why does UKIP lie to the public?

[-: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 reported that Barroso had spent a week on the yacht of the Greek shipping billionaire 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] In response to this revelation, Nigel Farage MEP of the 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 to be questioned on the matter.[16] The motion was tabled on 12 May 2005, and Barroso appeared before Parliament as required at a debate on 26 May 2005.[17] 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.