The red Kipper flies at midnight!*

*google it.

Quote:

---

There’s much chat today about how important these results are for Ukip. Is it the earthquake Nigel Farage promised? Well, how does one define an earthquake. Some are pointing out that Ukip’s likely share of the vote – 22 per cent – is actually slightly down on 2013. Maybe, but the local results and the European results on Sunday will provide Nigel Farage and his party with a real bridgehead for 2015, in all sorts of ways. First, the European polls on Sunday will give Nigel Farage a much larger team of full-time paid MEPs from whom he can pick a front-bench team to relieve him of some of the burden of being a “one-man band” – perhaps 24 or so. True, he had around a dozen MEPs before (the figure kept fluctuating), but this time the Ukip high command has put a lot more effort into quality-control and tried to exclude oddballs and eccentrics. We will see how successful that has been. Second, the likely result on Sunday will provide Ukip with lots more money from the European parliament, up to 100 paid staff in one form or another and a network of regional offices. In short, a much stronger campaign infrastrucure. Under the rules, these resources are meant to be devoted solely to the parliamentary activities of MEPs. Again we’ll see about that. Third, more and more people are getting into the habit of voting Ukip. It’s become a regular, respectable thing to do. So Ukip’s European election vote this weekend may not crumble so readily as it did after the Euro elections of 2004 and 2009. Fourth, Ukip have rapidly been building up detailed canvass records of who their supporters are. These, in turn, can be used not just to garner votes, but to raise funds and recruit new members. The party has declared that this summer it expects to overtake the Liberal Democrats in membership numbers. It would not surprise me. Fifth, Ukip’s successes will put a lot more pressure on us broadcasters to include the party even more in our political coverage, up to and beyond the election. And it makes it all the harder to exclude Nigel Farage entirely from leaders’ TV debates. Sixth, each election gives Ukip more campaign experience. For example, several of the newly elected Ukip councillors in Rotherham today told me it was only after experience of the 2012 by-election there that they understood the importance of organising postal votes. This time they were a lot more organised to getting supporters to apply for postal votes and use them. And I think it unlikely that Ukip will ever again organise a carnival quite as chaotic as that in Croydon this week. Finally, today’s local election results, added to the results from 2013, give Ukip a detailed ward-by-ward guide map as to where their support and strength lies, and therefore the parliamentary seats they should “throw the kitchen sink at” over the coming year. Great Yarmouth, for example, and Rotherham. It’s simple really. Success breeds success. - See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-cr....hUr2Y2qH.dpuf

---

I voted UKIP.There's a surprise eh.

Discuss......

Seems like people in England are starting to have seconds thoughts....

Or, knowing the English... First actual thoughts on the matter.

I think Farage has done a good job cleaning up the parties image. With the number of black and Asian candidates they ran, it's no longer possible to dismiss them with the race card. The way he publicly distanced UKIP from Le-Pen's FN was also a good move, I think in doing so he firmly established UKIP as a respectable libertarian party.

What's interesting about UKIP is that they can appeal to typical Labour and Tory supporters. While they split the right-wing vote in Croydon and elsewhere, they've also ruffled some Labour feathers up in their northern strongholds by taking a big chunk of their usual voting base. UKIP of course appeal to working-class voters who feel alienated by Labour's liberal-lefty take on immigration, but would never dream of voting Conservative because of their historic antipathy towards them.

As for what I personally think of them, I have mixed feelings. I like how they have shown some sympathy towards Christian values, and how they stand up for Britishness in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My main problem with them is their economic policies. I find certain welfare reforms by the Tories to be repulsive in the extreme (eg, enforced work placements at far below minimum wage), and would be scared that UKIP would continue down this path even further. I've only been on benefits for a couple of months worth in any given year (oh they joys of temp jobs), but still I feel I could never vote for UKIP for these reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

*google it.

I voted UKIP.There's a surprise eh.

Discuss......

---

They got you to vote?

Well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

At the very least they'll dissolve into the mainstream and bend your "right" wing further to the right, like the Tea Party has nearly finished doing here. At the most they have a lot more potential than that comparison suggests since european politics are more conducive to upstart parties and coalitions.

I don't really have too much of a political opinion on this one beyond academic curiosity.

---

UKIP is not all that right wing - Farage is a proud and unreconstructed Tory but his party is primarily Nationalistic rather than idealogical in the traditional sense. Where UKIP are befitting is through a combination of the protest vote that has abandoned the Lib Dems and through "small c" conservatives who view the Tories as toxic due to Thatcher.

It took the Green Party a couple of decades to convert a core vote into a single MP, Farage might do it next year, but he has to be very careful - he risks the prospect of having MP's in the Commons whilst not being there himself.

Quote:

---

but still I feel I could never vote for UKIP for these reasons.

---

The ONE and ONLY reason to vote UKIP is this.

Do you believe in a right to self determination? So that you want your vote to count?

or...

Do you prefer your way of life to be dictated to by an appointed bureaucrat with no powers to remove him.

RIP Tony Benn, I disagreed on everything he stood for except this....

Quote:

---

If one meets a powerful person ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

---

That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Do you believe in a right to self determination? So that you want your vote to count?
or...
Do you prefer your way of life to be dictated to by an appointed bureaucrat with no powers to remove him.

---

Is it UKIP's policy to eliminate the Civil Service now? :coffeenews:

The last thing the UK needs is a bunch of libertarians running the show.

What does this mean for Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What does this mean for Scotland

---

Nothing, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Is it UKIP's policy to eliminate the Civil Service now? :coffeenews:

---

& the Monarchy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

& the Monarchy?

---

I think it is more about wanting to tear up bilateral trade agreements with their own biggest exporter because some want to have one's cake and eat it too, then realise the irony when our partners can freely change regulations in discussions we are now not party to, nor can we longer opt-out, compromise or veto. We then have to grovel and have to follow said regulations regardless if we are to resume trade after our economic recovery plunges back into another depression.

I guess they think the solution would be gunboat diplomacy with the military equivalent of a little-boy with a pea-shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I think it is more about wanting to tear up bilateral trade agreements with their own biggest exporter because some want to have one's cake and eat it too, then realise the irony when our partners can freely change regulations in discussions we are now not party to, nor can we longer opt-out, compromise or veto. We then have to grovel and have to follow said regulations regardless if we are to resume trade after our economic recovery plunges back into another depression.

I guess they think the solution would be gunboat diplomacy with the military equivalent of a little-boy with a pea-shooter.

---

For that reason, UKIP are insane. I don't like many of the EU's foreign and social policies (they're a touch too interventionist for my taste). But, on the whole, and certainly in the most important areas, the EU is unbelievably integral to our well-being.

Funny: As a French living in UK, I can up-set a lot of UKIP followers just in agreeing with them when they say UK should never had joined the EU, UK is not European etc…
Normally, at the end of the conversation, comes the sentence “if you are not happy in UK you can go back to France” (or alternative “why are you here?”) to which I answer: “I can’t! I married an English woman!” And the most funny is the sympathetic nod of understanding I’ve got then…

Now, we see in the GB media the same thing I see in the French Media. UKIP didn’t win the election. Labour did in seats and Councils. But the media are going on and on with the UKIP.
Like the Front National in France, the UKIP is a tool for the two main parties to keep power. UKIP as the Front National is a useless party.
Their political platform can be summarised “anti-emigration”. Nor does Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farrage have a clue what to do in the unlucky event they get in power. They both support the system that destroyed the population and the jobs in both countries. They are both the Capitalist guard-dog, or the Dark Menace of the Lord Sith that will help the 2 main political streams (which have the same economic policy) to herd the voters not to vote for others parties that might advocate for other economical/political solution.

Let's recap the UKIP Earthquake:
UKIP: 157 seats
Labour: 1891 seats
Con: 1259 seats
LD: 404 seats.

So how much on Richter's scale?

Quote:

---

So how much on Richter's scale?

---

Momentum.

I'd vote for a party that supports UK self-determination by helping the UK leave the EU but I don't think we have such a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I think it is more about wanting to tear up bilateral trade agreements with their own biggest exporter because some want to have one's cake and eat it too, then realise the irony when our partners can freely change regulations in discussions we are now not party to, nor can we longer opt-out, compromise or veto. We then have to grovel and have to follow said regulations regardless if we are to resume trade after our economic recovery plunges back into another depression.

I guess they think the solution would be gunboat diplomacy with the military equivalent of a little-boy with a pea-shooter.

---

two problems with this:

1. No actual evidence being in the UK improves trade.

2. The issue is not the trade regulations, it's the social policies.

You're talking out of the side of your mouth, just the different side to the racists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

two problems with this:

1. No actual evidence being in the UK improves trade.

2. The issue is not the trade regulations, it's the social policies.

You're talking out of the side of your mouth, just the different side to the racists.

---

I presume you mean being in the EU improves trade. Whatever you mean, IIRC the EU bloc is by some distance the biggest trade partner the UK has, and certainly the biggest we'll have without contributing massively to carbon emissions. On that basis, we'll need to have trade agreements of some kind with other EU countries, whether we're part of it or not. If we're part of the EU, we get a say. If we're not, we'll need to have those trade agreements anyway, but they'll push the rest of the package along without us having any say whatsoever (compare with what John Major did at Maastricht). If we don't like social regulations, we can, and have, leave out some of it without losing our say in the rest of the package. If we're in the EU.

I prefer to have as little government in my life as possible. But I recognise there is need for it, and given a choice between big government and no government, big government wins out every time. Within a democracy, even in a representative one, I get to have some say should I care to do so. I prefer that to pretending to be out of it, but being affected by it anyway because I don't really live outside it. I respect those politicians who face this reality and don't try to dilute it for me. Whatever their failings, they face reality head on and try to cope with it as well as they can. I don't respect politicians who draw a divide between one or the other as though one of the choices is practical. It's not, and if they say so, they're either deluded and shouldn't be anywhere near anything that governs, or they're lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The last thing the UK needs is a bunch of libertarians running the show.

---

Couldn't disagree more. UKIP is just sane. The EU is deeply undemocratic, could also make a case for the EU being downright fascist.

Go UKIP, have one on me

Europian elections are an illusion of democracy. Everything has already been decided by unelected eurocrats. As Pat Condel nicely put it, sitting with a toy wheel in the backseat pretending you are actually driving. I am really glad with people like Nigel Farrage and his UKIP party. Geert Wilders is too stupid, he's not of any use. Farrage however is an abolute boss.

Needs a little edit, 25% of the Dutch simply wants to leave the EU, about 50% doesn't care, the amount of people actually want more Europe is pretty damn low. These are just numbers of course. But 'we' already made it very clear what we think of the EU a few years back. Democracy, such an inconfedience for eurocrats.

So aside from the usual ukip fight, what was this thread supposed to be about again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

So aside from the usual ukip fight, what was this thread supposed to be about again?

---

About you. Why wouldn't want to know why you did it, we want to understand your motivations.

She didn't deserve that if you ask me. If you had just punched her I could have understood, but this, geez. Who would do such a thing.

Quote:

---

Who would do such a thing.

---

Well your father did it at least once so it wasn't completly unprecidented

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Well your father did it at least once so it wasn't completly unprecidented

---

But she wasn't twelve, she had a whole life ahead of her, she wanted to become a ballerina. How could you do such a thing, all she wanted was to dance. And you ruined it.

Huh, kids growing up faster and faster these days. Although, I distinctly remember you being running around at the time, If I really did do it when your mother was twelve I think you need to have a talk with your father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Huh, kids growing up faster and faster these days. Although, I distinctly remember you being running around at the time, If I really did do it when your mother was twelve I think you need to have a talk with your father.

---

In psycholigy we call these things projection, it's an odd but fascinating mechanism, the human brain is equiped with remarkeble defense mechanisms. You might think my mother was twelve but she is 67.

Yo momma insults just fly over your head, dont they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I presume you mean being in the EU improves trade. Whatever you mean, IIRC the EU bloc is by some distance the biggest trade partner the UK has, and certainly the biggest we'll have without contributing massively to carbon emissions. On that basis, we'll need to have trade agreements of some kind with other EU countries, whether we're part of it or not. If we're part of the EU, we get a say. If we're not, we'll need to have those trade agreements anyway, but they'll push the rest of the package along without us having any say whatsoever (compare with what John Major did at Maastricht). If we don't like social regulations, we can, and have, leave out some of it without losing our say in the rest of the package. If we're in the EU.

---

Pretty much what I mentioned.

On another revolutionary step, I will say this. Having the European Union not be democratically accountable and invested as what some of the critics say, actually helps British nationalistic interest, because within the current system, being basically one of the 'big three' Britain has a vastly disappropriate influence within the European Trading bloc which is why France didn't want Britain to join in the beginning because of the dominance. It is why talks such as Merkel and Cameron at Downing Street are as high profile as they are.

So leaving the Union like some of the national sentiments want actually hinders and damages nationalistic self-interest compared to staying within the current status quo.

Admittedly, that does mean that me, who is wanting a more democratic and accountable EU is in a position of eroding Britain's nationalistic self-interest, but then, I am not a nationalist. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Pretty much what I mentioned.

On another revolutionary step, I will say this. Having the European Union not be democratically accountable and invested as what some of the critics say, actually helps British nationalistic interest, because within the current system, being basically one of the 'big three' Britain has a vastly disappropriate influence within the European Trading bloc which is why France didn't want Britain to join in the beginning because of the dominance. It is why talks such as Merkel and Cameron at Downing Street are as high profile as they are.

So leaving the Union like some of the national sentiments want actually hinders and damages nationalistic self-interest compared to staying within the current status quo.

Admittedly, that does mean that me, who is wanting a more democratic and accountable EU is in a position of eroding Britain's nationalistic self-interest, but then, I am not a nationalist. :shrug:

---

As the polar opposites of EU integration and UKIP continue saying their piece, my respect for the underrated John Major grows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

As the polar opposites of EU integration and UKIP continue saying their piece, my respect for the underrated John Major grows.

---

I agree their position is a middle-ground of self-interest which makes 'sense' and has logic behind it. I might not agree with it personally, but it is easier to understand than the naivety in some of the other positions.

I once called it the 'Furunculus Position', many years ago. Where you couldn't argue or fault the logic behind their position, you could only argue the ideology.

Always a good position to debate against. It really tests your own arguments to put forward convincing cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Yo momma insults just fly over your head, dont they.

---

That wasn't smart or funny. You leave me no other choice, I am going to call your mom and tell her you suck. I think she should know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyBr9RNx4k0


I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace

InfoWars.com :laugh4:

Sorry but that's deep looney fringe territory of the most alarmist kind.
We all know that Obama wants Britain to stay in the EU because that gives him more control over the EU and he gets all the data Britain collects about the citizens of other EU countries. It's just a US outpost on an island from where they can firebomb unruly EU countries if other ways of controlling them fail.

Alex Hones on the EU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-urAFSeJ-A

As a bonus, a little compilation from Alex Jones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRMz0kRhyfg

Quote:

---

Sorry but that's deep looney fringe territory of the most alarmist kind.

---

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

---

If British people are so awesome, why was it so easy to lie to them? Most of the video has this undertone of how awesome Britain would be if it weren't for the filthy foreigners and the politicians who conspired with them.

If there's any reason to think of Britain as awesome it's that we have a good track record of not letting extremists gain power. Even that might be gone in 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I presume you mean being in the EU improves trade. Whatever you mean, IIRC the EU bloc is by some distance the biggest trade partner the UK has, and certainly the biggest we'll have without contributing massively to carbon emissions. On that basis, we'll need to have trade agreements of some kind with other EU countries, whether we're part of it or not. If we're part of the EU, we get a say. If we're not, we'll need to have those trade agreements anyway, but they'll push the rest of the package along without us having any say whatsoever (compare with what John Major did at Maastricht). If we don't like social regulations, we can, and have, leave out some of it without losing our say in the rest of the package. If we're in the EU.

I prefer to have as little government in my life as possible. But I recognise there is need for it, and given a choice between big government and no government, big government wins out every time. Within a democracy, even in a representative one, I get to have some say should I care to do so. I prefer that to pretending to be out of it, but being affected by it anyway because I don't really live outside it. I respect those politicians who face this reality and don't try to dilute it for me. Whatever their failings, they face reality head on and try to cope with it as well as they can. I don't respect politicians who draw a divide between one or the other as though one of the choices is practical. It's not, and if they say so, they're either deluded and shouldn't be anywhere near anything that governs, or they're lying.

---

Yes, I did mean EU.

You're correct that it's better to be within a trading Bloc than without it, in principle, but the U is no longer primarily a trading Bloc - it is being developed into a Federal State.

That's not a bad thing, per se, but if you consider something like the EU Parliament, you have to consider that the people who elect the MEP's neither voted for the creation of the Body, nor did they vote on what powers it would have. The reason it was not put to a vote is that almost no one in any EU country would have voted in favour of more elected politicians.

This is the core problem of the "democratic deficit" within the EU, and it applies to all countries prior to the most recent enlargement - where the former Eastern Bloc actually DID decide to join an EU Super-State. Even then, however, in many cases this was not put to a referendum so far as I can see.

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

---

I am not being lied to, it is rather written there in black and white. Britain has its self-interest and flirts with EU pull-out in order to maintain an overlarge leverage over the other EU nations for its own political and economical benefit and has done this for at least 30 years.

Where is the memo saying this isn't what is occurring, even 'Big Brother' America told Britain off for messing around like this constantly as it impacts their own relations within the European community. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

---

Many Euro Sceptics argue that the EU is stifling trade overburdening companies with regulation and that by leaving, Britain will lead in a new golden age of economic prosperity where including where companies do not have to apply such regulations and argue such regularly. It is a bold-faced lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, I did mean EU.

You're correct that it's better to be within a trading Bloc than without it, in principle, but the U is no longer primarily a trading Bloc - it is being developed into a Federal State.

That's not a bad thing, per se, but if you consider something like the EU Parliament, you have to consider that the people who elect the MEP's neither voted for the creation of the Body, nor did they vote on what powers it would have. The reason it was not put to a vote is that almost no one in any EU country would have voted in favour of more elected politicians.

This is the core problem of the "democratic deficit" within the EU, and it applies to all countries prior to the most recent enlargement - where the former Eastern Bloc actually DID decide to join an EU Super-State. Even then, however, in many cases this was not put to a referendum so far as I can see.

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

---

Welcome to the world of growing regulations. There are a number of areas in the British state that weren't specifically voted on either, but exist anyway because they were brought in to address certain issues at the time and have either been kept on, or they've not yet gone round to removing the dead wood (eg. have we beaten Napoleon yet?). Do you want to dissolve the British state?

We in Britain have it better than most of the EU, in that thanks to Maastricht, we're not subject to some of the worse failures of the EU's growing state. We've been one of the biggest supporters of one of the biggest changes in the EU, namely its expansionism in terms of incorporating new member countries. It remains to be seen whether that was a good thing or not, but it can hardly be disputed that it was our thing, so it's not as though we've been helpless in the face of EU decision making from afar. France and Germany have won the argument on some issues, and somehow we've managed to wheedle our way out of most of its effects (thankfully). We've won the argument on some issues, and your beloved UKIP still manages to blame the EU for that rather than own up to what we've done. Win some, lose some, that's the grown up world for you. But you're not happy unless you win on every argument in the exact way that you want, in hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Many Euro Sceptics argue that the EU is stifling trade overburdening companies with regulation and that by leaving, Britain will lead in a new golden age of economic prosperity where including where companies do not have to apply such regulations and argue such regularly. It is a bold-faced lie.

---

Well, not really.

There are areas where our trade is stifled due to EU regs - the CAP and CFP are the most famous, but there's a general problem that, because we are part of the EU, our internal and external trade goods must ALL follow EU regs, regardless of where they go.

The basic problem is that EU membership allows the extraction of British resources to the detriment of British business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, not really.

There are areas where our trade is stifled due to EU regs - the CAP and CFP are the most famous, but there's a general problem that, because we are part of the EU, our internal and external trade goods must ALL follow EU regs, regardless of where they go.

The basic problem is that EU membership allows the extraction of British resources to the detriment of British business.

---

Are we a self-sufficient island whose good British resources are being exploited by foreign slave masters? Or, when you say "extraction of British resources", do you mean trade, and the exchange of one set of resources for another? Because I'm fairly certain there are numerous vital resources we are dependent on that we ourselves do not produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are we a self-sufficient island whose good British resources are being exploited by foreign slave masters? Or, when you say "extraction of British resources", do you mean trade, and the exchange of one set of resources for another? Because I'm fairly certain there are numerous vital resources we are dependent on that we ourselves do not produce.

---

I refer primarily to the fact that we are a net contributor to the CAP, and France is not, and that the CFP allows the Spanish (who have fished out their own waters) to take our Cod, which endangers my Cod and Chips.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I refer primarily to the fact that we are a net contributor to the CAP, and France is not, and that the CFP allows the Spanish (who have fished out their own waters) to take our Cod, which endangers my Cod and Chips.

I'm sure there are other examples.

---

From what I can find, the old Common Fisheries Policy was recognised as being problematic, and research and debate went into how it should be reformed, and reforms are due to begin this year. So what's the problem? That things weren't perfect from the start?

As for net contribution to the CAP, according to this, in terms of overall budgets, as of 2011 we contributed less net (5.5bn) than Germany (9.0bn), France (6.4bn) and even Italy (5.9bn), while Poland, one of those whom we backed for accession into the EU, was the biggest net recipient (10.9bn). Would I be happier if we contributed less net? Yes I would, but I also recognise that many of the net recipients are in the EU as a result of British politicking. We've done our bit in contributing towards this situation, and judging from your stance on Ukraine, you'd be up for further expansion towards the east, which would result in yet another net recipient being added to the pool which we have to pay for.

As though those few billions actually matter...

For countries the size of Germany, France and Britain that's hardly more than change. Meanwhile the recipients such as Poland can probably use it to good effect. That propping up those who are worse off can actually work and won't drag you down was shown by the German reunification and the fact we are still economically strong even after paying a lot to bring the East up to a modern standard.

In assisting in the efforts in Poland for example, you solve the issues such as "All those Poles coming over and taking our jobs" which the anti-immigrant crowd complain about. This is partly why some immigrants who came to learn in this country with its opportunities took that knowledge back to Poland, and making that country a better place for them whilst economy/business benefited from the cheaper labour costs. Also, we benefit from the good produced in Poland when it comes to farming and raw materials, which is being done by our investment in their economy.

It is really far more than pointing at a figure then go "Look, a loss!" without actually analysing the results and benefits of such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

From what I can find, the old Common Fisheries Policy was recognised as being problematic, and research and debate went into how it should be reformed, and reforms are due to begin this year. So what's the problem? That things weren't perfect from the start?

As for net contribution to the CAP, according to this, in terms of overall budgets, as of 2011 we contributed less net (5.5bn) than Germany (9.0bn), France (6.4bn) and even Italy (5.9bn), while Poland, one of those whom we backed for accession into the EU, was the biggest net recipient (10.9bn). Would I be happier if we contributed less net? Yes I would, but I also recognise that many of the net recipients are in the EU as a result of British politicking. We've done our bit in contributing towards this situation, and judging from your stance on Ukraine, you'd be up for further expansion towards the east, which would result in yet another net recipient being added to the pool which we have to pay for.

---

My problem is lack of control, and lack of democratic consultation. The CFP was a disaster for British fishermen and North Sea fish stocks. It took about 2 decades to acknowledge the problem and set up fishing exclusion zones - something which the UK might have done a decade earlier on it's own, but couldn't. Certainly, we were talking about it in the Devon fishing towns when I was a child, it would not have been popular but could have been pushed through.

If the British public had been asked about the CAP and the CFP then the policies would have had to have been better scrutinised to begin with.

On a slightly related note, the by-election in Newark. Usually, I don't have an interest in these by-elections and don't care, even though Conservatives and UKIP are fighting their socks off for the seat.

The weird part was when I recognised the name of one of the candidates. I thought "It can't be that Labour Stooge/Brown-noser from University.." and well, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

InfoWars.com :laugh4:

---

You forgot the best one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9_gUDQe4uE

So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

Quote:

---

So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

---

Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Pathetic.

---

Quite. On the upside, hopefully his woeful lack of numeracy stands out as a big, giant warning marker to others: "warning: nonsense ahead".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You forgot the best one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9_gUDQe4uE

So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

---

Just because someone is irretrievably thick doesn't mean they're not right. Why are you biased against stupid people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

.... Why are you biased against stupid people?

---

Because so many of them are in government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Couldn't disagree more. UKIP is just sane. The EU is deeply undemocratic, could also make a case for the EU being downright fascist.

Go UKIP, have one on me

Europian elections are an illusion of democracy. Everything has already been decided by unelected eurocrats. As Pat Condel nicely put it, sitting with a toy wheel in the backseat pretending you are actually driving. I am really glad with people like Nigel Farrage and his UKIP party. Geert Wilders is too stupid, he's not of any use. Farrage however is an abolute boss.

Needs a little edit, 25% of the Dutch simply wants to leave the EU, about 50% doesn't care, the amount of people actually want more Europe is pretty damn low. These are just numbers of course. But 'we' already made it very clear what we think of the EU a few years back. Democracy, such an inconfedience for eurocrats.

---

The EU might need some libertarians if they really are that undemocratic. Problem is that the UK is very democratic. It's a case of poisoning the town's water supply to kill your neighbor...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The EU might need some libertarians if they really are that undemocratic. Problem is that the UK is very democratic. It's a case of poisoning the town's water supply to kill your neighbor...

---

You think a surveillance state that has loads of "no protest zones" and likes to club down protests is "very democratic"? Labour and Bliar really dragged that country down. :no: