Labour heartlands under attack as Ukip launches it's biggest ever campaign in north

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/nigel-farage-warns-labour-during-7026149

UKIP leader Nigel Farage warns Labour: We are coming after you


http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bl7jt45IgAEBReZ.jpg:medium
Nigel Farage speaking to a packed out audience of 1,200 people in the Gateshead Sage.


UKIP leader Nigel Farage told party members and potential voters that he is deliberately targeting Labour voters in the North East.

Nigel Farage last night told a packed out North East meeting of 1,200 that he is “here for Labour votes”.

The UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage told party members and potential voters at the Sage in Gateshead that UKIP had deliberately set out on a policy to target voters across the North.

The party, he said, was no longer interested in just taking votes off the Conservatives and was seeking to replace Labour in the minds of voters across cities such as Newcastle, Sheffield and Manchester.

Already, polling has suggested the party will come second in the upcoming European elections in the North and elsewhere.

Mr Farage said those polls showed his party was about to cause “an earthquake in British politics”.

He said: “We are about 4% behind Labour in the North East, we are likely to get one of the three MEP seats in this region, and if we do even better, if those polls increase just a little, we would take two of the three seats. Beating Labour in its real heartland here would certainly be a mini-earthquake.”



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXtsLRLyvDM
Farage unveiled the posters in Sheffield.


Setting out a pitch for votes at this May’s elections, Mr Farage said: “It is no coincidence that we launched in Sheffield and are here in the North East today, we are going for the big northern cities, we are going for the Labour heartlands.

“We are here to say that Labour used to stand up for the people in this region, but they have turned their backs on you in favour of the European project. Well, UKIP will stand up for you now.

“If we get this right, we will top the polls nationally, we will beat Labour in its heartland and we will force Labour and the Conservatives to promise a referendum on the European Union.”

He later added: “The days of mockery for UKIP are over. We are a force now and people have to start listening to us.”


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1901864_10203028419183085_2279351801566788828_n.jp g
One of the posters that is being advertised by Ukip in key Labour heartlands, the northern cities along with the Midlands.


Last night Gateshead MP Ian Mearns urged voters not to believe the UKIP hype.

He said: “Apart from opposition to the EU UKIP are clearly and simply a party wedded to opposition to workers’ rights and protective legislation.

“They have nothing to offer working-class voters but a deterioration of their rights at work and a return to individuals being expendable.” Many Labour and Liberal Democrat figures have criticised UKIP’s calls for a referendum on EU membership, saying leaving Europe would put jobs at Nissan in Sunderland and elsewhere at risk.

Addressing that issue, Mr Farage told the audience: “Nissan will still sell cars to Europe because we will still buy BMWs and other cars; the German car market will insist on a trade deal. When Cleggers and others say a million jobs are at risk they are wrong. It is probably just their jobs that are at risk.

“It is time we governed ourselves and came up with our own trade agreements.”

More than 1,200 people turned up for the public meting, which saw far-left and far-right protesters outside and a heavy security presence around the concert hall.

A show of hands at the end of Mr Farage’s speech showed around half of those at the event were not party members.

North East Euro election candidate Jonathan Arnott joined Mr Farage on stage and said UKIP was second in the polls across the North because Labour was not doing enough for it.

He added: “I think people know now we are the main challenger to Labour in the North East. It is no longer just about trying for Conservative votes.

“UKIP offers voters here a choice. It knows they are concerned about crime, pay and immigration. We stand up for those concerns.”

Excellent news, i've been waiting for this for a while considering I live in one of the strongest Labour areas in the entire country (it's the strongest or 2nd strongest Labour seat) as have many others. For many years now, Labour have controlled northern cities with an iron grip since the 1950s and before: with the Tories not being able to put up any opposition being as useless as they are. But in recent years, Labour are in right trouble considering they were the ones who opened the borders to cheap labour: something that has affected the working class and lower middle class more than anything else.

Even Labour themselves admit it now -


A senior member of the party admitted that Labour no longer represented the people who set it up.

Lord Glasman, said: "The Labour party became very progressive. It was committed to very abstract general ends - fairness, rights, justice - and it in many ways viewed working- class voters as an obstacle to progress. And also their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters, as in the Gillian Duffy case, were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class."

And now it's payback time for the Labour Party which has spat on it's core vote for years now.

On a side note, amazed at the 1,200 figure for a Farage public meeting. That's verging on the Ron Paul 2008/2012 sort of figures. So far I have seen two of the posters up in a very short distance from my old school to my house.

Thoughts? Do you think Labour are vunerable?

[Inseriousity.]

Well I hate how 'safe seat' is a norm in our political vocabulary. democracy at its best should be about offering a real choice with a real competition. I hate that Labour have got a monopoly of seats in the north east and it gives them a free pass to be lazy. As for whether they're vulnerable, I would say so, there's a Tory seat up here in Stockton South (I reckon he'll lose it) so it is possible and the majority swing in my seat is only tiny - it's on the list of marginals for what must be the first time in ages - so I'm looking forward to the next general election, I might actually see some campaigning for once lol rather than here's a leaflet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I hate how 'safe seat' is a norm in our political vocabulary. democracy at its best should be about offering a real choice with a real competition. I hate that Labour have got a monopoly of seats in the north east and it gives them a free pass to be lazy. As for whether they're vulnerable, I would say so, there's a Tory seat up here in Stockton South (I reckon he'll lose it) so it is possible and the majority swing in my seat is only tiny - it's on the list of marginals for what must be the first time in ages - so I'm looking forward to the next general election, I might actually see some campaigning for once lol rather than here's a leaflet.

Agreed, it's always been said that the only way politicians and political parties ever learn is by losing elections or seats. There's been an outcry among Conservative and Labour members in recent years as the central party HQ now often parachutes people in to safe seats totally ignoring the local party organisation and placing somebody in what is essentially a job for life. I know Labour has been worst for it in recent months as we now have a family sort of system with one of the Kinnock sons waiting in the wings alongside Jack Straw's son and the son of Tony Blair.

I've always said that i'd like to see the names of the political parties removed from the ballot slip with only names of candidates on the forms. :P

[peteyt]

A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

[Joshirin]

I want to vote UKIP, as Conservatives don't give a ****, and Labour are terrible, but Farage and some members of UKIP aren't that professional tbh

[The Don]

A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

The debate about the EU is a lot closer than Farrage or any UKIP Supporter will have you believe. I suggest you research further into the EU from multiple sources to get a better idea. As for UKIP being racist? I wouldn't call the party racist, however they definitely do attract racists due to their xenophobic policies. Also, having 'balls' is completely irrelevant and you shouldn't base your choice on that, he may be a better public speaker than the other party leaders, and has stronger rhetoric, but you should vote based on the policies of the party and not how charismatic the leader is. Contrary to what Dan will shove down your throat, or anyone for that matter as naturally people are bias, you should always look for the sources of statistics and numbers which people use, as they are frequently misleading to make the EU/Immigration appear worse than it actually is.

[lemons]

LABOUR ARE GOING TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION I HAVE VISIONS

IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The debate about the EU is a lot closer than Farrage or any UKIP Supporter will have you believe. I suggest you research further into the EU from multiple sources to get a better idea. As for UKIP being racist? I wouldn't call the party racist, however they definitely do attract racists due to their xenophobic policies. Also, having 'balls' is completely irrelevant and you shouldn't base your choice on that, he may be a better public speaker than the other party leaders, and has stronger rhetoric, but you should vote based on the policies of the party and not how charismatic the leader is. Contrary to what Dan will shove down your throat, or anyone for that matter as naturally people are bias, you should always look for the sources of statistics and numbers which people use, as they are frequently misleading to make the EU/Immigration appear worse than it actually is.


A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

When it comes to the European Union for example, people like Don (as above) will claim that there is somehow a conspiracy by Ukip and others and that IF ONLY the stupid British people educated themselves about the 'reality' of the EU, they'd learn to love it. But you have to ask yourself though, why is it that after 40 years of membership we've never been given a vote by these people? If they are so sure of their arguments on EU membership and how great the EU apparently is, then they'd hold a referendum and come in the open and debate it but they never ever ever do. All they do is keep promising referendums and they keep promising that no more powers will go to the EU.... but that's exactly what happens year by year by year.

And whenever referendums have been held, the EU/politicians have made the people vote twice to get the 'correct' answer/ignored them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution

The only time one of them has tried to openly debate it was Nick Clegg in his debate against Farage, and he was destroyed.

On the racist point as well as the xenophobic point (which Don says), again - this is the usualy scare tactic regarding the immigration debate. Have you noticed that over the past decade or so, whenever somebody dared raise concerns over hundreds of thousands of very poor people coming into this country they were dismissed as bigots, racists, xenophobes and a whole manner of slurs? Well again, that's because they can't and do not want to debate the issue. They've thought for a long time now that they can get away with it by shouting racist at anybody who dares question mass immigration. Just read the quote I provided above where Lord Glasman also criticises his own party on this very issue.

If you want the Ukip policy on immigration, just watch the short clip I posted above where Ukip's Amjad Bashir says clearly: we want an immigration policy that is based on quality and quantity - similar to Australia and New Zealand. And that's another reason why we need to leave the EU - a criminal from anywhere in Europe for example has as much right to walk into the United Kingdom as you do and there's absolutely nothing the British Government can do about it... and that is fundementally anti-democratic. Our elected government should be in control of our borders.

Indeed, in many ways the immigration policy at the moment is ridiculous - we have no control over who comes in from Europe (so we could have many unskilled workers who we do not need coming in) where as instead of those, we could be taking in Indian or Asian doctors/scientists.

I think it's time to get our country back and break this cosy political consensus between the three establishment parties. And you know, even if your unsure about the EU or even Ukip as a whole for example: it's worth voting them to force the other parties into giving us a say on the EU.

[The Don]

When it comes to the European Union for example, people like Don (as above) will claim that there is somehow a conspiracy by Ukip and others and that IF ONLY the stupid British people educated themselves about the 'reality' of the EU, they'd learn to love it.
This doesn't even make sense, care to rephrase it? peteyt; Take note of how Dan's cleverly warped me saying to research things yourself into calling all British people stupid, or that there's some sort of conspiracy (trying to imply anyone pro-eu is crazy).


But you have to ask yourself though, why is it that after 40 years of membership we've never been given a vote by these people? If they are so sure of their arguments on EU membership and how great the EU apparently is, then they'd hold a referendum and come in the open and debate it but they never ever ever do.

We don't have referendums on every single thing, that's not how our parliamentary system works and you very well know that. If people want a referendum on the EU, they'll vote for the party promising that (ukip) it's as simple as that, we don't need referendums on every single thing, I don't see you calling for a referendum on our nato membership?


And whenever referendums have been held, the EU/politicians have made the people vote twice to get the 'correct' answer/ignored them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution

These are all about the European Constitution, which was never put through. It was changed and instead the Lisbon Treaty was put through which took into account the concerns of those previous nations. So the above is completely false and misleading.


The only time one of them has tried to openly debate it was Nick Clegg in his debate against Farage, and he was destroyed.
That's not what you said in the discussion thread, you said it was pretty close if I recall correctly. Even so, nobody is doubting the fact that Farrage is a good public speaker, and Farrage didn't win on facts, he won on rhetoric.


On the racist point as well as the xenophobic point (which Don says), again - this is the usualy scare tactic regarding the immigration debate. Have you noticed that over the past decade or so, whenever somebody dared raise concerns over hundreds of thousands of very poor people coming into this country they were dismissed as bigots, racists, xenophobes and a whole manner of slurs? Well again, that's because they can't and do not want to debate the issue. They've thought for a long time now that they can get away with it by shouting racist at anybody who dares question mass immigration. Just read the quote I provided above where Lord Glasman also criticises his own party on this very issue.

Again, Dan's only showing half the argument. About 1.8 million brits live in other parts of Europe with about 2.3 million eu born citizens living in the UK. That's not a huge surplus and certainly isn't the huge issue Dan wants it to be.


If you want the Ukip policy on immigration, just watch the short clip I posted above where Ukip's Amjad Bashir says clearly: we want an immigration policy that is based on quality and quantity - similar to Australia and New Zealand. And that's another reason why we need to leave the EU - a criminal from anywhere in Europe for example has as much right to walk into the United Kingdom as you do and there's absolutely nothing the British Government can do about it... and that is fundementally anti-democratic. Our elected government should be in control of our borders.

Ooh, a criminal can work in our country. Standard scaremongering. Our elected government was the ones that joined the EU and opened borders to its member states, what's anti-democratic about that?


Indeed, in many ways the immigration policy at the moment is ridiculous - we have no control over who comes in from Europe (so we could have many unskilled workers who we do not need coming in) where as instead of those, we could be taking in Indian or Asian doctors/scientists.

I think it's time to get our country back and break this cosy political consensus between the three establishment parties. And you know, even if your unsure about the EU or even Ukip as a whole for example: it's worth voting them to force the other parties into giving us a say on the EU.

We still can take in Indian or Asian Doctors/Scientists, why are you purposely pretending its one or the other?

[-:Undertaker:-]

This doesn't even make sense, care to rephrase it? peteyt; Take note of how Dan's cleverly warped me saying to research things yourself into calling all British people stupid, or that there's some sort of conspiracy (trying to imply anyone pro-eu is crazy).

Because I have read articles in pro-EU publications, newspapers and I am sure even you said this once - that the Great British public simply aren't 'educated' enough on the benefits of the European Union and that's why we can't have a referendum.


We don't have referendums on every single thing, that's not how our parliamentary system works and you very well know that. If people want a referendum on the EU, they'll vote for the party promising that (ukip) it's as simple as that, we don't need referendums on every single thing, I don't see you calling for a referendum on our nato membership?

That's true. But it's also true that in our parliamentary system, whenever there's been a great constitutional change - devolution, EEC membership, Northern Irish/Scottish independence or the voting system we've had a referendum on the subject. It's also been used as a method to help the main two political parties get over their divides on the EU issue, hence why Harold Wilson held one in the 1970s and why there was intense pressure on John Major to hold one on the Maastricht Treaty. So for you to tell me that referendums aren't the done thing in this country simply isn't true anymore - whether you agree with referenda or not.

I'd withdraw from NATO too.


These are all about the European Constitution, which was never put through. It was changed and instead the Lisbon Treaty was put through which took into account the concerns of those previous nations. So the above is completely false and misleading.

TOTAL RUBBISH. And don't take my word for it!



"As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum." — Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach


"There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed." — Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23rd June 2007


"They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there." — Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007


"In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty." — Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007


"The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left." — Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007


"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007


"If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." — Gordon Brown, The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007


"A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties." — José Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, El Pais, 23rd June 2007


"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same." — Václav Klaus, Czech President, , in Hosposarske Noviny, 13th June 2007


"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." — Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007


"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007


"For Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that." — Ursula Plassnik, Autrian Foreign Minister, BBC 10 o'clock news, 7th September 2007

You see why I seethe with anger over this issue? I am so SICK of the lies and the lies which you foolishly repeat like a parrot.

The Lisbon Treaty was the EU Constitution just repackaged. You ought to retract your false claim that it was not.


That's not what you said in the discussion thread, you said it was pretty close if I recall correctly. Even so, nobody is doubting the fact that Farrage is a good public speaker, and Farrage didn't win on facts, he won on rhetoric.

I said the first debate was pretty close to my mind, and the second Farage won by a landslide.

In terms of the public polling on both debates, Farage won by a landslide on both.


Again, Dan's only showing half the argument. About 1.8 million brits live in other parts of Europe with about 2.3 million eu born citizens living in the UK. That's not a huge surplus and certainly isn't the huge issue Dan wants it to be.

That simply adds to my argument. We're constantly told that it's an equal balance and that just as many Britons go over to Europe as Europeans come here. But that's a false argument considering how Britain's population is 60m and the EU's combined population is 400m+. That'd be like saying that if 8m Chinese came to live in the UK and 8m Britons went to live in China, that that's somehow a fair trade-off when if you take it into proportion it isn't. And that's not to mention the fact that many of those who have gone to Europe have been wealthy retired Britons, not young poor people as we have had here.

Besides, why would leaving the EU stop this movement of people? It wouldn't. Many Britons go off to live in America, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and all around the world. There's nothing to prevent an intergovernmental solution to this.


Ooh, a criminal can work in our country. Standard scaremongering.

That's not scaremongering, that's a fact. Just look at Romanian crime figures in London for fraud.

Our country should have the power to keep those with criminal records out of the UK. Period, end of story.


Our elected government was the ones that joined the EU and opened borders to its member states, what's anti-democratic about that?

Because our elected government lied to our faces about it, that's whats wrong about it.


We still can take in Indian or Asian Doctors/Scientists, why are you purposely pretending its one or the other?

Because there's such a thing as town planning and infrastructure planning: school places, strain on hospitals, doctors waiting lists, the price of houses, the protection of our greenbelt sites, traffic, jobs......... you cannot have unlimited numbers coming in.

It's just common sense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh and Don, here's some quotes on the importance of the Constitutional Treaty (renamed the Lisbon Treaty) in which they had the NERVE to deny us a say on. Look at what they're pushing for and they don't think we deserve a say? Over my dead body.


"We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes. " — Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention, Irish Times, 2nd June 2004

"Our continent's unification is at hand and we must stand to account. " — Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, speech in Brussels, 22nd May 2002

"We are involved in a constitution-building process of historic importance. The Convention should mark a new stage in European integration." — Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, speech in Brussels, 22nd May 2002

"The EU must take on new responsibilities. And these new responsibilities call for intensifying the integration process. " — Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, speech in Brussels, 22nd May 2002

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State. " — Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21st June 2004

"Our constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunce's cap. " — Valéry Giscard, President of the EU Convention, speech in Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize for European integration, 29th May 2003

"For the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty. It is a new era for Europe, a new geography, a new history." — French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Le Metro, 7th October 2004

"This Constitution is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe. The Constitution is not the end point of integration, but the framework for - as it says in the preamble - an ever closer union." — Hans Martin Bury, the German Minister for Europe, debate in the Bundestag, Die Welt, 25 February 2005

"The European Constitution will be an essential stage in the historic process of European integration." — Gerhard Schröder the Chancellor of Germany and President Chirac of France, The Nantes Franco-German summit joint declaration, 24th November 2001

"There is really quite an inherent danger in the traditional British view that the council of ministers and inter-governmentalism is your protection against the federalist superstate." — Gisela Stuart MP (Labour), representative of Parliament on the EU Convention, ePolitix.com, 2nd December 2002

"We have to give ourselves a constitution which marks the birth of Europe as a political entity. " — Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, Brussels, February 2002

"Creating a single European state bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our time." — German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, The Daily Telegraph, 27 December 1998

"This is a legal revolution without precedent. " — Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, Irish Times, 14 June 2003

"Monetary union is there, the common currency is there. So our main concern nowadays is foreign policy and defence. The next step, in terms of integration of the European Union, will be our constitution. We are today where you were in Philadelphia in 1787. " — French ambassador to the US Jean-David Levitte, press conference, 3 April 2003

"Anyone in Britain who claims the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives. " — Former Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, The Sunday Telegraph, 1st June 2003

"Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe. " — Peter Hain, MP, Financial Times, 22 March 2003

"The European Union is a state under construction." — Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs

"A full-time president of the European Council would be the most powerful politician of Europe, but will not be elected by the people or be accountable to a democratic body meeting in public. How is this going to bring Europe closer to its citizens?" — Gijs de Vries - Dutch representative on the EU Convention

"We have sown a seed... Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with a legal entity, with a single currency, common justice, a Europe which is about to have its own defence. " — Valery Giscard d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, presenting the final draft of the EU Constitution, 13th June 2003

"Our continent has seen successive attempts at unifying it: Caesar, Charlemagne and Napoleon, among others. The aim has been to unify it by force of arms, by the sword. We for our part seek to unify it by the pen. Will the pen succeed where the sword has finally failed? " — Valery Giscard d'Estaing, president of the EU Convention, speech in Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize for European integration, 29th May 2003

"These tasks form the core of the new European Project and they represent a giant step forward in European integration. " — Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, speech in Brussels, 22nd May 2002

These people are insane, and incredibly dangerous to peace and democracy in Europe. They need to be stopped.

[The Don]

Because I have read articles in pro-EU publications, newspapers and I am sure even you said this once - that the Great British public simply aren't 'educated' enough on the benefits of the European Union and that's why we can't have a referendum.

I don’t see the point in having a referendum on every little thing, no. I also think people should have knowledge on a subject before voting on it, rather than going by the propaganda they’ve seen on the front page of the Daily Mail.


That's true. But it's also true that in our parliamentary system, whenever there's been a great constitutional change - devolution, EEC membership, Northern Irish/Scottish independence or the voting system we've had a referendum on the subject. It's also been used as a method to help the main two political parties get over their divides on the EU issue, hence why Harold Wilson held one in the 1970s and why there was intense pressure on John Major to hold one on the Maastricht Treaty. So for you to tell me that referendums aren't the done thing in this country simply isn't true anymore - whether you agree with referenda or not.

I wouldn’t really group the Lisbon Treaty and Irish/Scottish Independence in the same category.


I'd withdraw from NATO too.

It was merely a comparison.


The Lisbon Treaty was the EU Constitution just repackaged. You ought to retract your false claim that it was not.

Quite a few things were changed, actually.


That simply adds to my argument. We're constantly told that it's an equal balance and that just as many Britons go over to Europe as Europeans come here. But that's a false argument considering how Britain's population is 60m and the EU's combined population is 400m+. That'd be like saying that if 8m Chinese came to live in the UK and 8m Britons went to live in China, that that's somehow a fair trade-off when if you take it into proportion it isn't. And that's not to mention the fact that many of those who have gone to Europe have been wealthy retired Britons, not young poor people as we have had here.

What? It doesn’t need to be proportionate. All that matters to us it the amount in the UK, which hasn’t changed much due to Brits moving elsewhere. It’s as simple as that.



Besides, why would leaving the EU stop this movement of people? It wouldn't. Many Britons go off to live in America, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and all around the world. There's nothing to prevent an intergovernmental solution to this.
I never said it would? You’re going off on a tangent now.


That's not scaremongering, that's a fact. Just look at Romanian crime figures in London for fraud.
What figures? Post them here.


Our country should have the power to keep those with criminal records out of the UK. Period, end of story.
Yes, let’s leave the worlds largest economy and have loads of businesses up and leave (which they’ve already said they will do, whether you think they will or not is irrelevant because unless you have the gift of clairvoyance you couldn’t possibly know otherwise and we’ll have to simply go by what they’ve said). Seems like a sensible trade off. /s



Because our elected government lied to our faces about it, that's whats wrong about it.

What did they lie about exactly?



Because there's such a thing as town planning and infrastructure planning: school places, strain on hospitals, doctors waiting lists, the price of houses, the protection of our greenbelt sites, traffic, jobs......... you cannot have unlimited numbers coming in.

You haven’t answered what I said. Having open doors to the EU doesn’t prevent Indian/Asian Doctors or Scientists from coming here. You’re also not accounting for the fact that with immigration comes more jobs. Not to mention the fact that there’s not a major surplus due to Britons moving elsewhere as we’ve previously discussed. Making mountains out of molehills.

How about we talk about some other UKIP policy, because as far as I’m aware they seem to be for privatising the NHS, something I’m sure most Britons are fundamentally against. Take away the EU and what other need is there for UKIP?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don’t see the point in having a referendum on every little thing, no. I also think people should have knowledge on a subject before voting on it, rather than going by the propaganda they’ve seen on the front page of the Daily Mail.

Ladies and Gentlemen... AND HERE SPEAKS THE TRUE VOICE OF THE EUROPHILE!

In other words, you think we're too stupid to make a decision ourselves. As I originally said. I rest my case.


I wouldn’t really group the Lisbon Treaty and Irish/Scottish Independence in the same category.

Your friends in the EU call this their stepping stone to a federal Europe (see quotes), something that would dwaft the issues of Northern Ireland joining the Republic or Scotland becoming an independent Kingdom. It's hugely important, and you know it.


It was merely a comparison.

It was, but you thought i'd shy away from it. I don't.


Quite a few things were changed, actually.

A blind refusal to accept reality, the quotes speak for themselves.

You're not being very 'European' are you by failing to take the line of your friends in Brussels?


What? It doesn’t need to be proportionate. All that matters to us it the amount in the UK, which hasn’t changed much due to Brits moving elsewhere. It’s as simple as that.

It does have to be proportionate - a higher amount moving to an area and country with a smaller geographical size and population number will have more of an impact on the smaller country than the larger country. Common sense.

And yes the amount to us in the UK does matter, and Labour promised only 13,000 a year would come. We've had enough.


I never said it would? You’re going off on a tangent now.

So why mention it then? You are again peddling the scaremongering claim that somehow by the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union, we'll have to do a huge population swap with millions of retired Britons being thrown out of their Spanish and Tuscan villas and arriving back on the beaches of Dover. It ain't going to happen, it doesn't work like that.


What figures? Post them here.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/romanians_cash_machine_crime-29254

From the former head of the Police unit that tackles ATM fraud.

Even if the figure was 1% i'd still demand that our elected government have the ability to deny criminals entry to the UK. Period.


Yes, let’s leave the worlds largest economy and have loads of businesses up and leave (which they’ve already said they will do, whether you think they will or not is irrelevant because unless you have the gift of clairvoyance you couldn’t possibly know otherwise and we’ll have to simply go by what they’ve said). Seems like a sensible trade off. /s

No you don't have to go off what they've said because what they've said in the past - and it was along the same lines - shows that it's total and complete rubbish. All the large corporations said that they'd be forced to leave the UK if we didn't join the Euro and THANK GOD we didn't listen to them.

Besides, that's a false argument too. In leaving the European Union, you haven't got to leave the Single Market: see Norway.


What did they lie about exactly?

Is that a serious question? Anyway here goes - my favourite is the top being from the man who took us into the EEC in the 1970's and who promised at the time that people like Enoch Powell and Tony Benn were crazy and that there was no plan for a federal Europe or common currency, and that it was all about a 'Common Market'.



Peter Sissons: The single currency, a United States of Europe, was all that in your mind when you took Britain in?

Edward Heath: Of course, yes.

On BBC's Question Time on 1 November, 1990.


"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations." — David Cameron MP, The Sun, 26th September 2007


"Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the "cojones" to carry our argument to the people." — Nick Clegg, the Guardian, 15th October 2003


"The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised." — Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP, speech to the House of Commons, 20th April 2004


"This constitutional treaty can only come into force once it has been ratified in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of each member state. In the UK, this will require primary legislation amending the European Communities Act 1972 and then endorsement in a referendum." — Rt Hon. Jack Straw MP, Foreign Secretary, speech to the House of Commons, 26th January 2005


"The Government have made it clear that the constitutional treaty will be ratified in the UK only after a referendum." — Geoff Hoon MP, Europe Minister, speech to the House of Commons, 23rd May 2006


"There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people . . . Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject." — Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, speech to the House of Commons, 21st June 2004


"The Government have consistently made it clear that the mechanism in the United Kingdom whereby the European draft constitutional treaty could be implemented is approval by the House of Commons followed by a referendum of the people of Britain. There is no question of implementing it by the back door." — Douglas Alexander, Europe Minister, speech to the House of Commons, 31st January 2006


"The EU's constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it. " — Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, EU Observer, 31st May 2003


"I am logically in favour of a referendum. It would be the only legitimate way. " — Jacques Chirac, French President, speaking about the EU Constitution at the EU Thessaloniki Summit, 21st-22nd June 2003


"The referendum should go ahead in any event. Of course it should." — Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, speech to the House of Commons, 20th April 2004


"It is absolutely clear that there should be a referendum on the European constitutional treaty, and that remains the Government's position." — Geoff Hoon MP, Europe Minister, speech to the House of Commons, 16th January 2007


"We will put it to the British people in a referendum." — Gordon Brown, General Election Manifesto, 2005


"... ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people." — Liberal Democrat Party, General Election Manifesto, 2005


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/03/Clegg-referendum-page-001-353x500-e1368621536390-272x280.jpg

I place the lot of them at the same level as a sewer rat. Despicable liars. It makes my blood boil just reading those quotes.

And they wonder why people don't bother with voting anymore? We can't trust them as far as we can throw them.


You haven’t answered what I said. Having open doors to the EU doesn’t prevent Indian/Asian Doctors or Scientists from coming here. You’re also accounting for the fact that with immigration comes more jobs. Not to mention the fact that there’s not a major surplus due to Britons moving elsewhere as we’ve previously discussed. Making mountains out of molehills.

Yes it does, by definition. Even now with our ridiculous immigration level, we couldn't suddenly take as many as possible.

And as for the jobs, that depends. Usually the result is the depression of wages for the native population.


How about we talk about some other UKIP policy, because as far as I’m aware they seem to be for privatising the NHS, something I’m sure most Britons are fundamentally against. Take away the EU and what other need is there for UKIP?

Ukip don't want to privatise the NHS, but I do. But then Ukip isn't perfect.

It's a populist party after all: I admit freely that i'm out of step with the British public on things like the NHS.

[The Don]

No, again, I don’t see the need for a referendum. IF enough people want a referendum they will vote UKIP or for a party promising it. I don’t see a drastic need for one but if enough people vote for a party promising one, that warrants it.

You’ve done it again, ALL of those quotes are talking about the constitution that didn’t go through, not the Lisbon treaty. Stop acting as if they are identical.

There are differences between the two, some specifically for the concerns of those countries which did reject the constitution



27. The mandate given to the IGC was, therefore, to draw up a Treaty, called the “Reform Treaty”, which would consist of amendments to the current Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The idea of replacing the existing European Union Treaties with a single Constitutional Treaty was abandoned. This was done in a direct response to what were seen as legitimate concerns among many of Europe’s citizens.

28. Instead, the new Reform Treaty would preserve the balance of the practical improvements to the Union’s decision making and structures which had been agreed by the Heads of State or Government under the 2004 Irish Presidency. At the same time, it would drop those elements which had had a constitutional character. For example, the title “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” would be changed to “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. In this context, it was also agreed not to proceed with the formal adoption in the Treaty of the Union’s symbols – the EU flag, the anthem and Europe day.

29. Other modifications introduced as a result of the period of reflection and of further consultation with the Member States related to: the respective competences of the EU and the Member States and their delimitation; the specific nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); the enhanced role for national parliaments; the treatment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and a revised mechanism, in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police co-operation, enabling Member States to go forward with a proposed measure while allowing others not to participate. An Irish Government proposal to include a reference to combating climate change under the Union’s environmental policy was also agreed.

There's virtually no weight to your argument other than rambling on about immigrants (even though you're not actually showing how this is a problem other than spouting infrastructure, health care and whatever other buzzwords you can think of). I also love how the link you provided about Romanian gangs relies on nothing more than heresy from an ex police officer, hardly a source to be taken seriously. Also in regards to the NHS privatisation part, is it not true then that UKIP wants to Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries? Sounds like a slippery slope to privatisation if you ask me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, again, I don’t see the need for a referendum. IF enough people want a referendum they will vote UKIP or for a party promising it. I don’t see a drastic need for one but if enough people vote for a party promising one, that warrants it.

Of course you don't want a referendum, you're terrified that people will actually reject your hollow argument.

But you heard it here first folks - Want a referendum on EU membership? Then Vote Ukip says The Don.


You’ve done it again, ALL of those quotes are talking about the constitution that didn’t go through, not the Lisbon treaty. Stop acting as if they are identical.

They are identical. The people who have written them and who wanted it pushed through even say that it's bloody identical.

Do I have to post all those quotes straight from the horses mouth AGAIN before you stop repeating this rubbish?


There are differences between the two, some specifically for the concerns of those countries which did reject the constitution

Yes, Ireland got a few bones thrown their way and the Czech Republic too.

The bulk of the Constitution was pushed through via Lisbon and they got away with it by pretending it wasn't the same.


There's virtually no weight to your argument other than rambling on about immigrants (even though you're not actually showing how this is a problem other than spouting infrastructure, health care and whatever other buzzwords you can think of).

Ask people around the country. Look at the polls. Look at the schools where they have to teach in NINE different languages.

I'm personally more concerned about the social effects and ghettoisation myself, as you well know.


I also love how the link you provide about Romanian gangs relies on nothing more than heresy from an ex police officer, hardly a source to be taken seriously.

The former head of the ATM Fraud Unit in London isn't to be taken seriously when talking about ATM Fraud in London? :S


Also in regards to the NHS privatisation part, is it not true then that UKIP wants to Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries? Sounds like a slippery slope to privatisation if you ask me.

Not sure, but that's already been done under Labour and the Tories under PFI schemes so... yeah.

[The Don]

Of course you don't want a referendum, you're terrified that people will actually reject your hollow argument.
But you heard it here first folks - Want a referendum on EU membership? Then Vote Ukip says The Don.

Not at all, I'd rather live in a Cooperative, Europe friendly Britain as opposed to an Isolated 'do it ourselves' one. This isn't the 19th century anymore, and Britain isn't the global player that it once was. Cooperating with our neighbours is of upmost importance.



They are identical. The people who have written them and who wanted it pushed through even say that it's bloody identical.

So the 3 massive paragraphs I posted pointing out some of the differences is not true?


Ask people around the country. Look at the polls. Look at the schools where they have to teach in NINE different languages.

I'm personally more concerned about the social effects and ghettoisation myself, as you well know.

I wasn't taught at a school where they practiced 9 languages. Or is this not representative of reality and is just a cherry picked example?


The former head of the ATM Fraud Unit in London isn't to be taken seriously when talking about ATM Fraud in London? :S

There's literally zero evidence for it except for his word. If you're willing to blindly believe somebody without the slightest shred of evidence then more for you.


Not sure, but that's already been done under Labour and the Tories under PFI schemes so... yeah.

So you are admitting that UKIP will carry on slowly privatising the NHS? Is that an apology I hear?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not at all, I'd rather live in a Cooperative, Europe friendly Britain as opposed to an Isolated 'do it ourselves' one. This isn't the 19th century anymore, and Britain isn't the global player that it once was. Cooperating with our neighbours is of upmost importance.

What is this rubbish? It sounds like it's been lifted right out of the Nick Clegg handbook. Since when did you have to be in a political or even an economic union with other countries to co-operate with them? We are not a state of America yet we are close allies in terms of economics, militarily and politically. We are not in a political or economic union with the Commonwealth of Nations, yet we all co-operate together.

And as I said earlier, EVEN IF you wanted economic union you could take the Norway option of being in the Single Market. Personally myself, as Britain is expected to remain in the top 10 global economies by 2050 - the only European economy predicted to do so - I would also leave the Single Market and take up the Swiss option of EFTA membership. It'd also free us up to make FTAs with the Commonwealth.


So the 3 massive paragraphs I posted pointing out some of the differences is not true?

Did I say that? You'll notice though on reading those paragraphs that they're mostly cosmetic.


I wasn't taught at a school where they practiced 9 languages. Or is this not representative of reality and is just a cherry picked example?

Well jolly good for you.

Now why does that surprise me - somebody not affected by mass immigration seemingly doesn't have a problem with it!


There's literally zero evidence for it except for his word. If you're willing to blindly believe somebody without the slightest shred of evidence then more for you.

It speaks volumes that they won't release the figures to clarify.


So you are admitting that UKIP will carry on slowly privatising the NHS? Is that an apology I hear?

No, i'm telling you that I don't know what the old policy is nor do I know what the policy for the 2015 General Election will be.

[The Don]

What is this rubbish? It sounds like it's been lifted right out of the Nick Clegg handbook. Since when did you have to be in a political or even an economic union with other countries to co-operate with them? We are not a state of America yet we are close allies in terms of economics, militarily and politically. We are not in a political or economic union with the Commonwealth of Nations, yet we all co-operate together.

And as I said earlier, EVEN IF you wanted economic union you could take the Norway option of being in the Single Market. Personally myself, as Britain is expected to remain in the top 10 global economies by 2050 - the only European economy predicted to do so - I would also leave the Single Market and take up the Swiss option of EFTA membership.

We have more say being in than we do out. If we left the EU and remained in the common market we still have to abide most EU regulation, accept immigrants, contribute to the EU budget, abide rulings of the European Court of Human Rights etc etc. Being a member of the EU we have a say in all these things, if we left we would still have to abide by them if we wanted to remain in the EEA. I cannot fathom why somebody would want to leave the massive power that is the EU and all the trade agreements we have.



Did I say that? You'll notice though on reading those paragraphs that they're mostly cosmetic.


You implied it since you seem hellbent on saying they're the exact same even though they quite obviously aren't.


Well jolly good for you.

Now why does that surprise me - somebody not affected by mass immigration seemingly doesn't have a problem with it!

So are you implying that this is the norm? Can you link me to a few of these schools that teach in 9 languages please? As I imagine its simply you exaggerating again.


It speaks volumes that they won't release the figures to clarify.

And to think only a few posts ago you were the one calling those pro-eu the conspiracists. Get that Tin hat off.


No, i'm telling you that I don't know what the old policy is nor do I know what the policy for the 2015 General Election will be.

So you don't even know the general policies of the party you're preaching? Tut tut.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We have more say being in than we do out.

Where is the evidence for this? And a say in what exactly? Firstly the question must be asked, what are we having a say in? Answer: the building of a federal Europe. But we don't want to be in a federal Europe, so why would we want a say in a federal Europe anymore than we would want a say in the US Congress or the People's Assembly in China? It simply doesn't add up.

And in terms of legislation, we have very little say. In the European Commission for example - which is the engine of legislation - we have 1 seat out of a total of 28 - meaning our voice counts for 3.5% and is counting for less and less as more EU members join the organisation. In the useless European parliament also, our voice only counts for 72 seats out of a total of 766: meaning our voice counts for 9.3% ... a figure that is also decreasing as more EU members sign up. You call that influence? I call it nonsense.


If we left the EU and remained in the common market we still have to abide most EU regulation

In regards to companies making products to export to the European Union, yes. But the same occurs now when a company exports to the United States, China, India, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand..... and vice versa when a company in one of those countries exports to the United Kingdom. That's how business works and always has done - it improvises and caters to the market it is exporting to.

But in terms of our own domestic legislation, we'd be free to make our own changes which - if we had a government that was intent on limiting red tape - could lead to imports being cheaper with the avoidance of ridiculous EU rules on products.


accept immigrants

Who is arguing against any immigration? Not me. I am for immigration, as are most people provided it is controlled and it based on quality and quantity. Immigration could and would still continue to and from Europe, but on our own terms, ie a cap/work permits & criminal controls.


contribute to the EU budget

This is only in the case of Norway and to my knowledge does not include Switzerland. It certainly does not include FTA states. If you wanted to remain in the Single Market then yes, it would cost something as the Single Market has to be administered.

But I don't favour the Norway option myself.


abide rulings of the European Court of Human Rights etc etc.

Not if we leave it.


Being a member of the EU we have a say in all these things, if we left we would still have to abide by them if we wanted to remain in the EEA. I cannot fathom why somebody would want to leave the massive power that is the EU and all the trade agreements we have.

Switzerland is a small power and has roughly as many FTAs (and far better ones) as the EU does.


You implied it since you seem hellbent on saying they're the exact same even though they quite obviously aren't.

The EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty and virtually the same, aside from cosmetic differences. Re-read the quotes (again).


So are you implying that this is the norm? Can you link me to a few of these schools that teach in 9 languages please? As I imagine its simply you exaggerating again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10384260/Revealed-the-schools-where-every-child-speaks-English-as-second-language.html


Figures show that all children at a series of primary schools in the Midlands and North West speak other languages such as Punjabi Urdu, Arabic, Dari and Polish in the home.

It also emerged that there are a further 240 state schools in England where more than 90 per cent of students do not have English as their mother tongue.

The disclosure – in figures obtained by Sky News – comes amid a sharp hike in the number of non-native English speakers enrolling in state schools over the last 12 months.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10152869/More-pupils-speaking-English-as-a-second-language.html


Official figures show that almost one-in-five pupils in primary education now speak another language in the home following a sharp hike in the number of foreign-born pupils over the last 12 months.

In inner London, native English speakers are now in a minority, with the proportion as low as a quarter in boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Westminster.

Across England, the number of children who do not have English as their mother tongue has increased by 54,000 in the last 12 months and around 228,000 since 2008. The number stands at almost 1.1m in 2012/13.

Figures suggest that the proportion of children starting school with English as a second language has now doubled since the late 90s.

The disclosure – in data from the Department for Education – comes amid concerns that a rise in the number of immigrants is having a significant affect on public services.

http://rt.com/news/english-schools-language-migrants-523/


For an increasing number of British school kids English is no longer their first language, with children in 1,700 schools across the country speaking another tongue at home.

The UK’s Department for Education figures indicate that English is no longer the first language for the majority of pupils at one in nine schools across the country. The number of pupils with English as their second-language has risen by 20 percent to almost 1.1 million since 2009, reports The Daily Telegraph.

Huge areas of the country are literally becoming foreign.


And to think only a few posts ago you were the one calling those pro-eu the conspiracists. Get that Tin hat off.

That's not a conspiracy, that's just a question: if the figures he says are wrong, why won't the Met release the 'true' figures?


So you don't even know the general policies of the party you're preaching? Tut tut.

I'm not standing as an MEP nor do I agree with or memorise everything Ukip print in their manifesto.

[The Don]

Where is the evidence for this? And a say in what exactly? Firstly the question must be asked, what are we having a say in? Answer: the building of a federal Europe. But we don't want to be in a federal Europe, so why would we want a say in a federal Europe anymore than we would want a say in the US Congress or the People's Assembly in China? It simply doesn't add up.

And in terms of legislation, we have very little say. In the European Commission for example - which is the engine of legislation - we have 1 seat out of a total of 28 - meaning our voice counts for 3.5% and is counting for less and less as more EU members join the organisation. In the useless European parliament also, our voice only counts for 72 seats out of a total of 766: meaning our voice counts for 9.3% ... a figure that is also decreasing as more EU members sign up. You call that influence? I call it nonsense.

Everything you've just said literally reiterates my point of us having more of a say in that out. We do not have a voice if we leave, and will likely have to abide EU laws either way. I'm not so sure why you think we can waltz in and get a Switzerland setup. If anything, we would end up with a deal similar to Norway as I sincerely doubt the EU will let us have our cake and eat it too, which is exactly what Switzerland is doing at the moment.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10384260/Revealed-the-schools-where-every-child-speaks-English-as-second-language.html



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10152869/More-pupils-speaking-English-as-a-second-language.html



http://rt.com/news/english-schools-language-migrants-523/


How are these articles relevant to you claiming "Look at the schools where they have to teach in NINE different languages."? All I see is articles discussing bilingual students.


Huge areas of the country are literally becoming foreign.

Does people speaking other languages besides English scare you? Such a trivial point it's ridiculous.


That's not a conspiracy, that's just a question: if the figures he says are wrong, why won't the Met release the 'true' figures?

I think it's just a case of there not being a need for them to rather than them covering up some grand conspiracy.

Why are you so afraid of working with the rest of Europe? I've not had the chance to say it before but it seems your romanticised idea of Great Britain in it's 'golden days' is responsible for your hatred of the EU (Judging from your posts around the forum, not this particular thread). *Getting all freudian on you*

Of course, we're always going to disagree because you're extremely nationalistic and we have such opposing beliefs, but in a globalised world where african countries are banding together, south american countries as well, the UK will not remain a global player for much longer. Europe however, has potential to be a major powerhouse and I want to remain part of it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Everything you've just said literally reiterates my point of us having more of a say in that out. We do not have a voice if we leave, and will likely have to abide EU laws either way.

So you haven't taken anything in I have just written, have you? I said very clearly that it is true that British companies exporting to the EU will still have to abide by EU regulations but that's the same for Russian, American, Algerian, Saudi, Chinese and Indian producers who export to the EU. The difference that getting out of the EU in terms of consumer regulations is that the UK outside of the EU would have more flexibility in terms of domestic consumption, ie we could completely remove tariffs on African agricultural goods which is something that the highly protectionist French would never permit within the EU framework/trade policy.

This scenario would put us in roughly the same position as every other country on the planet.


I'm not so sure why you think we can waltz in and get a Switzerland setup. If anything, we would end up with a deal similar to Norway as I sincerely doubt the EU will let us have our cake and eat it too, which is exactly what Switzerland is doing at the moment.

Our economy is much bigger than the Swiss economy, giving us more negotiating power.


How are these articles relevant to you claiming "Look at the schools where they have to teach in NINE different languages."? All I see is articles discussing bilingual students.

I see articles which show that in schools across this country now as well as homes and communities, English is being sidelined in our own country and cultural and language ghettos are springing up. I care deeply about social cohesion. It's important.


Does people speaking other languages besides English scare you? Such a trivial point it's ridiculous.

It does actually, yes. One of the key features of a country and being a human being in a community means being able to interact with one another as well as the obvious fact too that language shapes culture. It scares me that in many areas around this country, people are not talking with one another or are talking in their own languages and living in their own seperate ethnic/cultural groups... in other words, ghettoisation is taking place. And I fear where and what that will lead to.

I wouldn't like to live in an area where I could not understand anybody. I speak English, I want to feel like i'm in England. My home.


I think it's just a case of there not being a need for them to rather than them covering up some grand conspiracy.

Or maybe the figures the former head of the unit states are true but are deemed too 'politically sensitive' to release?


Why are you so afraid of working with the rest of Europe? I've not had the chance to say it before but it seems your romanticised idea of Great Britain in it's 'golden days' is responsible for your hatred of the EU (Judging from your posts around the forum, not this particular thread). *Getting all freudian on you*

Where have I advocated that we not work with the rest of Europe? I was a huge fan of NATO during the Cold War which saw us working with our Atlantic and European allies, and I am a huge fan today of the Commonwealth where we have a forum with our colonial cousins. I'm also a fan of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a force for liberalising trade hence why I want Britain to leave the EU and thus retake her seat on that important body which gives us a top seat at the world table. I am for intergovernmentalism, but against supranationalism.

And yes, I do love my country. What's wrong with that?


Of course, we're always going to disagree because you're extremely nationalistic and we have such opposing beliefs, but in a globalised world where african countries are banding together, south american countries as well, the UK will not remain a global player for much longer.

But that's just rhetoric. I have already given you evidence how Britain is the only European country expected to remain in the top 10 global economies by 2050, I could go on about how Britain's close links with her former colonies along with the Commonwealth could see us taking huge advantage of the growing Asian economies by signing FTAs with them - something we can only do by leaving the EU. I could also point to the City of London, which is miles ahead of any other financial centre in the world thanks to our Anglo-Saxon instinct of free trade with far away places. You call me nationalistic, but i'm the optimistic one - you seem to think that our future is being forever chained to a shrinking part of the global economy.


Europe however, has potential to be a major powerhouse and I want to remain part of it.

You want a federal Europe with the abolition of our sovereignty, don't you? Why not just have the guts to come out and say it?