? What do the uk immigration authorities do if they don't protect the borders?" . They protect the borders from non eu citizens or illegal activity from both | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are UKIP other policies other than immigration and europe. " Here are those policies in full, as published by Private Eye: 1.Smoking to be allowed in pubs. 2.Waxed jackets to be made mandatory. 3.Chaps not obliged to help with the washing up. 4.VAT on beards. 5.Massive investment in golf club construction. 6.Driving gloves to be worn in cars at all times. 7.Bring back Robertson's Golly on marmalade jars. 8.Police permitted to give young offenders a clip round the ear. 9.Black and white TV to return. 10.Johnny foreigner to get marching orders .... whoops. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons?" . Because without control of your population it's impossible to plan infrastructure. Hence the reason for massive cues at schools, hospitals, housing, electrical generation etc etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are UKIP other policies other than immigration and europe. Here are those policies in full, as published by Private Eye: 1.Smoking to be allowed in pubs. 2.Waxed jackets to be made mandatory. 3.Chaps not obliged to help with the washing up. 4.VAT on beards. 5.Massive investment in golf club construction. 6.Driving gloves to be worn in cars at all times. 7.Bring back Robertson's Golly on marmalade jars. 8.Police permitted to give young offenders a clip round the ear. 9.Black and white TV to return. 10.Johnny foreigner to get marching orders .... whoops. ". Best policies I've seen in years... They've got my vote  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons?" The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons?. Because without control of your population it's impossible to plan infrastructure. Hence the reason for massive cues at schools, hospitals, housing, electrical generation etc etc." And these things have nothing to do with the massive cuts each of those sectors have received? With people living longer and more families deciding to have more children, the population is going to grow massively anyway. What happens when all the immigrants have gone but the population still rises? Do we start sterilising people or will it be ok, because their parents and their parents parents were born here?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"zzzzzzzzzzzzz anyone want to fuck my throat??? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA " agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons?. Because without control of your population it's impossible to plan infrastructure. Hence the reason for massive cues at schools, hospitals, housing, electrical generation etc etc. And these things have nothing to do with the massive cuts each of those sectors have received? With people living longer and more families deciding to have more children, the population is going to grow massively anyway. What happens when all the immigrants have gone but the population still rises? Do we start sterilising people or will it be ok, because their parents and their parents parents were born here? ". Actually our population was decreasing, in fact nearly every country that's industrialised decreases, yes cutting back on infrastructure when population is increasing just accentuates the problem but the problem would still be there. The fact of the matter is without knowing exact numbers on how many will be here in 2025 you can't plan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... " most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play. At the end of the day its about the UK taking back control of its borders (which David Cameron said he was going to do). Cameron has had an epic fail on that one, as you can't control your borders and remain inside the EU. The 2 things just don't go together. Didn't the uk retain control of its borders by staying outside the Schengen Agreement? What do the uk immigration authorities do if they don't protect the borders?. They protect the borders from non eu citizens or illegal activity from both" You are correct. We police are own borders but, currently, we can not stop immigration from the EU, although we can control how much of are state benefits non UK citizens are entitled to claim. We just have to decide to do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism." not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh.." . Their working on picture boards for it as we speak | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh... Their working on picture boards for it as we speak "and crayons..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh.." They don't hide their view that they believe the current immigration system is racist as it penalises anyone from outside the eu. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh.. They don't hide their view that they believe the current immigration system is racist as it penalises anyone from outside the eu. " again i dont think that they are getting their message across to a lot of the one's who will vote for them and are only interested in shutting the doors on everyone, regardless of skill or place of origin.. i know of 3 people who are voting for them in May, 2 are borderline bnp all 3 seem to think ukip are only or should only be about ending any more none Brits coming in.. when you ask them about other 'policies' or areas there seems to be a who cares as long as we keep 'them' out.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
had enough of the others, need a change, fed up with pussies bowing to others at least they've got a pair,,,,,,we need fresh blood, we are slowly withering away, losing our identity,,,,,it's nearly always been labour or conservative, back and forth, they are all the same really,,,,,one government makes a cock up, the others get in, then they make a cock up, round and round we go,,,,,,,,I like BMX, rad, x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UKIP = Simple politics for simple people " thats very judgmental,,,,,,,please explain why you are right and they are wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are people against immigration? I can only think it is because they don't like people who are different. Or are there some bad economic reasons? The UK has always been a nation of immigrants, celt roman Viking Anglo Saxon Norman Jamaican Indian, I wonder what % of the population has no 'foreign' DNA agreed but would add that as some of those were or are largely caucasion then that's probably the issue with some... most eastern Europeans are Caucasian, in fact ukip want to cut the number of Caucasians but increase the number of Asians.. Not sure how that fits in with the racism. not sure if thats been conveyed to their core vote tbh.. They don't hide their view that they believe the current immigration system is racist as it penalises anyone from outside the eu. "
You are spot on there, and anyone who takes any time to check out UKIP would see UKIP are pro commonwealth and anti EU. So again not quite sure how being pro-commonwealth fits in with the racist accusation that keeps being thrown at UKIP?
The current immigration system is unfair to those outside of the EU. We have an Nhs is crisis, well then lets get more Indian doctors into GP's surgeries and hospitals and have fewer unskilled labourers from eastern europe coming in. This is basic common sense but Basic common sense seems to have gone out the window. Lets get the people in whose skills we need most, and if there is an oversupply of a particular skill, then don't let them in, manage the numbers right and plan for future infrastructure right (Cameron can't do this because he is committed to cutting the net immigration figure so he has to let all the EU migrants in and then he over-compensates by cutting more immigration from outside of the EU, to bring the net total figure down). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are spot on there, and anyone who takes any time to check out UKIP would see UKIP are pro commonwealth and anti EU. So again not quite sure how being pro-commonwealth fits in with the racist accusation that keeps being thrown at UKIP? T" Pro commonwealth? All that says is that they're keen to hold on to the remnants of Britain's Colonial past. The UKIP racist accusation keeps popping up because every other week a 'ukipper' says something totally archaic. Like the lady who appears in the 'Meet the UKippers' tv show who is adamant she isn't racist...she just doesn't like 'the negroes'
Not to mention UKip's willingness to buddy up with far right European parties.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are spot on there, and anyone who takes any time to check out UKIP would see UKIP are pro commonwealth and anti EU. So again not quite sure how being pro-commonwealth fits in with the racist accusation that keeps being thrown at UKIP? T Pro commonwealth? All that says is that they're keen to hold on to the remnants of Britain's Colonial past. The UKIP racist accusation keeps popping up because every other week a 'ukipper' says something totally archaic. Like the lady who appears in the 'Meet the UKippers' tv show who is adamant she isn't racist...she just doesn't like 'the negroes'
Not to mention UKip's willingness to buddy up with far right European parties.
"See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are spot on there, and anyone who takes any time to check out UKIP would see UKIP are pro commonwealth and anti EU. So again not quite sure how being pro-commonwealth fits in with the racist accusation that keeps being thrown at UKIP? T Pro commonwealth? All that says is that they're keen to hold on to the remnants of Britain's Colonial past. The UKIP racist accusation keeps popping up because every other week a 'ukipper' says something totally archaic. Like the lady who appears in the 'Meet the UKippers' tv show who is adamant she isn't racist...she just doesn't like 'the negroes'
Not to mention UKip's willingness to buddy up with far right European parties.
See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol.
Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us.
The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs!
And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean?
"Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so what if we opt out of Europe what they gonna do impose trade sanctions ?? Germany are still gonna sell there cars here arnt they. I see some scaremongering occurring and frankly trying to align ukip with far right movements well both the tories and labour parties tried to tar ukip with that brush out of fear of losing votes.. and failed miserabley, Then theres the view for some bizzare reason that we simply have to be in Europe ??? WHY ? Iceland told Brussels where to get of and have thrived ever since they left the unelected undemocratic European union. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? " The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are UKIP other policies other than immigration and europe. I do agree with his views on immigration and that's not me being racist. But there's no more room at the inn I feel. I lived in Hereford for three years and there's more Polish and Portuguese than Herefordians. The thing that pissed me off more than anything was that my ex couldn't get a council place and had to go private. Had to apply for houses thru a newspaper and there's say local connection required (my ex is Hereford born) but when she did Avon and went around the council houses area, mostly foreigners. And now I see Merthyr going the same way. I think enough is enough " No one wants to live in Merthyr Tydfil. Just saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ Surely what you really want is one world government! The EU didn't FORCE free movement of labour on us. That was part of the deal we voted in in the 1970s and had been a basic benefit of community members since 1957. "Voicing concern" doesn't mean much, does it?. After all people in the uk voice concern about the right wing views of certain parties but it doesn't mean that they'll change those views does it? Voicing concern is a healthy thing to happen in a democracy. It doesn't follow that anything should change because some people voice concern.. Actually it was Margret Thatcher in 1985 ish that voted through the treaty allowing freedom of movement." Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play. At the end of the day its about the UK taking back control of its borders (which David Cameron said he was going to do). Cameron has had an epic fail on that one, as you can't control your borders and remain inside the EU. The 2 things just don't go together. " Thus is like the England football team was better before foreigners in League argument and I stillvdon't recall the England team being close to winning anything before for quite a while now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if some are going to brand anybody that considers voting ukip are racist may I suggest they kindly put there dummies back in and go stand in the playground. If ukip are racist then I guess so to must be the tories as ukip is made up of mostly ex disillusioned tory mps who have had enough of being told what to do by...ile say it again unelected undemocratic bunch of eurocrats "They way I read this thread, no-one is branding everyone who considers voting for UKIP as racist. Was your point that UKIP candidates are racist because they used to be racist tories? That's not really true is it? Though some seem to be failed tory MPs looking for somewhere to jump ship. Who would you say are the unelected undemocratic eurocrats that have been telling Tory MPs what to do? I must admit I thought of the House of Lords when I read that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeeessss...loads of tories are racists, that's correct. One positive thing for the Tories about the Uskips is that it is actually forcing them into being a more modern party, as all their reactionary xenophobes are leaving to join a bunch of fellow thinkers where a 1950s bigot worldview is more acceptable. last I heard tories riffkind and labours jack straw had both been suspended for cash for questions note ...not ukip members ..with regards labour well eds just had the brainwave to bring back john Prescott as the brain box on making friends with foreign business sounds to me more ludicrous than making tony blair the middle east peace envoy
You have to feel sorry for Farage, you really do. Trying to keep a lid on his party's crazies must be like playing a game of whack-a-mole in extreme turbo mode." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's only a matter of time before someone notices we haven't won the world cup since we joined the Common Market. Faceless bureaucrats have nobbled our soccer players." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are spot on there, and anyone who takes any time to check out UKIP would see UKIP are pro commonwealth and anti EU. So again not quite sure how being pro-commonwealth fits in with the racist accusation that keeps being thrown at UKIP? T Pro commonwealth? All that says is that they're keen to hold on to the remnants of Britain's Colonial past. The UKIP racist accusation keeps popping up because every other week a 'ukipper' says something totally archaic. Like the lady who appears in the 'Meet the UKippers' tv show who is adamant she isn't racist...she just doesn't like 'the negroes'
Not to mention UKip's willingness to buddy up with far right European parties.
See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol.
"Or maybe they've looked at the facts and decided that UKIP's simplistic, popularist policies offer no real solutions for Britain. " Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. " You keep on going on about strengthening our ties with these commonwealth countries and trading more with them. How is this going to he done? We already have trade agreements with most of the commonwealth, are you suggesting that we renegotiate all of these as well? How could they be improved? The only way they could allow more free trade is if the commonwealth bad reverted back to an empire or became something looking like an English Speaking Union with similar rules and set up to the current EU. It is only with a level playing field and agreed common rules that you can have real free trade. As an example, the US, Oz and the EU all banned British Beef in the 80's because of the Mad Cow scare. The scare is now over and British Beef is now the safest in the world. Unfortunately, because of the vested interests of beef producers abroad, non of the countries that had banned British Beef wanted to remove their bans. Because France and Germany and the UK are part of the EU Britain was able to take France and Germany to the European Court of justice and force them to remove their bans. No such institution exists to rule on the bans in the US or Oz and their bans still exists. This is just one example of how being part of a legally binding free trade block ensures fair trade. There are similar problems with almost all other non EU countries that ban British cheese, British Chocolate, British Cars and numerous other British goods from being traded freely around the world As for the rest of this thread topic regarding the stupid comments made by some UKIP supporters. That's UKIP's problem but if UKIP want to throw dirt against the other main parties they should not he surprised that it gets thrown back at them. " The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By Centaur_UK Who mentioned free movement of labour between China, India and Britain? I didn't. You did You can have trade agreements and economic ties without free labour movement, can't you?" Plenty of people from other countries get on very well with applying for work permits or visas. Do they? Have you ever tried applying for a work permit in either the US or Oz? I have and, except in special cases, it’s almost impossible to get one. It worked well before the EU was even thought of, so we don't need the free movement of people rules that the EU has forced on us. Even at the heart of the EU, Germany's population is now voicing concerns about the free movement of people within the EU. It seems to be doomed to failure. It didn’t work well at all. There was practical no movement of peoples across Europe or the EU area. It was almost impossible for British people to live or work in Europe and the maximum amount of money you could take out of Britain when you left was £25. If you retired to anywhere in Europe your state pension was frozen at the cash level it was on the date you left. I personally would not call that ‘working well’ Surely what you really want is one world government! The EU didn't FORCE free movement of labour on us. That was part of the deal we voted in in the 1970s and had been a basic benefit of community members since 1957. "Voicing concern" doesn't mean much, does it?. After all people in the uk voice concern about the right wing views of certain parties but it doesn't mean that they'll change those views does it? Voicing concern is a healthy thing to happen in a democracy. It doesn't follow that anything should change because some people voice concern.. Actually it was Margret Thatcher in 1985 ish that voted through the treaty allowing freedom of movement. Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. " . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too." Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. " . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it "Because I generally respect a lot of what you say, even if I don't always agree with it or like the way you say it, I'm going to ask you what exactly you mean by 'decent European countries'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Because I generally respect a lot of what you say, even if I don't always agree with it or like the way you say it, I'm going to ask you what exactly you mean by 'decent European countries'?". You know what I mean. The first world ones, OK take a line from biarritz slice across to you meet Switzerland follow it up the German border and up through Sweden. I don't include Italy because it's mostly been a fascist state since it's birth or Finland before of its problems with Russia. OK those European states in a union... No problem whatsoever, there I said it look at me the racist.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? " Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it "Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum. "Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people. And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber! "Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber! "I really don't think you can compare EU expansion, done by diplomatic persuasion and sovereign government consent and desire, with the armed anexing of another countries territory. Frankly, to do so makes you look a little ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum. "Teaming up with paedophiles is definitely a bad thing for a political party. Not excusing it in any way but I think you have to go back to 1985 to find the events behind that. Meanwhile, thanks to the wonders of google, you can find dozens of UK politicians from all parties accused of child sex crimes far more recently. So to be fair we ought to go on about UKIPs association with pedos too. Oh and labour, the tories, the lib dems and the greens and many more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there ". What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more."Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies. As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it. UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Teaming up with paedophiles is definitely a bad thing for a political party. Not excusing it in any way but I think you have to go back to 1985 to find the events behind that. Meanwhile, thanks to the wonders of google, you can find dozens of UK politicians from all parties accused of child sex crimes far more recently. So to be fair we ought to go on about UKIPs association with pedos too. Oh and labour, the tories, the lib dems and the greens and many more.". I'd like to point out that's not the UK green party... It least not anyone I know from it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb."And China holds about 7% of US debt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt". That's why they've been building gold stocks for 5 years. It's a hedge on the dollar collapse, neither of these countries are keen on the dollar being the defacto world currency because of us manipulation of it. It's a tricky one because China don't want the Yuan or the rouble to be it either. What there pushing for is an independent world currency probably something along the lines of IMF credits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
"This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis. Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
"Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
"As I said close to the top of this thread, we already have trade agreements with the US and most of the Commonwealth. How does UKIP propose we change these to increase the amount of trade we do with them. Keep in mind that a separate re negotiated trade agreement would be required for each country. 51% of our exports currently go to the EU The next biggest is the US at 13%. As the next biggest trading partner we have after the EU I guess we would put our efferts first into making these new trade arrangements, what ever they may be, with them first. They better be good because for every 1% in trade we might loose to the EU we would have to increase our trade with the US by 4% just to keep our total exports at the same level. However, currently, we can not even get the US to allow British Beef to be sold freely So I ask you again, what changes is UKIP proposing to our trade agreements with countries outside the EU that will lead to this increase in trade with them? As for the EU party alliances, whilst standing by what I said about pragmatism and principles, I personally feel that the whole issues is a bit of a red hearing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago. "It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago. "Because, hopefully, most of those Tories have gone, with their uninformed ideas and beliefs, to UKIP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt". As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush. Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status. Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!"I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?"Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!
I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies.". Ohh ukip bollocks... Nobody's going to convince nobody of anything... That's the fucking problem with politics, people stick with their party regardless of any facts or racism. Your better off discussing more interesting shit with me .
Besides ukip aren't getting in ever and everybody knows it... Even farage  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!
I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies..
Ohh ukip bollocks... Nobody's going to convince nobody of anything... That's the fucking problem with politics, people stick with their party regardless of any facts or racism.
Your better off discussing more interesting shit with me .
Besides ukip aren't getting in ever and everybody knows it... Even farage "The point of discussion is not to convince the convinced but to draw them out, explain themselves and convince the unconvinced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?
Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol. "Yep and one of the reasons it's respected is because it links into international systems like the ECHR and isn't scared of having its fairness reviewed against international standards. It sounds like you are scared of that - is that because you fear that future pronouncements from UKIP are going to lead to things that would be considered breaches of human rights? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!
I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies..
Ohh ukip bollocks... Nobody's going to convince nobody of anything... That's the fucking problem with politics, people stick with their party regardless of any facts or racism.
Your better off discussing more interesting shit with me .
Besides ukip aren't getting in ever and everybody knows it... Even farage
The point of discussion is not to convince the convinced but to draw them out, explain themselves and convince the unconvinced.
"Totally agree, i'm hoping a few unconvinced people will be convinced to vote UKIP from this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?
Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol.
Yep and one of the reasons it's respected is because it links into international systems like the ECHR and isn't scared of having its fairness reviewed against international standards. It sounds like you are scared of that - is that because you fear that future pronouncements from UKIP are going to lead to things that would be considered breaches of human rights?
"No because unlike you i have faith in our British courts to remain fair, just and respected outside of the confines of the EU. Quite frankly when you compare our British law system to tin pot dictatorships you just make yourself look daft. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all." Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!
I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies..
Ohh ukip bollocks... Nobody's going to convince nobody of anything... That's the fucking problem with politics, people stick with their party regardless of any facts or racism.
Your better off discussing more interesting shit with me .
Besides ukip aren't getting in ever and everybody knows it... Even farage
The point of discussion is not to convince the convinced but to draw them out, explain themselves and convince the unconvinced.
Totally agree, i'm hoping a few unconvinced people will be convinced to vote UKIP from this thread. "I know you are but if you want to succeed in convincing them then put forward the argument, answer the rebutals and steer away from the mud slinging, you've already got those who believe that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. " But what will be different about these agreements that will make them better. You're still being very vague about what they will be. Sleep on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nope. Thatcher was involved in widening the original terms of the treaty of Rome (in the single european treaty in the 80s) to allow the free movement of people, which is a wider freedom. The free movement of labour was a fundamental principle of the treaty of Rome in 1957 and was one of the benefits raised in the referendum in 1975. . They were two completely different things, one was to allow a foreign company to bring it's labour force to an EU country should it win a contract. Thatcher signed the treaty that allowed people to just up sticks and go to another country without having a job to go too. Partially right, they are two separate things but freedom of movement of labour was there from the beginning. It was in Article 3 of the 1957 treaty of Rome (I've cut out loads of stuff just to get the gist): "For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein.... (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;" It applied within the community countries and allowed individuals to move around for the purposes of work - it didn't have to be corporate thing. Of course no one in Britain complained about it in 1975 because the UK was the poor man of Europe at that time - I don't remember the existing community members complaining about cheap British labour coming in to steal their jobs. . I liked the EU when it was just decent European countries. The age old adage of expansionism ruined it
Seems the EU is still wanting to expand more, Ukraine will be next, and they call Putin a land grabber!
Strangely enough I almost agree with you here, except it's the US, NATO and the EU who've put their noses in where they shouldn't have. I think your normal bias against the EU overstates their influence but there's still something odd going on there .
What's going on is from my reckoning.... Russia for a few years has been slowly ditching us bonds and buying gold and signing trading agreements with China to end the dollar as the defacto world currency, and the us is countering this totally unimaginable horrific dilemma with forcing Russia back under the thumb.
And China holds about 7% of US debt.
As a bonus do you remember the axis of evil states as declared by George bush.
Iran Iraq Libya north Korea Venezuela Syria.... Funnily enough these countries made an attempt to end the dollar defacto status.
Iraq(Saddam)actually swapped to selling their oil in Euros because he just hated the yanks, even though they lost money on the deal... The audacity of the man, but after the euro went up they actually made more money than selling it in dollars and Libya and Venezuela and Iran said they would do the same chaching...of course a year later Iraq was laid waste and Saddam hanged like a dog, and the others slowly slipped back to selling in dollars, they learned the lesson that nobody but nobody should suggest selling oil in anything but dollars!
I was actually aware of all of that and nearly replied to your post to bring it up but decided not to because I want to keep this thread on the subject of UKIP and it's policies..
Ohh ukip bollocks... Nobody's going to convince nobody of anything... That's the fucking problem with politics, people stick with their party regardless of any facts or racism.
Your better off discussing more interesting shit with me .
Besides ukip aren't getting in ever and everybody knows it... Even farage
The point of discussion is not to convince the convinced but to draw them out, explain themselves and convince the unconvinced.
Totally agree, i'm hoping a few unconvinced people will be convinced to vote UKIP from this thread.
I know you are but if you want to succeed in convincing them then put forward the argument, answer the rebutals and steer away from the mud slinging, you've already got those who believe that."Whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, i usually sling mud after someone else has slung some first. If people can't take it then they should'nt dish it out in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?
Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol.
Yep and one of the reasons it's respected is because it links into international systems like the ECHR and isn't scared of having its fairness reviewed against international standards. It sounds like you are scared of that - is that because you fear that future pronouncements from UKIP are going to lead to things that would be considered breaches of human rights?
No because unlike you i have faith in our British courts to remain fair, just and respected outside of the confines of the EU. Quite frankly when you compare our British law system to tin pot dictatorships you just make yourself look daft. "Ah well, when you get to the stage of making personal insults you've clearly lost your cause. Again. I'm proud of being British and of the way British institutions work, especially with the ECHR. UK courts would be working perfectly if there were never any referrals to the ECHR. That's clearly not the case because there are cases going there. But none to do with undermining the government and terrorism, which was your original point. It's not the courts that fear the ECHR, it's the government when it doesn't obey its own laws. Oh and you and UKIP - and I can't for the life of me think why that bunch of chancers would be afraid of independent scrutiny . Anyway you can sleep safely knowing that the UK laws on human rights are pretty much an exact copy of the European laws and are keeping you warm and safe tonight. Good night.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. But what will be different about these agreements that will make them better. You're still being very vague about what they will be. Sleep on it." Seeing as the earliest possible date we could leave the EU is looking like 2017 then it would depend on the world economic situation/set up at the time, i can't tell the future any more than you can. But surely it would apply that if we leave the EU we can cut business red tape and current EU bureaucracy constraints on businesses, which could possibly make us even more attractive to attract business than we already are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?
Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol.
Yep and one of the reasons it's respected is because it links into international systems like the ECHR and isn't scared of having its fairness reviewed against international standards. It sounds like you are scared of that - is that because you fear that future pronouncements from UKIP are going to lead to things that would be considered breaches of human rights?
No because unlike you i have faith in our British courts to remain fair, just and respected outside of the confines of the EU. Quite frankly when you compare our British law system to tin pot dictatorships you just make yourself look daft.
Ah well, when you get to the stage of making personal insults you've clearly lost your cause. Again. I'm proud of being British and of the way British institutions work, especially with the ECHR. UK courts would be working perfectly if there were never any referrals to the ECHR. That's clearly not the case because there are cases going there. But none to do with undermining the government and terrorism, which was your original point. It's not the courts that fear the ECHR, it's the government when it doesn't obey its own laws. Oh and you and UKIP - and I can't for the life of me think why that bunch of chancers would be afraid of independent scrutiny . Anyway you can sleep safely knowing that the UK laws on human rights are pretty much an exact copy of the European laws and are keeping you warm and safe tonight. Good night.
"You've never insulted anyone on a thread have you, the wealdstone raider incident from a few days ago ring any bells? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Seeing as the earliest possible date we could leave the EU is looking like 2017 then it would depend on the world economic situation/set up at the time, i can't tell the future any more than you can. But surely it would apply that if we leave the EU we can cut business red tape and current EU bureaucracy constraints on businesses, which could possibly make us even more attractive to attract business than we already are. " What EU ted tape is that?, what super new trade deals are going to materialize that aren't in place already?, do you earnestly think any previously commonwealth countries have the cash to support this massive increase in trade that's going to come out of thin air? And as for the British justice system...Birmingham 6/Guildford 4?, how about Charles Clarke and 28 days? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. " Is that another piece of ukip brilliance? Replace a faceless eurocrat with... A faceless bureaucrat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" See you have swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker, lol. Colonial past you say, or could it be that we could strengthen ties with these commonwealth countries and trade more with them, which would be equally beneficial to them and us. The lady on meet the UKippers tv show is no longer a UKipper, she was expelled from the party for what she said. I see UKIP taking action when someone is out of order, unlike Labour and Tory MP's who seem to get away with accepting cash bribes and tax evasion and fiddling their expenses but still keep their jobs! And what do you call buddying up with other parties in the EU? Maybe is a coalition or alliance like the one the green party formed called the "european greens - european free alliance group" which had links to paedophile groups in europe you mean? The trouble is, UKIP are forced into taking action every other week. If they're not a party for racists/xenophobes, they really do attract a lot of them. And is saying 'Well the greens teamed up with pedos' really a good argument for UKIP forming an alliance with an openly racist far right group? Point i was making is lots of parties in the EU parliament in Brussels have to form uneasy alliances with other less respectable parties they would rather not deal with but sometimes have to out of necessity, to form groups and coalitions in order to gain extra funding from the EU (They need a set number of parties or members in a group to gain the extra funding). I just gave the green party teaming up with some pedos, as one such example, and people are free to google it if they don't believe it. Then again if people don't like the way the EU works they can always vote to leave when we have a referendum.
Being pragmatic is one thing, ditching your principles just to get a bit of extra cash from the tax payer is another. The fact that both UKIP and the Greens are willing to this says a lot about what those parties are really in existence for, and it's not the good of the people.
And you still haven't told us what UKIP proposes to do increase trade and ties with the Commonwealth countries you claim we will trade with more.
Thought it would be fairly obvious, if we leave the EU and some EU countries get the hump over it , they may not want to trade with us as much as before, then we switch those trades to the commonwealth. Its a win win situation because we can leave the EU, save money on the extortionate EU membership fees, take back control of our borders, take back full sovereignty of our country, deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR, and no threat of a financial transaction tax being put on the city of London which the EU has said it wants to do. Truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, the euro currency is going down the pan its time to get out and re-establish our old traditional links with the commonwealth, not to mention new trade deals with USA, China, Brazil and other up and coming economies.
As for the alliances and groups that are formed in the EU parliament, Labour and the tories have been in with undesirables in the past aswel so its not just the greens and UKIP. All of them are at it.
UKIP do have principles and have drawn the line at forming any kind of group with Frances Front National, Farage has gone on record to say he will never make any deal with them.
This "deport and extradite foreign criminals and terrorists without being challenged and undermined by the ECHR" was raked over on here a few days ago. Can you actually find a case where that happened and the government was 'undermined'? There have been cases where the government was breaking its own rules e.g. forcing a man to return to Jordan where it was accepted he may be tortured - an extradition that UK law doesn't allow - and of course he was acquitted in two trials when he eventually was sent there. Or the guy who got sent to the US and was convicted who I if I remember rightly the ECHR said it didn't need to be involved in? The last time I saw this raised it was a whinge about people appealing to Article 8 of the convention on human rights ( family life) and I went through all the logged court records for the last 5 years and couldn't find a single case where the ECHR got involved in a terrorism case on that basis.
Basically things tend to get to the ECHR when the UK government cocks up and doesn't follow its own laws. The ECHR seems pretty good at throwing out trivial or wrong cases.
Well if everything is hunky dory and going swimmingly with the ECHR then i suppose you better ask the tories why many of them wanted out of the ECHR a few months ago.
It's jumping on a bandwagon. They love to join in a little feeding frenzy that takes attention away from their own weakness. The fact is that if UK law holds up to scrutiny by the ECHR then it is far stronger law. Who wants our country to be compared to some of the tin pot dictatorships who have no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and dare not put there processes up to international scrutiny?
Glad to see you have so much faith in our own domestic British system of law (Not), which is one of the most respected, fairest and best law systems in the world. You sound just like Nick Clegg on the televised EU debates, lol.
Yep and one of the reasons it's respected is because it links into international systems like the ECHR and isn't scared of having its fairness reviewed against international standards. It sounds like you are scared of that - is that because you fear that future pronouncements from UKIP are going to lead to things that would be considered breaches of human rights?
No because unlike you i have faith in our British courts to remain fair, just and respected outside of the confines of the EU. Quite frankly when you compare our British law system to tin pot dictatorships you just make yourself look daft.
Ah well, when you get to the stage of making personal insults you've clearly lost your cause. Again. I'm proud of being British and of the way British institutions work, especially with the ECHR. UK courts would be working perfectly if there were never any referrals to the ECHR. That's clearly not the case because there are cases going there. But none to do with undermining the government and terrorism, which was your original point. It's not the courts that fear the ECHR, it's the government when it doesn't obey its own laws. Oh and you and UKIP - and I can't for the life of me think why that bunch of chancers would be afraid of independent scrutiny . Anyway you can sleep safely knowing that the UK laws on human rights are pretty much an exact copy of the European laws and are keeping you warm and safe tonight. Good night.
You've never insulted anyone on a thread have you, the wealdstone raider incident from a few days ago ring any bells? "When are you going to answer any of the questions you've been asked with the truth instead of spoon fed propaganda from central office? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. But what will be different about these agreements that will make them better. You're still being very vague about what they will be. Sleep on it. Seeing as the earliest possible date we could leave the EU is looking like 2017 then it would depend on the world economic situation/set up at the time, i can't tell the future any more than you can. But surely it would apply that if we leave the EU we can cut business red tape and current EU bureaucracy constraints on businesses, which could possibly make us even more attractive to attract business than we already are. " I really think you should have taken my advice and slept on it first. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's pointless asking a Uskipper to talk about UKIP policies, because the truth is they don't know what they are. But they can't be entirely blamed for that. Simply google 'UKIP manifesto', and click on the first result. That will take you to the points of the UKIP manifesto that the party feels is worth advertising. Upon reading it, you'll see it's the sort of thing that a fourteen year old young conservative would have thought up, if they thought they were living in 1950. Back of a fag packet barely begins to describe it!" . You miss the point completely. Most people who will vote ukip are doing so out of dissatisfaction with the remaining parties. Lots of talk about bad ukip policies but I notice less answers on how to fix the current crop of shit we've been lumbered with for 40 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's pointless asking a Uskipper to talk about UKIP policies, because the truth is they don't know what they are. But they can't be entirely blamed for that. Simply google 'UKIP manifesto', and click on the first result. That will take you to the points of the UKIP manifesto that the party feels is worth advertising. Upon reading it, you'll see it's the sort of thing that a fourteen year old young conservative would have thought up, if they thought they were living in 1950. Back of a fag packet barely begins to describe it!. You miss the point completely. Most people who will vote ukip are doing so out of dissatisfaction with the remaining parties. Lots of talk about bad ukip policies but I notice less answers on how to fix the current crop of shit we've been lumbered with for 40 years?" Maybe that's because not every one thinks we've been lumbered with a 'crop of shit' for the last 40 years I think most people, when they really stop and think about it, would find that things have got a lot better since 1974/75. That's not say there are not problems have to be addressed but over all, under both Labour and Conservative, things have got steadily better from about 1979. It's only really since 2008 that things have got worse. Hopefully that will change as the world economy picks up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's pointless asking a Uskipper to talk about UKIP policies, because the truth is they don't know what they are. But they can't be entirely blamed for that. Simply google 'UKIP manifesto', and click on the first result. That will take you to the points of the UKIP manifesto that the party feels is worth advertising. Upon reading it, you'll see it's the sort of thing that a fourteen year old young conservative would have thought up, if they thought they were living in 1950. Back of a fag packet barely begins to describe it!. You miss the point completely. Most people who will vote ukip are doing so out of dissatisfaction with the remaining parties. Lots of talk about bad ukip policies but I notice less answers on how to fix the current crop of shit we've been lumbered with for 40 years? Maybe that's because not every one thinks we've been lumbered with a 'crop of shit' for the last 40 years I think most people, when they really stop and think about it, would find that things have got a lot better since 1974/75. That's not say there are not problems have to be addressed but over all, under both Labour and Conservative, things have got steadily better from about 1979. It's only really since 2008 that things have got worse. Hopefully that will change as the world economy picks up." . Things have got better through technological breakthroughs not through great politics. You'll be lucky if there's a handful of decent honest politicians in every parliament and the number gets reduced with every election | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's pointless asking a Uskipper to talk about UKIP policies, because the truth is they don't know what they are. But they can't be entirely blamed for that. Simply google 'UKIP manifesto', and click on the first result. That will take you to the points of the UKIP manifesto that the party feels is worth advertising. Upon reading it, you'll see it's the sort of thing that a fourteen year old young conservative would have thought up, if they thought they were living in 1950. Back of a fag packet barely begins to describe it!" ^^^^^^^this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party "Yet but you've gott'a love Pressy. Respect for a guy who has the nerve to thump someone for pelting him with an egg. LOL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. " I think they could probably be a lot worse. But, hey, who cares, a bit of Euro bashing and nothing realistic to say about anything, go for it. " Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well time for bed. I wonder if Centaur will have explained by tomorrow morning what new agreements or arrangements UKIP is proposing to dramatically increase trade with the rest of the world that don't currently exist or if he'll just duck the issue again. Night night all. Did'nt duck the issue, i already answered several posts up. As i said upon leaving the EU, we can make new trade deals with countries all over the world, not just the EU. And i think a British representative making trade deals on our behalf will get a much better deal than some faceless eurocrat making any trade deal on our behalf as currently happens while we are in the EU. "How can I argue with a sexy arse like yours. LOL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party
Yet but you've gott'a love Pressy. Respect for a guy who has the nerve to thump someone for pelting him with an egg. LOL"On the contrary he should have been charged with assault like everybody else would have been but hes Teflon isn't he hes the guy that was in charge of the council tax then got found out he wasn't even paying his own | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. I think they could probably be a lot worse. But, hey, who cares, a bit of Euro bashing and nothing realistic to say about anything, go for it. Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party "ah well vote tory and futher osterity on the smoke screen of a false economy or labour who last time near enough bankrupted the country and joked about it. To which both tories and labour love the euro union a union that to date stands unelected and therefore undemocratic is that realistic enough for ya | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play.. " Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play.. Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football " They don't have to be international players so you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Luciano Becchio is argentinian and as far as i know never played for argentina, (certainly not in the last 2 years). He's played for Leeds utd and left leeds to go to Norwich city. (I even just checked him out on wiki, says nothing of any international caps for argentina). Even if it is the top 70 countries like you say, i think you'll find that equates to a lot of countries and a hell of a lot of foreign players. We do have a lot of foreign players in our leagues. And even if the UK does have some of the most strict work permit rules in world football, many players still seem able to get one in a matter of days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. I think they could probably be a lot worse. But, hey, who cares, a bit of Euro bashing and nothing realistic to say about anything, go for it. Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party
ah well vote tory and futher osterity on the smoke screen of a false economy or labour who last time near enough bankrupted the country and joked about it. To which both tories and labour love the euro union a union that to date stands unelected and therefore undemocratic is that realistic enough for ya "So let's get this right - you object to the high spending Labour philosophy and you object to Conservative austerity? So exactly where do you think UKIP are going to pitch in? I will give you a clue and this is a direct quote from Neil Hamilton. "David Cameron would have you believe that severe cuts have been made but I can tell you that much more difficult decisions still need to be made." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play.. Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football " The FA website says exactly what you say... "Currently, the work permit requirement for players without an EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not talking about the US or Oz, thought this was a debate about Britain? Just look at the amount of foreign players in our football leagues now as an example, many come from outside of the EU, and they get work permits or visas, sometimes sorted out within a matter of days if the clubs are desperate for them to play.. Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football The FA website says exactly what you say... "Currently, the work permit requirement for players without an EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. "" Luciano Becchio must be here illegally then or falsified his work permit forms? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. I think they could probably be a lot worse. But, hey, who cares, a bit of Euro bashing and nothing realistic to say about anything, go for it. Both Ed and dave are eurobots I see eds great plan is to bring back john prescot as er a diplomat to er attracting foreign business ??? Taking this into account I think labour should rename there party the raving looney party
ah well vote tory and futher osterity on the smoke screen of a false economy or labour who last time near enough bankrupted the country and joked about it. To which both tories and labour love the euro union a union that to date stands unelected and therefore undemocratic is that realistic enough for ya
So let's get this right - you object to the high spending Labour philosophy and you object to Conservative austerity?
So exactly where do you think UKIP are going to pitch in?
I will give you a clue and this is a direct quote from Neil Hamilton. "David Cameron would have you believe that severe cuts have been made but I can tell you that much more difficult decisions still need to be made.""nar not at all ditch the difficult decisions along with the tory party and there false economy. Labour well they simply got Ed Milliband representing them so enough said really. Personally ide vote for anybody other than tories or labour er except the moster raving liberal party | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football The FA website says exactly what you say... "Currently, the work permit requirement for players without an EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Luciano Becchio must be here illegally then or falsified his work permit forms? " He has an Italian passport.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. " that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Dear Mr centaur...... If you are going to use football as an example to make a point then at least have an iota of an idea as to what you are talking about To get a work permit to play to England you need be an international player from a country ranked in the top 70 of the Fifa world rankings AND have played in at least 75% of their international games played within the last 2 years The uk actually has the most strict work permit rules in world football The FA website says exactly what you say... "Currently, the work permit requirement for players without an EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Luciano Becchio must be here illegally then or falsified his work permit forms? He has an Italian passport...." Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? " Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU. "so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair.. just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
"Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU. "No worries - glad I've cleared that up for you. The same rule does allow Brits to play in Italy too... Some call it a perk of being in such a relationship. I'm not big on nationalism so am not massively bothered about such matters. Fairness is important...so I'd give a chance to the Argentinian fella too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone. "its fair for the members of the 'club' being the EU, its not a restriction of trade to those outside the club its just a higher threshold.. whats not fair about that.. surely as a ukipper you dont want an open door policy.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.." yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time "whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone.
its fair for the members of the 'club' being the EU, its not a restriction of trade to those outside the club its just a higher threshold..
whats not fair about that..
surely as a ukipper you dont want an open door policy..
"You are right i don't want an open door policy, but i believe in fairness and the same rules should apply to all. Leave the EU and have an australian style points based immigration system, where people who want to come here have to apply for work permits or visas. It works well for australia. If the FA rules state that foreign players must be international players, then that rule should apply to everyone, and as Becchio has never played at international level for Italy or Argentina, the FA rules suggest he should not be allowed to play here (but he gets around it because he has a EU passport). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone. "Would that include Scottish and Irish players to? But the point is you said that getting work permits was easy and quoted football as an example. It's now been shown to you that it's not. Forget the football, it's not really relevant, and move on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone.
its fair for the members of the 'club' being the EU, its not a restriction of trade to those outside the club its just a higher threshold..
whats not fair about that..
surely as a ukipper you dont want an open door policy..
You are right i don't want an open door policy, but i believe in fairness and the same rules should apply to all. Leave the EU and have an australian style points based immigration system, where people who want to come here have to apply for work permits or visas. It works well for australia.
If the FA rules state that foreign players must be international players, then that rule should apply to everyone, and as Becchio has never played at international level for Italy or Argentina, the FA rules suggest he should not be allowed to play here (but he gets around it because he has a EU passport). "How well would it work for 2.5 million plus British people living and working in the EU? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone.
Would that include Scottish and Irish players to?
But the point is you said that getting work permits was easy and quoted football as an example. It's now been shown to you that it's not. Forget the football, it's not really relevant, and move on."Where has it been shown that its not easy? I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone.
its fair for the members of the 'club' being the EU, its not a restriction of trade to those outside the club its just a higher threshold..
whats not fair about that..
surely as a ukipper you dont want an open door policy..
You are right i don't want an open door policy, but i believe in fairness and the same rules should apply to all. Leave the EU and have an australian style points based immigration system, where people who want to come here have to apply for work permits or visas. It works well for australia.
If the FA rules state that foreign players must be international players, then that rule should apply to everyone, and as Becchio has never played at international level for Italy or Argentina, the FA rules suggest he should not be allowed to play here (but he gets around it because he has a EU passport).
How well would it work for 2.5 million plus British people living and working in the EU?"That would be a matter for other EU countries to decide upon if we left the EU. They have their own immigration policies so i expect it would be different for each individual EU country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Pretty sure he has not played for Italy at international level either, again nothing on wiki about him having any international caps for Italy? Him being an Italian citizen enables him to apply for an EU passport which in turn allows him to ply his trade across Europe... I've emboldened the bit quoted earlier: "Currently, the work permit requirement for players WITHOUT AN EU passport is that they have to be an international from a country ranked within Fifa’s top 70 and have played 75 per cent of their country’s international matches in the last two years. " Well thankyou for highlighting the unfairness of our immigration system then.
Becchio gets to play here because he has an italian passport, (even though he's never played at international level), while and argentian player on the same footing as him would'nt be allowed to come here. As i have said before on this thread common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to the EU.
so how would you suggest the 'unfair system' is made fair..
just allow anyone in or limit those within the EU from plying their chosen trade within the EU..?
Surely when it comes to fairness the same rules should apply to everyone.
Would that include Scottish and Irish players to?
But the point is you said that getting work permits was easy and quoted football as an example. It's now been shown to you that it's not. Forget the football, it's not really relevant, and move on.
Where has it been shown that its not easy?
"Just above, where people have stated the FA rules and how difficult it actually is. " I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means. " Thanks for making your position clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate." Those are the FA rules not UKIP's. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
"It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers. When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath. Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted). So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour. Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are. One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's. "So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?"No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them. "So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League. Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish. Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
"not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them. "Just trying to find out the UKIP line from you, which seems to be the FA's faceless bureaucrats should make immigration policy. Let me help you out a bit, though I know you won't thank me. The FA has to follow the law of the land. They, in the instance described have to apply for a tier 2 work permit which has the following conditions: You can apply for a Tier 2 (Sportsperson) visa if all of the following apply: you’re an elite sportsperson or qualified coach recognised by your sport’s governing body as internationally established at the highest level your sport’s governing body is endorsing your application your employment will develop your sport in the UK at the highest level you’re from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland you meet the other eligibility requirements. It's not the FA's rules, it's the rule of law in the UK. The rules that help protect our borders. It's not difficult to look up facts on government sources. Fair application of these rules does not include making British people apply for work permits in Britain. Of course that's because they are in the EU. It would be daft to make UK citizens apply for a work permit to work in the UK. But then again, very little if any of the stuff that UKIP bangs on about has been thought through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start."As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it "I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum? How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum? How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves? " I'm really confused... For most ukippers, the main selling of the party is a referendum on Europe... If that's not Farage's intention..what is..?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol. "Ok. I'll give you Dalgleish on that one but Best played for Man United before he played for N.Ireland so he would not have been allowed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum? How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves? I'm really confused... For most ukippers, the main selling of the party is a referendum on Europe... If that's not Farage's intention..what is..??" UKIP policy is to take the UK out of the EU. No discussion, no referendum, just out. Plane and simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol. "George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
Just trying to find out the UKIP line from you, which seems to be the FA's faceless bureaucrats should make immigration policy.
Let me help you out a bit, though I know you won't thank me. The FA has to follow the law of the land. They, in the instance described have to apply for a tier 2 work permit which has the following conditions:
You can apply for a Tier 2 (Sportsperson) visa if all of the following apply:
you’re an elite sportsperson or qualified coach recognised by your sport’s governing body as internationally established at the highest level
your sport’s governing body is endorsing your application
your employment will develop your sport in the UK at the highest level
you’re from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland
you meet the other eligibility requirements.
It's not the FA's rules, it's the rule of law in the UK. The rules that help protect our borders.
It's not difficult to look up facts on government sources. Fair application of these rules does not include making British people apply for work permits in Britain. Of course that's because they are in the EU.
It would be daft to make UK citizens apply for a work permit to work in the UK. But then again, very little if any of the stuff that UKIP bangs on about has been thought through."See now you are moving the goalposts about as my reply was in direct response to you when you quoted me from earlier in the thread in which Fabio specifically stated the FA's rules on foreign/international players coming to play in the English leagues (the FA is an English body so Scotland and Northern Ireland would fall outside of it). Of course these FA rules on foreign players would only apply to foreign professional football players, not everyone in the country as you seem to be suggesting, lol. The FA's rules have been pointed out earlier in the thread(go back and read Fabios post). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game."George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok. "But he would not have been allowed to join Man United at 15 because he was Irish | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum? How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves? I'm really confused... For most ukippers, the main selling of the party is a referendum on Europe... If that's not Farage's intention..what is..?? UKIP policy is to take the UK out of the EU. No discussion, no referendum, just out. Plane and simple." Yes you are right but that would only happen if UKIP got a majority government in the commons. Most UKIP supporters are sensible enough to realise that will not happen so next best thing is possibility of a coalition with someone after the election and an EU in/out referendum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok. "Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
But he would not have been allowed to join Man United at 15 because he was Irish"Correct, but eligible after representing his country. These are the FA's rules not UKIPs, so if the UK left the EU, surely they FA's own rules would then have to apply to everyone fairly and equally. Clearly we are going round in circles here, you have your view on it and i have mine, neither of us are going to change each others minds, lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game. George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok. "Just about... I don't think Best or NI qualified for any major tournament during the 60s or 70s... No Di Canio or Arteta either... Good trivia question is that: how many top players failed to be capped or played for countries not ranked in the top 70 odd? Answers on a postcard lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes."Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes."For the gazillionth time it would not apply to all citizens, it would only apply to professional football players, good grief.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it
I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum?
How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves? "eh ay wot ??? ukip haven't mentioned a referendum as ime sure yr fully aware. There as you say a 1 policy party. which as u know is to get out of the European union. But still that one policy is enough to get my vote Why am I so anti eu u may ask. The answer is simple. There a bunch of faceless unelected people and on that very fabric therefore undemocratic.
Who the hell are they to tell an independent governed country such as Greece when and when they cant hold there own elections ?
In a way the current elected greek government cud b for all intents and purposes the greek ukip party, I don't for a min expect ukip to gain power in May but just say they did ...they cud go the same way as the current greek government which at present is finding it harder than first thought at actually unclasping the greedy grasping hands of Brussels. But at leat there willing to give it a go unlike labour and the tories.
In terms of trade and business how is it good business for us to stay in the euro I aint gonna google the figures but for say every million we give them we get back a quarter if that from them ..hows that good business ?
The only country ime aware of to date that actually have shown Brussels the finger is Iceland and since raising there middle finger to them have flourished in everyway.
to me the only countries that benefit from being in the euro are the germans and the French. Why should are taxes be raised just to fatten some faceless blokes wallet in Brussels why should we have to subsidise French farmers and Spanish fisherman ??
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol "Another red herring with nothing at all to do with this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
But he would not have been allowed to join Man United at 15 because he was Irish
Correct, but eligible after representing his country. These are the FA's rules not UKIPs, so if the UK left the EU, surely they FA's own rules would then have to apply to everyone fairly and equally. Clearly we are going round in circles here, you have your view on it and i have mine, neither of us are going to change each others minds, lol. "I'm not trying to change your opinion, just trying to get you to state it clearly so other can judge for themselves. You seem to have done that quite well I think | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it
I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum?
How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves?
eh ay wot ???
ukip haven't mentioned a referendum as ime sure yr fully aware. There as you say a 1 policy party. which as u know is to get out of the European union.
But still that one policy is enough to get my vote Why am I so anti eu u may ask. The answer is simple. There a bunch of faceless unelected people and on that very fabric therefore undemocratic.
Who the hell are they to tell an independent governed country such as Greece when and when they cant hold there own elections ?
In a way the current elected greek government cud b for all intents and purposes the greek ukip party, I don't for a min expect ukip to gain power in May but just say they did ...they cud go the same way as the current greek government which at present is finding it harder than first thought at actually unclasping the greedy grasping hands of Brussels. But at leat there willing to give it a go unlike labour and the tories.
In terms of trade and business how is it good business for us to stay in the euro I aint gonna google the figures but for say every million we give them we get back a quarter if that from them ..hows that good business ?
The only country ime aware of to date that actually have shown Brussels the finger is Iceland and since raising there middle finger to them have flourished in everyway.
to me the only countries that benefit from being in the euro are the germans and the French. Why should are taxes be raised just to fatten some faceless blokes wallet in Brussels why should we have to subsidise French farmers and Spanish fisherman ??
"Where do you get your information from? 1) how do you think UKIP got a voice in Europe without elected representation? What is it about European elections that you don't understand? 2) have you ever actually looked at what the effects of Iceland "giving the finger" (as you call it) to the Erozone has had on Iceland? Fat from thriving as you refer - their currency is Royally fucked. There is no point in repeating something you heard in the pub without verifying the facts beforehand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol
Another red herring with nothing at all to do with this."err, you were the one who mentioned UK citizens and what gets them flocking to the ballot box. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it
I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum?
How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves?
eh ay wot ???
ukip haven't mentioned a referendum as ime sure yr fully aware. There as you say a 1 policy party. which as u know is to get out of the European union.
But still that one policy is enough to get my vote Why am I so anti eu u may ask. The answer is simple. There a bunch of faceless unelected people and on that very fabric therefore undemocratic.
Who the hell are they to tell an independent governed country such as Greece when and when they cant hold there own elections ?
In a way the current elected greek government cud b for all intents and purposes the greek ukip party, I don't for a min expect ukip to gain power in May but just say they did ...they cud go the same way as the current greek government which at present is finding it harder than first thought at actually unclasping the greedy grasping hands of Brussels. But at leat there willing to give it a go unlike labour and the tories.
In terms of trade and business how is it good business for us to stay in the euro I aint gonna google the figures but for say every million we give them we get back a quarter if that from them ..hows that good business ?
The only country ime aware of to date that actually have shown Brussels the finger is Iceland and since raising there middle finger to them have flourished in everyway.
to me the only countries that benefit from being in the euro are the germans and the French. Why should are taxes be raised just to fatten some faceless blokes wallet in Brussels why should we have to subsidise French farmers and Spanish fisherman ??
Where do you get your information from?
1) how do you think UKIP got a voice in Europe without elected representation? What is it about European elections that you don't understand?
2) have you ever actually looked at what the effects of Iceland "giving the finger" (as you call it) to the Erozone has had on Iceland? Fat from thriving as you refer - their currency is Royally fucked. There is no point in repeating something you heard in the pub without verifying the facts beforehand."Maybe he was refering to the EU commision (which holds all the real power in the EU parliament) and is elected by secret ballot, by those in Brussels, i.e the EU commision is not directly elected by the european people and neither is the EU president. Why the secrecy and why the secret ballot? What have they got to hide? Surely you see why people view the EU with suspicion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wish you lot would... ...get to the last post!!" Fair point! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't care if ukip are this or that or have no policies they cant be any worse than the other 2 parties. that anyone would vote for any political party knowing and not caring that they have no policies is laughable.. is it beyond reason that by definition a party with no policies is about as much use as tits on a fish if they ever and they wont get their hands anywhere near power.. bit like saying my bmw is better than your audi and their toyota even though it has no wheels and the engine is seized.. yep ime pmsl here but hold on a min look at all the false manifesto promises from the main 2 parties over the year notably we will give u a referendum on Europe ...labour lied in there manifesto pledge and to add insult to injury dave milliband under brown signed us into the unelected eurocrats. Tories later came into power under Cameron and to date yep still no referendum on Europe. What really does make me pee meself Is both these parties treat us its electorate like the gullible fools we are even today there saying they will sort out immigration ....fact is since labour signed us into Europe we gave away our right to them to control and manage our own boders and immigration quotas. Yet still both these proven incompetent parties blabber on telling us they will sort out immigration. BTW ime sure yr aware that the majority of the electorate vote parties in not on there bullshit promise but because of the areas they live in and cos there dad granddad voted for a certain party all there life but hey ime happy knowing fuck all about fuck all def wont be voting for the main two and the final laugh is theres many many more like me totally disillusioned and fucked of with being lied to and treated like gullible fools time after time
whats even more 'funny' is that you can't even grasp that the same 'suits' in ukip are the same as the other 2 main parties..
I but what this simplest of minds can grasp ahead of yr superior intellect is at least farage gives a straight answer to a straight question ..unlike the other 2. just a thought but milliband and cameron look like he couldn't even tie his own shoe laces without a prepared script showing them how to do it
It seems that getting the simplest of facts right is difficult for some UKIP followers.
When Britain joined the Common Market, the government in power was conservative, not labour, and led by Ted Heath.
Three years later when Britain held a referendum about Common market membership the government was a minority labour government led by Harold Wilson. The referendum voted in favour of membership by 2 to 1 (naturally of those who voted).
So just for getting facts straight, the conservatives, not labour took us into the community. Labour held a referendum and the people voted massively in favour.
Of course all this moaning about referendums by UKIP supporters is another red herring - UKIP wouldn't even offer the people a vote on the issue and on that basis have no right whatsoever to complain about how referenda are run or what there outcomes are.
One of the most regrettable things about the words we've repeatedly heard from UKIP camp followers is there almost complete inability to get simple facts straight.
not on about the common market as you well know. ime on about the last labour government in power under Gordon brown signing us up to brussells by renegading on there manifesto promise of giving us a referendum. why o why are you trying to move the goalposts and change track ?? surely it couldn't be that somebody as dim witted as me is right and someone far superior in intellect such as yr good self is wrong that isn't yr lip I can see wobbleing s it
I'm sure you're highly intelligent, even if misguided and fooled by your own propaganda. That wobble always gives me away when I see a UKIP follower going on about referendums. What's the UKIP view on holding a referendum? If UKIP got into power would we have a referendum?
How can a group of people go on so much about others not having the right sort of referendum or not having one at all when they don't believe in having one themselves?
eh ay wot ???
ukip haven't mentioned a referendum as ime sure yr fully aware. There as you say a 1 policy party. which as u know is to get out of the European union.
But still that one policy is enough to get my vote Why am I so anti eu u may ask. The answer is simple. There a bunch of faceless unelected people and on that very fabric therefore undemocratic.
Who the hell are they to tell an independent governed country such as Greece when and when they cant hold there own elections ?
In a way the current elected greek government cud b for all intents and purposes the greek ukip party, I don't for a min expect ukip to gain power in May but just say they did ...they cud go the same way as the current greek government which at present is finding it harder than first thought at actually unclasping the greedy grasping hands of Brussels. But at leat there willing to give it a go unlike labour and the tories.
In terms of trade and business how is it good business for us to stay in the euro I aint gonna google the figures but for say every million we give them we get back a quarter if that from them ..hows that good business ?
The only country ime aware of to date that actually have shown Brussels the finger is Iceland and since raising there middle finger to them have flourished in everyway.
to me the only countries that benefit from being in the euro are the germans and the French. Why should are taxes be raised just to fatten some faceless blokes wallet in Brussels why should we have to subsidise French farmers and Spanish fisherman ??
Where do you get your information from?
1) how do you think UKIP got a voice in Europe without elected representation? What is it about European elections that you don't understand?
2) have you ever actually looked at what the effects of Iceland "giving the finger" (as you call it) to the Erozone has had on Iceland? Fat from thriving as you refer - their currency is Royally fucked. There is no point in repeating something you heard in the pub without verifying the facts beforehand.
Maybe he was refering to the EU commision (which holds all the real power in the EU parliament) and is elected by secret ballot, by those in Brussels, i.e the EU commision is not directly elected by the european people and neither is the EU president.
Why the secrecy and why the secret ballot?
What have they got to hide?
Surely you see why people view the EU with suspicion? "I do see why people view the EU with suspicion. I personally, and I think most people who are in favour of the EU will probably think the same, believe that the EU needs some serious reform but that's not what UKIP is suggesting. UKIP is suggesting that we leave the EU as it is and just leave. I personally don't think that's a good thing for either the UK or the EU | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
For the gazillionth time it would not apply to all citizens, it would only apply to professional football players, good grief. "I thought you wanted to treat everyone fairly and the same with some ridiculous interpretation of the law, but now it's only footballers? Make your mind up. Even if it's only footballers people will still think what a stupid interpretation of fairness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol
Another red herring with nothing at all to do with this.
err, you were the one who mentioned UK citizens and what gets them flocking to the ballot box."So you think that the referendum they had shouldn't count? After all you guys aren't too strong on referenda are you? It's a red herring because it's got nothing at all to do with UKIP, which is what this thread is about. Of course the SNP will be really impressed by your plans for discriminatory treatment of scottish footballers in Britain. After all you start with them, they must wonder and who's next for some arbitrary and discriminatory labour law? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you get your information from? 1) how do you think UKIP got a voice in Europe without elected representation? What is it about European elections that you don't understand? 2) have you ever actually looked at what the effects of Iceland "giving the finger" (as you call it) to the Erozone has had on Iceland? Fat from thriving as you refer - their currency is Royally fucked. There is no point in repeating something you heard in the pub without verifying the facts beforehand. Maybe he was refering to the EU commision (which holds all the real power in the EU parliament) and is elected by secret ballot, by those in Brussels, i.e the EU commision is not directly elected by the european people and neither is the EU president. Why the secrecy and why the secret ballot? What have they got to hide? Surely you see why people view the EU with suspicion? I do see why people view the EU with suspicion. I personally, and I think most people who are in favour of the EU will probably think the same, believe that the EU needs some serious reform but that's not what UKIP is suggesting. UKIP is suggesting that we leave the EU as it is and just leave. I personally don't think that's a good thing for either the UK or the EU" Ziggy, point noted and shortened the quote.
I agree i think it will be bad for the EU if Britain leaves, but disagree in that i think the UK is better off out of it. Britain may be the only hope of the EU reforming itself, but the truth is i think its too far gone now. At the very heart of the EU they are opposed to any kind of change or reform, the appointment of Jean Claude Junker proved it (he just wants more of the same old, same old EU). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol
Another red herring with nothing at all to do with this.
err, you were the one who mentioned UK citizens and what gets them flocking to the ballot box.
So you think that the referendum they had shouldn't count? After all you guys aren't too strong on referenda are you? It's a red herring because it's got nothing at all to do with UKIP, which is what this thread is about. Of course the SNP will be really impressed by your plans for discriminatory treatment of scottish footballers in Britain. After all you start with them, they must wonder and who's next for some arbitrary and discriminatory labour law?"Of course the Scottish referendum should count, no one ever said it should'nt on this thread so no idea where you plucked that from? And again, its not my plans or UKIP's, just an honest and fair interpretation of the Football associations rules in a situation where Britain should find itself outside of the EU. Suggest you take it up with the FA if you have a problem with their rules on transfers of foreign players. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I've said many times on this thread that foreign players (from outside the EU) get work permits/visas within days, so how hard can it really be? Some international players get signed on deadline day in the transfer window and are playing for the club within the week, so that suggests to me it can't be that hard. If people keep picking at points then i feel the need to respond to them so maybe they should leave it and move on? ....and yes in the interest of fairness (as the FA is an English body) it should apply to scottish and irish players aswel, thats what application of the same rules to everyone inherently means." So British people (e.g. the Scottish) would need a work permit to work in Britain? That should go down well with the electorate. Those are the FA rules not UKIP's.
So under a UKIP government the faceless bureaucrats of the FA would set immigration policy?
No, just that the Football associations rules on foreign players would be applied fairly and equally to everyone, thats all. If you have a problem with the Football association i suggest you take it up with them.
So under this 'fair' system players from other parts of the UK would not be allowed to play in the English and Welsh League.
Wonder what George Best would have thought about that not to mention Kevin Dalgleish.
Would this include Managers to. I think UKIP just last all the Man United vote for a start.
As George Best and Kenny Dalgleish played for Northern Ireland and Scotland at international level they could've applied for a work permit/visa like other foreign players. I'm sure they would've been granted one and been playing for Man utd and Liverpool within a week of filling in the forms, lol.
George Best might be in serious problems. One of the conditions is that the national team must have ranked at least 70th averaged over two years on FIFA rankings.Over the last 23 years NI has ranked 73rd on average. That's him out of the English game.
George Best never played in the last 23 years, he played in the 1960's and 70's as i recall.
I'm sure when he was playing they were ranked in the top 70 (hell he could beat entire teams on his own) so he would've been ok.
Sadly for that theory he could have been superman but it's the ranking of the national team that he played in that counts, not the superstar skills of one player. The bottom line is that it's complete nonsense to suggest that UK citizens should need a work permit to work in the UK. You did try to apply UKIP thinking fairly, but it doesn't work. Please let the electorate know that you want our citizens to get work permits to work here though. That should get them flocking to the ballot boxes.
Well the SNP want to break up the UK altogether and Scots seem to be flocking to vote for them in droves, lol
Another red herring with nothing at all to do with this.
err, you were the one who mentioned UK citizens and what gets them flocking to the ballot box.
So you think that the referendum they had shouldn't count? After all you guys aren't too strong on referenda are you? It's a red herring because it's got nothing at all to do with UKIP, which is what this thread is about. Of course the SNP will be really impressed by your plans for discriminatory treatment of scottish footballers in Britain. After all you start with them, they must wonder and who's next for some arbitrary and discriminatory labour law?
Of course the Scottish referendum should count, no one ever said it should'nt on this thread so no idea where you plucked that from?
And again, its not my plans or UKIP's, just an honest and fair interpretation of the Football associations rules in a situation where Britain should find itself outside of the EU. Suggest you take it up with the FA if you have a problem with their rules on transfers of foreign players. "If you recall it's you who has the problem. Equally I suggest you take it up with the Home Office who are the people who create and enforce those rules. The FA has to obey the law. The law doesn't discriminate against UK citizens inside Britain which is the silly conclusion you came up with. It's your attempt to justify the unjustifiable and keep on doing it when you get to ridiculous conclusions that is so daft. You can go and speak to the Home Office and sort it out as you're still confused about who runs immigration policy in the UK. It's certainly not the FA, which you seem to believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you get your information from? 1) how do you think UKIP got a voice in Europe without elected representation? What is it about European elections that you don't understand? 2) have you ever actually looked at what the effects of Iceland "giving the finger" (as you call it) to the Erozone has had on Iceland? Fat from thriving as you refer - their currency is Royally fucked. There is no point in repeating something you heard in the pub without verifying the facts beforehand. Maybe he was refering to the EU commision (which holds all the real power in the EU parliament) and is elected by secret ballot, by those in Brussels, i.e the EU commision is not directly elected by the european people and neither is the EU president. Why the secrecy and why the secret ballot? What have they got to hide? Surely you see why people view the EU with suspicion? I do see why people view the EU with suspicion. I personally, and I think most people who are in favour of the EU will probably think the same, believe that the EU needs some serious reform but that's not what UKIP is suggesting. UKIP is suggesting that we leave the EU as it is and just leave. I personally don't think that's a good thing for either the UK or the EU Ziggy, point noted and shortened the quote.
I agree i think it will be bad for the EU if Britain leaves, but disagree in that i think the UK is better off out of it. Britain may be the only hope of the EU reforming itself, but the truth is i think its too far gone now. At the very heart of the EU they are opposed to any kind of change or reform, the appointment of Jean Claude Junker proved it (he just wants more of the same old, same old EU). "What's bad for the EU, our single largest trading partner, is also bad for the UK. You may rub your hands with delight at an EU failing with or with out Britain in it but I winder if you will be quite so happy when you job disappears because of the world wide depression that would be caused by a complete failure of the EU. On Democracy; the reality is that the more democratic any institution is the more legitimacy it has. The more legitimacy an institution has the more sovereignty it tends to claim. Currently, with in the EU, final sovereignty lies with the National Parliaments not the EU Parliament or commision. You may dispute this but you actually know it's true because if final sovereignty lied with-in the EU then we simply would not be able to leave. Arguing for more Democracy in the EU, against the wishes of the National Governments, especially the British Government, is it to also argue for more sovereignty for the EU as one automatically follows the other. As UKIP is totally opposed to any sovereignty existing within the EU how can it also complain about it being not democratic enough. The EU is as democratic as the National Governments want it to be. No more and no less. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
