why does UKIP lie to the public?

[alexxxxx]

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1587-eu-criticises-uk-attitude-to-smacking


Britain’s refusal to impose an outright ban on smacking children is to be criticised today by the EU.

The Council of Europe, which checks up on the way countries administer the European Convention on Human Rights, will debate today (Tuesday) on the corporal punishment of children and is set to denounce Britain for being one of the only countries in the world still to allow it.

Deputy Secretary of the Council of Europe, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio has said: “The UK is one of the countries that has not yet implemented a full ban. In part this is because the traditional parent-child relationship in the UK is one of authority and state intervention into family affairs is still not welcome.”

She added: “Prohibiting all corporal punishment is a legal imperative and I hope the United Kingdom will take that essential step urgently.”

Does UKIP realise that the council of europe is not part of the EU? Or are facts not important and they'd rather mislead the public? Cheap way to pick up votes? Dishonest as the rest of them.

Another article on either UKIP's dishonestly or negligence, you choose - http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/ukip-gets-its-facts-wrong-europe

[MrPinkPanther]

Made me laugh. Good old UKIP, the European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU either.

[Hitman]

Whilst they are not the same thing it seems that they work together and have the same aims... if the CoE dislikes the punishment of children in the UK then I imagine that they could somehow forward this to the EU (human rights or some division).

Labour don't lie... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260781/Government-policing-pledge-advert-banned-misleading-public.html) hmm... not at all... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131708/British-jobs-British-workers-Wildcat-strikes-spread-foreign-workers-shipped-UK.html)

Most politicians lie, regardless of their political alignment... just sayin'.

[dbgtz]

Do they not like it as it's too harsh or too easy going?

Plus all politians have lied, everyone lies.

[alexxxxx]

Whilst they are not the same thing it seems that they work together and have the same aims... if the CoE dislikes the punishment of children in the UK then I imagine that they could somehow forward this to the EU (human rights or some division).


Well it's not the same thing and UKIP's policy of leaving the EU would not stop one person in the CoE just saying that the UK might want to outlaw smacking (along with other countries). And UKIP have said nothing about leaving the council of europe (which even countries like russia are in), whose main powers are over human rights and very little else. The CoE was founded in 1949, far before even the beginning of the EU. I'd like UKIP and its european partners to be more electable as it would put more pressure on the main parties to reform the EU - but with outright lies, poor arguments, pompousness, rudeness and frankly bizarre scandals for such a small party - they really need to up their game for it to be more of an electable party. A lot people link them with the BNP as being a party for weirdos.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Council of Europe is known as the 'waiting room to the European Union' and all European insitutions are intergrated with one another, for example the European Court of Justice is now beginning to overrule the European Court of Human Rights and is becoming more powerful. You may like to say they are different insitutions Alex, but you know fully well they all work together and all believe in the same aim which is to create a United States of Europe. It would be like me saying 'the Foreign office is not the cabinet therefore the blame of the Iraq war doesn't lay with the cabinet'.

A federalist like yourself may not understand it, but we want British courts and British insitutions to be incharge of sovereign British decisions, not European ones. In short, UKIP have not lied at all and even used the words 'Council of Europe' in the quote you picked on.

[alexxxxx]

The Council of Europe is known as the 'waiting room to the European Union' and all European insitutions are intergrated with one another, for example the European Court of Justice is now beginning to overrule the European Court of Human Rights and is becoming more powerful. You may like to say they are different insitutions Alex, but you know fully well they all work together and all believe in the same aim which is to create a United States of Europe. It would be like me saying 'the Foreign office is not the cabinet therefore the blame of the Iraq war doesn't lay with the cabinet'.

A federalist like yourself may not understand it, but we want British courts and British insitutions to be incharge of sovereign British decisions, not European ones. In short, UKIP have not lied at all and even used the words 'Council of Europe' in the quote you picked on.
The link on their website says 'EU Criticises' as the headline - not Council of Europe. Is that not attempting to mislead? Can you give an example of the ECJ over ruling the European Court of Human Rights because the latter is the de facto higher court, due to all member states being a member. The CoE is not really a waiting room to the EU - can you honestly see Russia, Georgia, the Vatican, Azerbaijan or Switzerland or the Ukraine joining the EU? no thanks. nor would a lot people support them. They don't ALL work together and the aim of 'integration' (whatever that means - is there an official definition). We've had this argument before and frankly it doesn't matter because UKIP aren't planning to leave this institution (no mention of the council of europe in the whole of the manifesto).

[-:Undertaker:-]

The link on their website says 'EU Criticises' as the headline - not Council of Europe. Is that not attempting to mislead? Can you give an example of the ECJ over ruling the European Court of Human Rights because the latter is the de facto higher court, due to all member states being a member. The CoE is not really a waiting room to the EU - can you honestly see Russia, Georgia, the Vatican, Azerbaijan or Switzerland or the Ukraine joining the EU? no thanks. nor would a lot people support them. They don't ALL work together and the aim of 'integration' (whatever that means - is there an official definition). We've had this argument before and frankly it doesn't matter because UKIP aren't planning to leave this institution (no mention of the council of europe in the whole of the manifesto).

Because the Council of Europe is a part of the European Project, called the European Union by its loving supporters (very few you are in numbers). UKIP clearly says in the quote, the Council of Europe which again, is a part of the European project. I will have to have a look and see if I can find the examples in the books I have of the ECJ overruling the ECHR because I have read it and its worried a lot of people (even supporters of some European insitutions the way the EU is becoming more powerful over bodies which formerly had an enormous degree of self-regulation/independence from the EU-project). The aim fo the European Union is to intergrate the insitutions and the work of the nation states;- you know it and I know it and the European Union itself says it no matter how you beg to differ. We have Herman Vanwhatshisface calling for economic government and world government later on, and Jose Barroso (convicted embezzler I believe) calling the European Union 'an Empire' - I mean, who the hell gave these people the consent for this? - nobody did (at least in this country anyway).

The institutions do work together and here is just a phrase (taken from wikipedia I know, but proves what I am saying and what you consistently attempt to deny);


As mentioned in the introduction, it is important to realise that the Council of Europe is not to be mistaken with the Council of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union) (the "Council of Ministers") or the European Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council). These belong to the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union), which is separate from the Council of Europe, although they have shared the same European flag and anthem since the 1980s because they also work for European integration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration).

As you can see from the diagram below, they are intergrated and as time passes they are becoming more intergrated, just the same as the social, political and economic policies of the nation states within the European Union because the aim is to create the European Superstate and abolish the nation-state, something which you yourself have said is something which should happen yet you dont seem to think a referendum warrants the future of our country.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Supranational_European_Bodies.png/350px-Supranational_European_Bodies.png

[alexxxxx]

Because the Council of Europe is a part of the European Project, called the European Union by its loving supporters (very few you are in numbers). UKIP clearly says in the quote, the Council of Europe which again, is a part of the European project.
For a party that is to argue against our membership of the European Union - it should better clarify and not mislead the public. That is what it is doing. It does not clarify that the council of europe is not part of the EU. Using your reasoning i can say that the EU say something that the UN say because all members of the EU are members of the UN.



I will have to have a look and see if I can find the examples in the books I have of the ECJ overruling the ECHR because I have read it and its worried a lot of people (even supporters of some European insitutions the way the EU is becoming more powerful over bodies which formerly had an enormous degree of self-regulation/independence from the EU-project).
I'd be glad to see it, and backing it up with appropriate internet links to decisions of the court would be nice too.



The aim fo the European Union is to intergrate the insitutions and the work of the nation states;- you know it and I know it and the European Union itself says it no matter how you beg to differ. We have Herman Vanwhatshisface calling for economic government and world government later on, and Jose Barroso (convicted embezzler I believe) calling the European Union 'an Empire' - I mean, who the hell gave these people the consent for this? - nobody did (at least in this country anyway).


a quick google search shows that barrosso is not a convicted embezzler but a justice commissioner (ironically) is - but he was given amnesty by the french government. I don't know the specifics so i can't say anything about it but i don't support his position as justice commissioner.



The institutions do work together and here is just a phrase (taken from wikipedia I know, but proves what I am saying and what you consistently attempt to deny);

it is true that there are some joint projects but to say they are the same thing is completely wrong.



As you can see from the diagram below, they are intergrated and as time passes they are becoming more intergrated, just the same as the social, political and economic policies of the nation states within the European Union because the aim is to create the European Superstate and abolish the nation-state, something which you yourself have said is something which should happen yet you dont seem to think a referendum warrants the future of our country.

have i ever said that we should abolish the nation state - no. putting words in my mouth.

what do you have to say about this truly embarassing interview with lord pearson on the bbc? or is it the browns broadcasting corps against perfect UKIP again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT5qRqHHoJo

[GommeInc]

Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights is not the same as saying the European Union, but both are heavily linked to each other. The Court implements such actions via the EU, because the EU has the power to and the EU will make these changes for the EU Courts. It's how they both work - not the same, but connected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For a party that is to argue against our membership of the European Union - it should better clarify and not mislead the public. That is what it is doing. It does not clarify that the council of europe is not part of the EU. Using your reasoning i can say that the EU say something that the UN say because all members of the EU are members of the UN.Because it is a organisation which is strongly linked with the European Union - as I have pointed out. The Council of Europe is not a part of the European Union - on a technicality, the whole European project is based around the European Superstate and the European Union is becoming the centre of the project.


I'd be glad to see it, and backing it up with appropriate internet links to decisions of the court would be nice too.For the meantime you will have to forget what I said with the ECJ overruling the ECHR because at the moment I cannot find any examples so obviously it doesnt hold any water as an argument, however there are various examples of the ECJ overruling national policies of governments/courts and is considered more powerful the the EU Commission itself as it is the force which implements the regulations/directives or legislation and according to this book, within the European Union it is known as the 'silent integrator' and is seldom touched upon by journalists despite the fact it is probably the most powerful body of the European project.


a quick google search shows that barrosso is not a convicted embezzler but a justice commissioner (ironically) is - but he was given amnesty by the french government. I don't know the specifics so i can't say anything about it but i don't support his position as justice commissioner. Barroso is no shining beacon, I have no doubt he is guilty and just because he was given an amnesty does not mean he is not guilty, infact that tells me otherwise in the way in which the political elite attempt to protect eachother but heres just a small slice of Mr Jose Barroso and the sham of the parliament we have in Brussels;


In 2005 the German newspaper Die Welt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welt) reported that Barroso had spent a week on the yacht of the Greek shipping billionaire Spiro Latsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Latsis). It emerged soon afterwards that this had occurred only a month before the Commission approved 10 million euros of Greek state aid for Latsis's shipping company - though the state aid decision had been taken by the previous European Commission before Barroso took up his post.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Barroso#cite_note-14) In response to this revelation, Nigel Farage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage) MEP of the UK Independence Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party) persuaded around 75 MEPs from across the political spectrum to back a motion of no confidence in Barroso, so as to compel him to appear before the European Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament) to be questioned on the matter.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Barroso#cite_note-15) The motion was tabled on 12 May 2005, and Barroso appeared before Parliament as required at a debate on 26 May 2005.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Barroso#cite_note-16) The motion itself was heavily defeated.
it is true that there are some joint projects but to say they are the same thing is completely wrong.We have not said they are the same thing, they are all organisations/bodies which are working towards European intergration which is the creation of a European Superstate - thats the whole point of European intergration, its a nice word/term for saying basically 'gradually removing powers from nation-state and elected sovereign government and handing them over to the unelected Commission and the other bodies of the European Union'. The way it has been engineered, I admit, is very cleverly done and continues to be so. It is hard to target or account the EU or any European bodies because its so shaded and complex, but its deliberately like this just as the regions of the United Kingdom were set up in order to achieve federalisation without anybody making that link to European federalism.


have i ever said that we should abolish the nation state - no. putting words in my mouth.You are a self-confessed federalist, you want a European Superstate to take place over the United Kingdom, France and other European nations and time and time again when I ask you to support a referendum (you once claimed you were a libertarian from what I recall) you deny it and the importance of it [the EU] - why not just accept that the people should decide who creates regulation or legislation for their country?

If they want the European Union to do it then fine, I may not agree but thats their choice.
However to not give the choice is very dangerous and like all artifical states, you only have to see where it ends up.


what do you have to say about this truly embarassing interview with lord pearson on the bbc? or is it the browns broadcasting corps against perfect UKIP again.Lord Pearson is no great orator and neither is he a professional politician, although I would ask why the BBC are asking questions such as that to him when they would not do so with other parties. You seriously think that if that policy had been included in the Lab/Lab/Con manifestos that Brown/Clegg or Cameron would be able to recall it? - I doubt it very much. Lord Pearson is not a great orator but is a very intelligent guy.

Those parts of the manifesto (like the other policy about older-looking trains) are nonsense in terms of comparison to the EU, immigration, the budget deficiet and the role of the state in the United Kingdom (crippling regulations) and you know it.

[alexxxxx]

Lord Pearson is no great orator and neither is he a professional politician, although I would ask why the BBC are asking questions such as that to him when they would not do so with other parties. You seriously think that if that policy had been included in the Lab/Lab/Con manifestos that Brown/Clegg or Cameron would be able to recall it? - I doubt it very much. Lord Pearson is not a great orator but is a very intelligent guy.

Those parts of the manifesto (like the other policy about older-looking trains) are nonsense in terms of comparison to the EU, immigration, the budget deficiet and the role of the state in the United Kingdom (crippling regulations) and you know it.

i honestly think that lord pearson should never have been made the leader. farage is quite clearly a better speaker and seems far more clued up - even though i really don't like him and i do honestly expect the other party leaders to remember in detail their policies because that's what they are standing for. i prefer it if they were at the heart of formulating the manifesto as well.

[Wig44.]

I saw that interview on TV by chance (I never watch the politics show either - luck I guess) and thought he did a pretty bad job. I liked how they said 'we aren't trying to avoid talking about the EU' and then avoided talking about the EU straight away! Those interviewers, in my opinion, wanted to make him look bad. Wannabe Paxman.

[alexxxxx]

I saw that interview on TV by chance (I never watch the politics show either - luck I guess) and thought he did a pretty bad job. I liked how they said 'we aren't trying to avoid talking about the EU' and then avoided talking about the EU straight away! Those interviewers, in my opinion, wanted to make him look bad. Wannabe Paxman.

UKIP are either a single issue party or they aren't. They can't act like a non-single issue party and then get angry when not asked about questions that they don't like.

[Frodo13.]

Lord Pearson is no great orator and neither is he a professional politician

Then why on earth is this man the leader of a political party who gained more support than both the Lib Dems and Labour in last years European elections? Probably why UKIP are not making any impact at all in this election. They were clearly a protest vote last year.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then why on earth is this man the leader of a political party who gained more support than both the Lib Dems and Labour in last years European elections? Probably why UKIP are not making any impact at all in this election. They were clearly a protest vote last year.

If UKIP were just a protest vote then they would not of achieved coming third in the European Elections 2004 and ending up with 12 MEPs, the same as the Liberal Democrats. I'm afraid this argument no longer stands up anymore because they have twice acheived amazing results for a young party in two major elections and even in the General Election 2005 (where FPTP works against them and with a right-wing Conservative leader) despite the fact the party was in internal trouble they still managed to get 2.2% of the vote which pollsters estimated lost the Conservative Party 20 to 30 seats. If UKIP are heading for 5 to 6%+ this General Election then this will lose the Conservatives a high amount of seats and will most likely deprive them of the majority needed. Infact every single election we have contested we have done better and better in and hence why Conservative HQ is now becoming worried.

If we get proportional representation they can easily achieve upto the 20% mark in a General Election as natural Tories would vote UKIP over ther Conservatives because UKIP are more conservative than the Conservative Party. To see how unjust the FPTP is, just look at the recent polls where despite the Labour Party being third in the polls;- they would of retained most seats and despite the Liberal Democrats being in first place they would of had less seats than the Conservative Party and Labour Party.

As for Lord Pearson, he is only temporary as we suspect and it should not be on style just as Gordon Brown lacks in that area also.