More UKIP bother

Just watched the start of "Daily Politics" on catch up. Andrew Neil stumped the leader of the Tory party in the EU. Evidently , this calculation was voted through the EU in 2013 and the Tories voted FOR the measure. The other fact he pointed out was that far from get a cut in the EU budget ( a "victory" that Dave keeps banging on about) the EU budget (excluding this £1.7 billion) . This ridiculous Tory had to sit there and try to claim that it was a victory because Dave managed to "slow the rate that it went up". What are these clowns on.

 

The thing with the EU is that the Establishment don't defend it and stick up for what they believe . What they do is take the bits they don't think the public like and lie about them. Even the Lib/Dumbs are calling this unacceptable. When will somebody say "these are the rules, this is the price we pay to stay in the EU and I think it's worth it".

 

Only in the EUSSR could France and Germany get a rebate, which that economic powerhouse Greece has to contribute to.

Well it is certainly a mess, and I totally agree with your sentiments.

If these sort of surcharge mechanisms exist, then the UK will have been well aware of what was likely to happen for some time

Trying to claim that it suddenly dropped on the doorstep of number 11 and nobody knew about it. What a load of ********, they knew all along , as Nigel said today "those are the rules".

There is obviously a regulation that led to this.

I'm no expert on EU rules (strangely enough), and I'm fully aware that Cameron will be milking this as much as he can, but he's saying that this £1.7bn demand is outside of the realms of the usual budget "adjustments" that happen every year. He's saying that this "bill" hasn't come about as part of the standard EU budget process.

Now, I've no idea whether to believe that or not but I'll keep an open mind until someone proves him wrong and that this is indeed "business as usual".

Call me old fashioned and/or naive....

Can I ask those who are UKIP-curious, and who could conceive of voting UKIP at the next general election, what are you looking to achieve?

 

A message to the Tories, a message to Labour, a UKIP government, UKIP forming the minority part of a coalition, etc?

 

Or is this just something you feel you have to do for ideological reasons?

 

I'm intrigued as to how the Tory line of vote for Nigel, wake up with Ed will play.

Looking at my voting record the past 30 years, where I voted Tory, Lib and not voted.

I wont vote Lib/Dem ever again, maybe if people like Laws and Jeremy Browne had control of the party I may have done.

I wont vote Tory whislt the wet wing of the party are in charge. I thought Ted Heath the worst type of Tory, but this incompant lot are even worse. Maybe if David Davis leads the party I may do.

There is no point in voting Labour in my area, not that I ever have.

That leaves UKIP or not turning out.

I'm more interested in the democratic deficit membership of the EU brings, an old fashioned "outer" if you like. I also find the portrayal of any anti EU person to be some sort of Little Englander or shire posh Tory offensive, there is nothing wrong with wanting out, it's just a difference of opinion. Tony Benn and Bob Crow were committed anti Europeans. I feel that the establishment lie and frighten people , and have a "we know best" attitude towards the EU which drives me away from them. They have also given away vast areas of our powers , and here's the key point, WITHOUT ASKING US.

, Grammar Schools is another reason I would vote UKIP, although we have them here anyway. I think UKIP will also grasp the English question and push the Establishment to answer it once and for all. I also like Nigel and Patrick O Flynn, and some of the UKIP women impress me. Based on all that, I am leaning very heavily to UKIP, provided plums like Bloom and Helmer STFU.

Clearly Nigel will not be PM, but that doesn't stop people voting for Salmond or Clegg. I would vote hoping that Nigel can influence some policy making , whether in coalition, or if not bringing the Establishment closer to what I believe in.

I'm no expert on EU rules (strangely enough), and I'm fully aware that Cameron will be milking this as much as he can, but he's saying that this £1.7bn demand is outside of the realms of the usual budget "adjustments" that happen every year. He's saying that this "bill" hasn't come about as part of the standard EU budget process.

 

Now, I've no idea whether to believe that or not but I'll keep an open mind until someone proves him wrong and that this is indeed "business as usual".

 

Call me old fashioned and/or naive....

According to Andrew Neil the calculation was voted on and voted for by the Tories in 2013. Clearly the amount was unknown at the time, but the process that allows the EU to collect this amount, depending on the growth of your economy, is part of the rules. This suggests that either the Tories ****ed up and didn't understand the calculation , they thought our economy wouldn't grow as much as it did, or they didn't mind coughing up provided it was kept quiet. My opinion based on nothing whatsoever apart from not trusting pro EU wet Tories, is the third one.

I'm no expert on EU rules (strangely enough), and I'm fully aware that Cameron will be milking this as much as he can, but he's saying that this £1.7bn demand is outside of the realms of the usual budget "adjustments" that happen every year. He's saying that this "bill" hasn't come about as part of the standard EU budget process.

 

Now, I've no idea whether to believe that or not but I'll keep an open mind until someone proves him wrong and that this is indeed "business as usual".

 

Call me old fashioned and/or naive....

Having read the Telegraph article you linked to trousers, my comment earlier was made in full knowledge that it was a surcharge outside of the usual budget "adjustments".

Even though this is "outside the realm" as you put it, to my mind there is no way that the UK would not have been a) aware of this process, b) aware that a group of statisticians were working on it, or c) aware of the potential timescales.

Those armies of Strasbourg and Brussels-based mandarins that we hear about? Well, there'll be plenty of those sent there from the UK too, and they'll be there to protect our interests - on matters exactly such as this.

I just can't see that this is the surprise that it's being painted as. And if that's the case, then I have to wonder why it has been communicated in this way, and at this time.

The only two possibilities I can see is that either someone within government wants Dave to look bad (leadership challenge?), or he's fully in control of the situation and plans to use it to look more in control on Europe.

Then again, I've been wrong before...once!

Looking at my voting record the past 30 years, where I voted Tory, Lib and not voted.

 

I wont vote Lib/Dem ever again, maybe if people like Laws and Jeremy Browne had control of the party I may have done.

 

I wont vote Tory whislt the wet wing of the party are in charge. I thought Ted Heath the worst type of Tory, but this incompant lot are even worse. Maybe if David Davis leads the party I may do.

 

There is no point in voting Labour in my area, not that I ever have.

 

That leaves UKIP or not turning out.

 

 

I'm more interested in the democratic deficit membership of the EU brings, an old fashioned "outer" if you like. I also find the portrayal of any anti EU person to be some sort of Little Englander or shire posh Tory offensive, there is nothing wrong with wanting out, it's just a difference of opinion. Tony Benn and Bob Crow were committed anti Europeans. I feel that the establishment lie and frighten people , and have a "we know best" attitude towards the EU which drives me away from them. They have also given away vast areas of our powers , and here's the key point, WITHOUT ASKING US.

, Grammar Schools is another reason I would vote UKIP, although we have them here anyway. I think UKIP will also grasp the English question and push the Establishment to answer it once and for all. I also like Nigel and Patrick O Flynn, and some of the UKIP women impress me. Based on all that, I am leaning very heavily to UKIP, provided plums like Bloom and Helmer STFU.

 

Clearly Nigel will not be PM, but that doesn't stop people voting for Salmond or Clegg. I would vote hoping that Nigel can influence some policy making , whether in coalition, or if not bringing the Establishment closer to what I believe in.

Thanks Lord Duckhunter, appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

So the potential for UKIP to get seats and therefore somehow influence proceedings seems to be your position. I can understand that.

What about Cameron's ascertian that a UKIP vote will lead to a Labour government which will be the only way you won't be offered a referendum on Europe (I'm assuming from your post that you would be in favour of a referendum).

Does that not worry you? Will it influence you at all?

Anyone else?

I just can't see that this is the surprise that it's being painted as. And if that's the case, then I have to wonder why it has been communicated in this way, and at this time.

 

The only two possibilities I can see is that either someone within government wants Dave to look bad (leadership challenge?), or he's fully in control of the situation and plans to use it to look more in control on Europe.

If it's so blatantly obvious that Cameron would have known about this 'bombshell' (and I've no reason to disbelieve either side of the story, yet) then it would appear that Cameron has lost the plot by raging about it as he would surely be made to look a buffoon if it's going to be so easy to prove that he knew all along when this was coming and how much was coming.

(apologies, just read that sentence back and its a bit withering but can't be arsed to refine it!)

Anyone?

 

I'm genuinely interested.

When UKIP won in Clacton or Clapton or wherever some guy said he voted UKIP as the last conservative guy was useless. That is what we are up against. Intelligence that would make bear blush and the power to vote.

i don't get it tokyos voting for someone cos you don't like the other guy is the cornerstone of british politics

If it's so blatantly obvious that Cameron would have known about this 'bombshell' (and I've no reason to disbelieve either side of the story, yet) then it would appear that Cameron has lost the plot by raging about it as he would surely be made to look a buffoon if it's going to be so easy to prove that he knew all along when this was coming and how much was coming.

 

(apologies, just read that sentence back and its a bit withering but can't be arsed to refine it!)

 

News reports suggesting that a) this has been known about for some time, and that our Civil Servants provided the data on which this demand is based and b) we got a rebate in 2008 but I don't recall MPs of any persuasion moaning about that!

I was the same bender

???

If it's so blatantly obvious that Cameron would have known about this 'bombshell' (and I've no reason to disbelieve either side of the story, yet) then it would appear that Cameron has lost the plot by raging about it as he would surely be made to look a buffoon if it's going to be so easy to prove that he knew all along when this was coming and how much was coming.

 

(apologies, just read that sentence back and its a bit withering but can't be arsed to refine it!)

 

[Consider me suitably withered]

I first want to go on record to say that I am purposely missing this tit-for-tat open goal in the interests of debate.

What if Cameron is seen to be seething about this, draws a line in the sand, gets support from other nations (At least the Dutch) and gets the EU to backdown?

Then Cameron's buffonery (being seemingly unaware that this was happening), would be trumped by his kicking the Brussels-based bureaucrats in the balls.

It shows Cameron as a strong leader, shows that he can get support in the EU and shows, perhaps most importantly, that he can influence what goes on and that his stated attempts to get reforms ahead of a referendum would be possible.

But, I do take your point that if they are playing at news management, then they risk making Cameron look bad. It's a good point.

When UKIP won in Clacton or Clapton or wherever some guy said he voted UKIP as the last conservative guy was useless. That is what we are up against. Intelligence that would make bear blush and the power to vote.

i don't get it tokyos voting for someone cos you don't like the other guy is the cornerstone of british politics

Run along kids - I'll be home later to cook the dinner.

The grown-ups are talking about politics here, and you'll only get bored.

Daddy still loves you!

x

???

Google "Freudian slip", Bear.

We get to voted Bdog, same as you and the farts, same as nazi dune and the man in Clacton who didn't know he was voting for the same guy as a protest to the last guy. If Scotland can't be free, I will make sure the rest of you aren't either. Europe - better together.

We get to vote

the great flaw of democratic process

As a democratically elected MVP, I reject that statement and state the voting first past the hundred vote system will always prevail. Even idiots should get to vote and that is why UKIP don't lose their deposit and the EU do stupid stuff like ask for extra billions when people are already ****ed off with them

We get to voted Bdog, same as you and the farts, same as nazi dune and the man in Clacton who didn't know he was voting for the same guy as a protest to the last guy. If Scotland can't be free, I will make sure the rest of you aren't either. Europe - better together.

Ah, very good, Toke.

I'm ashamed to say that I hadn't picked up on the humour the first time round.

I think it's because I have to get my Enigma machine out to decode your posts before I can understand the point you're making.

Reading some of your contributions (I'm guessing that you're in the toilet and " typing with one hand" while you post), is like sitting though Round Four of Only Connect - where they remove all the vowels from various phrases.

Y CMP LT TWT!

Then again, perhaps it's because you type with a thick, Scotch(sic) accent?

TKSC NT!

Thanks B, means a lot, glad you enjoyed the humour. It wasn't a joke though, he really said "Clacton needs a change, the Tories need kicked out. That last guy was useless and that's why I voted ukip today". UKIP targeting Gosport next.

cameron must have known all along what is going on,i expect hes playing politics by standing up to the eu so he can say to those ex tory party turn coats who defected to ukip hes the man to trust for britsh interests. plus the by election coming up hes playing to the gallery which i expect ukip to win. labour must be laughing all the way to the bank has the split on the two tory partys squabble over petty issues once again.

Love this screengrab.

A bit of light relief

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/24/nigel-farage-twitter-qa-_n_6043322.html?1414174005

Thanks Lord Duckhunter, appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

 

So the potential for UKIP to get seats and therefore somehow influence proceedings seems to be your position. I can understand that.

 

What about Cameron's ascertian that a UKIP vote will lead to a Labour government which will be the only way you won't be offered a referendum on Europe (I'm assuming from your post that you would be in favour of a referendum).

 

Does that not worry you? Will it influence you at all?

 

Anyone else?

I happen to believe that the cause of withdrawal will be better served by labour winning the election that the Tories winning it. Even better would be the Tories in coalition with a 4th place ( in terms of popular vote) lib/dem party.

My reasoning is that Dave is lining us up for a Harold Wilson tribute act. Go to Brussels , renegotiate and get **** all worth while , but try and con the British people by claiming a victory. With the weight of the establishment , self interested big business and wet Tory lip spittle rags like The Times behind the fix , I think he'll pull it off. The subject will be dead for another 40 years and more powers will be transferred useing the referendum result as cover. If the people are denied a vote by Labour or the lib/dumb arm of another coalition , people will get more and more anti European . It's all about timing , as Salmond showed you don't need to rush these things.

The perfect storm for Nigel is 3rd in terms of popular votewith 2 dozen mp's , a Cameron led coalition and the Eussr in triple dip recession . However , Red Ed denying the people a say whilst crashing the economy Hollande style is a close second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO0ibNzB3ZU

Holly Johnson has started a campaign to have this banned off the radio.

From the BBC "The surcharge follows an annual review of the economic performance of EU member states since 1995, which showed Britain has done better than previously thought. Elements of the black economy - such as drugs and prostitution - have been included in the calculations for the first time."

Err, so are we really good at gear and hookers now? No wonder the Dutch also have to cough up!!

I happen to believe that the cause of withdrawal will be better served by labour winning the election that the Tories winning it. Even better would be the Tories in coalition with a 4th place ( in terms of popular vote) lib/dem party.

 

My reasoning is that Dave is lining us up for a Harold Wilson tribute act. Go to Brussels , renegotiate and get **** all worth while , but try and con the British people by claiming a victory. With the weight of the establishment , self interested big business and wet Tory lip spittle rags like The Times behind the fix , I think he'll pull it off. The subject will be dead for another 40 years and more powers will be transferred useing the referendum result as cover. If the people are denied a vote by Labour or the lib/dumb arm of another coalition , people will get more and more anti European . It's all about timing , as Salmond showed you don't need to rush these things.

 

The perfect storm for Nigel is 3rd in terms of popular votewith 2 dozen mp's , a Cameron led coalition and the Eussr in triple dip recession . However , Red Ed denying the people a say whilst crashing the economy Hollande style is a close second.

Remind me never to **** you off, Lord Duckhunter. Anyone that is prepared to wait 8-10 years to get what they want is a dangerous man to cross. But I understand, and actually relate to your approach.

I too am thinking longer term in my voting habits. I come under the Eastleigh ward and as such have traditionally had a choice of Lib Dem or Conservative MPs. A vote for Labour is wasted here (I know, I know...), so traditionally it came down to local issues. I have found that the Lib Dems were always fairly attentive on local issues, so in addition to Labour I have stuck an X next to their candidate in the past.

The last Bi-election started to change my thinking as UKIP has really shaken up the dynamic here; that and the fact that Clegg had the ultra-bright spotlight of power shone directly on his stomach, revealing what many suspected - that he is in fact gutless. Having kids of university age, and watching the volte-face on the principle of tuition fees, I'll not vote Lib Dem again until they have a deep look at themselves and their leader. So in the bi-election I wasted my vote on Labour, for which I achieved nothing. It's not like I think Labour is ready to get back into power, or that they even have credible people in positions of shadow-power (with perhaps one or two exceptions).

So, looking forward this leaves a choice between Conservative and UKIP, which in turn for me at this time boils down to a choice between UKIP and not voting. So now I'm actually wrestling with my conscience; trying to see if I could live with myself for putting an X next to UKIP's candidate so that I might, in due course, help to bring about a significant change in the way politics is conducted in this country.

The thought of sending a bunch of UKIP nutters into Westminster seems crazy, but it's the only thing that I could positively do that might give the rest of the funsters a wakeup call. The pay-off won't come for a couple of parliaments, but I'd like to think that by stirring it up like this, together with some form of devolved English parliament, then we might have a better system of representation in a few years.

I'd love to vote solely on ideology or conscience, but with my ward, the current state of left-of-centre politics, and our FPTP system, I am just not represented.

The danger for me of such an approach is of course that I might find myself struggling to sleep each night knowing that I might have helped to elect a dream team coalition of "dumb and dumber", or perhaps more accurately "Right and Righter".

Can I ask those who are UKIP-curious, and who could conceive of voting UKIP at the next general election, what are you looking to achieve?

 

A message to the Tories, a message to Labour, a UKIP government, UKIP forming the minority part of a coalition, etc?

 

Or is this just something you feel you have to do for ideological reasons?

 

I'm intrigued as to how the Tory line of vote for Nigel, wake up with Ed will play.

Anyone else?

Anyone else?

I largely agree with Lord d. I'm pretty disillusioned by politics at the moment with all of the party largely doing the same thing. I'm not sure about a referendum at the moment since my suspicion is that we would vote to stay and the politicians would see that as a green light for ever closer union.

I would like the comfortable established parties to feel like their jobs are under threat because that is the only thing that will spur them into doing something meaningful. Net migration last year was something like +35% and I do not consider that sustainable or sensible levels so I would like to see a points or quota system as recently proposed by Boris. I think voting UKIP is a good way to keep the current politicians on their toes and will mean we are more likely to sort out the euro mess in the long term and then we can concentrate on other things.

Sadly this may mean that ed milliband may be prime minister (shudder). Whilst I wasn't alive at the time, the common market vote made sense but that agreement has been twisted and now I think many older people feel let down and lied to so I would like some of that damage reversed. I recognise some of the good that Europe does and I would like to keep the good bits (the ease of going on holiday and trade etc) without being dictated to by Brussels and being able to create our own laws without them being superseded by Europe as that laughs in the face of democracy. If Europe point blank refuse to accept that then we will have no choice but to leave completely and I hope if dave is unsuccessful with renegotiation that he backs that as well (he wont though, he will fob us off with a meaningless concession).

Apologies for the rambling thoughts but I'm in the car and have my mind on work at this time of the morning. If you have anything else you would like to know please ask .

Anyone else?

I will probably vote UKIP if it appears they are best placed to compete with the Tories in my area. Sadly where I live the current voting system means if I vote for what I believed in I had might as well roll my ballot paper up and shove it up my arse.

"Vote Nigel wake up with Ed" - that would be OK with me.

Anyone else?

I am a lifelong Labour voter seriously considering voting UKIP at the election. The Tories are still self-serving, LibDems still wishy washy, and Labour seem lost and have as bad a political leader that I can remember.

I don't like the undemocratic nature of Europe. It is about as straight as FIFA. I would happily vote out in a referendum.

So vote Nigel and get Ed, I don't think so. UKIP will take votes from both the main parties.

I will be voting UKIP

By just having 1 MP and the bit of momentum they have, they are driving the EU debate.

Keep that going for me

I will be voting UKIP

By just having 1 MP and the bit of momentum they have, they are driving the EU debate.

Keep that going for me

Really? You DO surprise me

Anyone else?

I'm anti-EU, but probably won't vote for UKIP at the upcoming elections. I'm long past the point where I see my vote as an agent for change. It's more about expressing personal preference, in the possibly vain hope that some analyst somewhere counts up the aggregated anti-EU vote and the party chiefs get the f**king message.

Putting my most cynical head on, you could argue that the EU has achieved exactly what we were looking to avoid in the 1930s and 1940s, a German-led empire. Sounds sensational, but anyone that's had the austerity imposed on them certainly feels that way. The lack of democracy at the very top is a huge concern, as is accountability and the erosion of the power of nation states. Before the Greek, Italian and Spanish crises the EU had a pretty good reputation as a fluffy, benevolent supra-national organisation, probably carefully cultivated. Those events demonstrated both the utter indifference of the EU when it came to the plight of its own citizens and the overall priorities of the org in general; the financial system is more important than human life.

In the interests of giving people a clear choice, one might be tempted to say that the EU needs to set out its long-term aims clearly and unambiguously, allowing individual nation states to vote on whether they want to be part of that arrangement. But then, we've already kinda been there with the EU Constitution, which fell apart when the Dutch and French people rejected it in referendums and was effectively replaced with the Lisbon Treaty, a different mechanism to achieve the same ends. Most nation states weren't allowed to have a referendum on that. Ireland did, voted no, and was asked to keep voting until it voted yes.

Finally, and I've made the point before, but let's imagine a hypothetical federal Europe. Who would you hold fealty to? What is to stop, say, a group of Polish EU cops from breaking a German-led industrial strike in the same manner that Maggie used southern coppers to sort out northern miners? National character doesn't happen overnight, especially in an artificially created state. That's probably why the Americans brainwash their kids every day at school and act like teenagers on the world stage.

Really? You DO surprise me

You're voting labour you say? You DO surprise me.

I largely agree with Lord d. I'm pretty disillusioned by politics at the moment with all of the party largely doing the same thing. I'm not sure about a referendum at the moment since my suspicion is that we would vote to stay and the politicians would see that as a green light for ever closer union.

 

I would like the comfortable established parties to feel like their jobs are under threat because that is the only thing that will spur them into doing something meaningful. Net migration last year was something like +35% and I do not consider that sustainable or sensible levels so I would like to see a points or quota system as recently proposed by Boris. I think voting UKIP is a good way to keep the current politicians on their toes and will mean we are more likely to sort out the euro mess in the long term and then we can concentrate on other things.

 

Sadly this may mean that ed milliband may be prime minister (shudder). Whilst I wasn't alive at the time, the common market vote made sense but that agreement has been twisted and now I think many older people feel let down and lied to so I would like some of that damage reversed. I recognise some of the good that Europe does and I would like to keep the good bits (the ease of going on holiday and trade etc) without being dictated to by Brussels and being able to create our own laws without them being superseded by Europe as that laughs in the face of democracy. If Europe point blank refuse to accept that then we will have no choice but to leave completely and I hope if dave is unsuccessful with renegotiation that he backs that as well (he wont though, he will fob us off with a meaningless concession).

 

Apologies for the rambling thoughts but I'm in the car and have my mind on work at this time of the morning. If you have anything else you would like to know please ask .

I will probably vote UKIP if it appears they are best placed to compete with the Tories in my area. Sadly where I live the current voting system means if I vote for what I believed in I had might as well roll my ballot paper up and shove it up my arse.

 

"Vote Nigel wake up with Ed" - that would be OK with me.

I am a lifelong Labour voter seriously considering voting UKIP at the election. The Tories are still self-serving, LibDems still wishy washy, and Labour seem lost and have as bad a political leader that I can remember.

 

I don't like the undemocratic nature of Europe. It is about as straight as FIFA. I would happily vote out in a referendum.

 

So vote Nigel and get Ed, I don't think so. UKIP will take votes from both the main parties.

Well it's far from scientific, but if these views of UKIP as a protest/tactical vote are mirrored across the country, then they might do far better than I imagined.

What surprised me is those of a left leaning that are willing to vote UKIP.

I think that UKIP will do well across the board - especially where immigration has been an issue. If bradford are willing to elect BNP councillors, what is the probability that they will latch onto the UKIP immigration policies.

The EU is also doing its best to galvanize the electorate against it. There is a real possibility that they will be the king makers at the next election. The question is who will they side with? If Labour have the most seats but no overall majority, will UKIP jump into bed with them?

Well it's far from scientific, but if these views of UKIP as a protest/tactical vote are mirrored across the country, then they might do far better than I imagined.

 

What surprised me is those of a left leaning that are willing to vote UKIP.

I'll vote UKIP and although there's an element of 'protest' I.e a two fingers up to the three main parties, I genuinely do however support a lot of the policies UKIP is trying to push. Leaving the EU, a points based immigration system which not only sees a reduction in numbers, but also treats a New Zealander equal to a Romanian, no tax on minimum wage, abolish inheritance tax, lower 40% tax threshold, no wind farms, no hs2 etc. Something I do think the party risks doing though is promising something to everyone because they're not going to be in a position to have to deliver.

Unless I was a Conservative my vote is utterly useless though, because my constituency would elect a parrot if it had a blue rosette on.

I'll vote UKIP and although there's an element of 'protest' I.e a two fingers up to the three main parties, I genuinely do however support a lot of the policies UKIP is trying to push. Leaving the EU, a points based immigration system which not only sees a reduction in numbers, but also treats a New Zealander equal to a Romanian, no tax on minimum wage, abolish inheritance tax, lower 40% tax threshold, no wind farms, no hs2 etc. Something I do think the party risks doing though is promising something to everyone because they're not going to be in a position to have to deliver.

 

Unless I was a Conservative my vote is utterly useless though, because my constituency would elect a parrot if it had a blue rosette on.

Does that really mean 'lower' or do they mean fewer people paying 40% tax?

Well it's far from scientific, but if these views of UKIP as a protest/tactical vote are mirrored across the country, then they might do far better than I imagined.

 

What surprised me is those of a left leaning that are willing to vote UKIP.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's a surefire road to success. 'innit.

I don't like the undemocratic nature of Europe. It is about as straight as FIFA. I would happily vote out in a referendum.

tbh I doubt you understand how the EU works. Thats no criticism of you, more than 90% of people in the UK dont - I'd survived 45 years without knowing until I had to learn for my current job.

The EU isnt undemocratic, its just complex. Its complex because the member states designed it that way - every state wants a say in all aspects of the EU. Imagine trying to run any other members club that way.

The EU is governed by a tripartite (three 'powers') system.

1. The European Commission. Every member country gets one commissioner who is nominated by the elected national government. The bigger the country the bigger portfolio you get. So Latvia for example gets 'Social Dialogue' whilst Britain gets responsibility for Financial Services and Capital markets across Europe. The Commission cannot pass laws, it can only propose them.

2. European Parliament. The Parliament is elected through votes in each country. It approves or rejects laws and budgets proposed by the commission and can refuse or sack under performing commissioners. It jointly shares the power to make decisions with the Council of Ministers

3. Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is a grouping of ministers from each country which provides the accountability to national parliaments. It must approve all EU laws and co-ordinates national policy and actions.

The other misunderstanding is that the EU is some vast bureacracy. It isnt, across Europe it employs 33,000 people. By contrast 5,700,000 work in the public sector in the UK alone. The EU budget is 1.05% of Gross National Income - ie Westminster spends 98.95% of all taxes raised in UK.

tbh I doubt you understand how the EU works. Thats no criticism of you, more than 90% of people in the UK dont - I'd survived 45 years without knowing until I had to learn for my current job.

 

The EU isnt undemocratic, its just complex. Its complex because the member states designed it that way - every state wants a say in all aspects of the EU. Imagine trying to run any other members club that way.

 

The EU is governed by a tripartite (three 'powers') system.

 

1. The European Commission. Every member country gets one commissioner who is nominated by the elected national government. The bigger the country the bigger portfolio you get. So Latvia for example gets 'Social Dialogue' whilst Britain gets responsibility for Financial Services and Capital markets across Europe. The Commission cannot pass laws, it can only propose them.

2. European Parliament. The Parliament is elected through votes in each country. It approves or rejects laws and budgets proposed by the commission and can refuse or sack under performing commissioners. It jointly shares the power to make decisions with the Council of Ministers

3. Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is a grouping of ministers from each country which provides the accountability to national parliaments. It must approve all EU laws and co-ordinates national policy and actions.

 

The other misunderstanding is that the EU is some vast bureacracy. It isnt, it has fewer employees than Leeds City council. The EU budget is 1.05% of Gross National Income - ie Westminster spends 98.95% of all taxes raised in UK.

It may not be bigger, but it costs more - Leeds city council average salary circa £20k, EU circa £67k (£78k with expat allowance)

Oh and all EU employees have a very special lower rate of tax (about half of what you would pay in the UK) just for them.

It may not be bigger, but it costs more - Leeds city council average salary circa £20k, EU circa £67k (£78k with expat allowance)

 

Oh and all EU employees have a very special lower rate of tax (about half of what you would pay in the UK) just for them.

You can only get a meaningful comparison on salaries if you compare like for like jobs. The EU doesnt employ any bin men, street sweepers or parks attendants. They do employ a lot of skilled people with multiple languages co-ordinating 28 countries actions.

No one is saying the EU structure is perfect, the point is that it was made that way in order to give national reviews and vetos over almost every action.

You can only get a meaningful comparison on salaries if you compare like for like jobs. The EU doesnt employ any bin men, street sweepers or parks attendants. They do employ a lot of skilled people with multiple languages co-ordinating 28 countries actions.

 

No one is saying the EU structure is perfect, the point is that it was made that way in order to give national reviews and vetos over almost every action.

You'll struggle to convince me that anything in the EU is value for money. Almost 9000 of the blighters earn a base greater than £100k pa and that doesn't include allowances the pension scheme etc etc.

It is utterly unaccountable and every time a member state tries to bring it to heel they are roundly told to feck off.

I have a pretty low opinion of the efficiency and wastefulness of the UK government, but the EU make us look world class.

You can only get a meaningful comparison on salaries if you compare like for like jobs. The EU doesnt employ any bin men, street sweepers or parks attendants. They do employ a lot of skilled people with multiple languages co-ordinating 28 countries actions.

 

No one is saying the EU structure is perfect, the point is that it was made that way in order to give national reviews and vetos over almost every action.

Tell that to Greece and Italy.

Your post was a defence of the EU's democracy, wasn't it?

The EU Commission is the body that proposes legislation AND sets the terms of bailouts, etc. They're unelected and have a great deal of power.

You'll struggle to convince me that anything in the EU is value for money. Almost 9000 of the blighters earn a base greater than £100k pa and that doesn't include allowances the pension scheme etc etc..........

I have a pretty low opinion of the efficiency and wastefulness of the UK government, but the EU make us look world class.

Really? 38,000 people on over £100,000 pa is world class more efficient than 9,000? Its fine to be anti EU, but do it on the basis of knowledge and facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11382591 and that number was in 2010. Since then 16,000 GPs can be added to the list.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10595090/GPs-pay-Number-of-doctors-earning-100000-has-quadrupled-report-shows.html

Really? 38,000 people on over £100,000 pa is world class more efficient than 9,000? Its fine to be anti EU, but do it on the basis of knowledge and facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11382591

We were talking about Leeds City Council. There are not 38,000 people earning that in Leeds. Its fine to support the EU but do it on the basis of knowledge and facts.

We were talking about Leeds City Council. There are not 38,000 people earning that in Leeds. Its fine to support the EU but do it on the basis of knowledge and facts.

Okay if you think we're still talking about Leeds City Council that explains a lot. There are well over UK 50,000 public sector employees earning over £100,000 pa. By contrast David Cameron reckons there are 5,600 EU employees earning over 100,000 Euros pa - ie c£80,000pa. Bit of a difference wouldnt you say?

The whole EU just seems like more pigs with their noses in the trough for every little gain. That's why the traditional main parties have let it grow so big - more jobs for the boys with expenses and tax breaks thrown in.

The three main parties only have themselves to blame for UKIP's rise, all have promised referendums but failed to bother to consult the population. People see their wages pushed downwards and the wait for their GP get longer because of immigration and have been utterly powerless to do anything about it whilst the 3 main parties ignore them and serve their own interests - that's why it is undemocratic. That's why UKIP are an attractive option.

The whole EU just seems like more pigs with their noses in the trough for every little gain. That's why the traditional main parties have let it grow so big - more jobs for the boys with expenses and tax breaks thrown in.

 

 

Do you have any figures to back that claim?

 

People see their wages pushed downwards and the wait for their GP get longer because of immigration and have been utterly powerless to do anything about it whilst the 3 main parties ignore them and serve their own interests - that's why it is undemocratic. That's why UKIP are an attractive option.

 

You know that by far most immigration comes from outside the EU and that of the top five countries where immigrants come from China, India, Australia, US and Poland only one is in the EU? So the blame the EU thing is a red herring.

...