The BNP - Good or Bad?

[MrPinkPanther]

Why would it be a disaster if we withdrew from the European Union? - is that why Switzerland who have a much smaller economy than that of ours and are a European country are better off economically now than most other European nations whom are within the European Union?

Switzerland is a poor example because it is naturally a very wealthy country and has been for a long time.

It would be a disaster to withdraw from the EU because of how integrated Britain is. At one point it would not have been too damaging but now it most definitely is. It's because amongst other things it guarantees free work in other EU countries and no protection tariffs. Now you imagine we suddenly take that away and thats a large percentage of trade that we lose right away, never mind the damage it will do in international relations.

On the survival of the human race, what are we facing that demands we pool our sovereignty to an unelected and undemocratic organisation, of which the vast majority of its people have never asked for, and do not want.

World problems need world solutions. At the moment the EU is the best chance we have got environmentally. What is devised in Brussels can be imposed on the whole of Europe to set an example to the world of what can be achieved.

We actually voted on Europe in 1975 in a referendum. This would be difficult to repeat because as I say we are too integrated into Europe which is why it was carried out in 1975. However the results of the referendum are interesting. Prior to the referendum 2/3 of electorate were against the Common Market but the actual referendum showed that 2/3 were for it, a complete U Turn. This was what many politicians suspected at the time that British people were particularly harsh towards Europe because it gave them something to blame when they may actually be for it as the referendum shows. Indeed many, if not most of the campaigners against moving futher into the EU in 1975 are now Pro-EU retrospectively.

On economic redistribution, in other words socialism. Luckily the history of the United Kingdom has shown us that does not work and more to the point, it isnt fair - not to mention the bankrupt, backward socialist economies of North Korea, the-then Soviet Union and others around the world.

Both North Korea and the Soviet Union are/were Communist countries, not socialist, they simply had "NEP systems". Socialism in it's purest sense doesn't work but a certain element of Economic Redistribution is always good which is why it is one of the Key macro-economic objectives for any government "Distribution of income and wealth".

[-:Undertaker:-]

Switzerland is a poor example because it is naturally a very wealthy country and has been for a long time.

We are a naturally wealthy country, we have far more natural resources than that of Switzerland and a far larger economy. I don't have to just mention Switzerland, I could mention the numerous other countries around the world who are not members of the European Union and are doing just fine, despite the fact their economies are smaller than that of the United Kingdom.

It would be a disaster to withdraw from the EU because of how integrated Britain is. At one point it would not have been too damaging but now it most definitely is. It's because amongst other things it guarantees free work in other EU countries and no protection tariffs. Now you imagine we suddenly take that away and thats a large percentage of trade that we lose right away, never mind the damage it will do in international relations.

We would not lose trade, a business does not operate in a country based on whether or not the country is a member of the European Union - infact if anything, EU regulations hinder business of which they have to spend billions on each year going through the European Union system to operate.

On international relations, leaving the European Union is not being anti-Europe or xenophobic, if the European Union chooses to degrade relations with the United Kingdom because its people chose to leave, then that is up to them and not us. Friends with Europe, not ruled by Europe.

World problems need world solutions. At the moment the EU is the best chance we have got environmentally. What is devised in Brussels can be imposed on the whole of Europe to set an example to the world of what can be achieved.

What world problems are we facing which require the need to pool our sovereignty to an unelected, corrupt and undemocratic body?

On enviromental issues, the European Union has actually wasted billions and billions on enviromental issues and all of its enviromental plans have gone to rot. Why do we need to pay billions and billions into something for 'enviromental solutions' that we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves, in our elected parliament?

We actually voted on Europe in 1975 in a referendum. This would be difficult to repeat because as I say we are too integrated into Europe which is why it was carried out in 1975. However the results of the referendum are interesting. Prior to the referendum 2/3 of electorate were against the Common Market but the actual referendum showed that 2/3 were for it, a complete U Turn. This was what many politicians suspected at the time that British people were particularly harsh towards Europe because it gave them something to blame when they may actually be for it as the referendum shows. Indeed many, if not most of the campaigners against moving futher into the EU in 1975 are now Pro-EU retrospectively.

Wrong, we did not vote to join the European Union in 1975. Oh yes, most campaigners such as the Kinnocks who opposed the European Union, who opposed the Lords and who opposed capitalism - yet right now the Kinnocks have not only reeped millions in from their EU roles, but also are now both Lords in the very house they opposed so much. How strange how money & privelages soon changed their opinions!

Both North Korea and the Soviet Union are/were Communist countries, not socialist, they simply had "NEP systems". Socialism in it's purest sense doesn't work but a certain element of Economic Redistribution is always good which is why it is one of the Key macro-economic objectives for any government "Distribution of income and wealth".

Socialism is communism, and look no futher than the very name of the most powerful socialist nation in history; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). On distribution, can I ask - why should somebody who has worked and earnt their money have that taken away by the state aka stolen?

[MrPinkPanther]

We are a naturally wealthy country, we have far more natural resources than that of Switzerland and a far larger economy. I don't have to just mention Switzerland, I could mention the numerous other countries around the world who are not members of the European Union and are doing just fine, despite the fact their economies are smaller than that of the United Kingdom.

I'm not going to go into Switzerland because it's one specific example but I think you need to read up on the so called "Swiss miracle". By the first world war Switzerland was a very wealthy country and in fact Britain's wealth and prestige declined well before it joined Europe because it had to give up its empire. So it's all really rather irrelevant.

We would not lose trade, a business does not operate in a country based on whether or not the country is a member of the European Union - infact if anything, EU regulations hinder business of which they have to spend billions on each year going through the European Union system to operate.

Many of Britain's key trade partners are within Europe so yes it would hinder trade. Like I said that's why the "EU" was originally formed to manage coal and steel which soon became the EEC which is based around Economic improvement for those involved (European Economic Community).

On international relations, leaving the European Union is not being anti-Europe or xenophobic, if the European Union chooses to degrade relations with the United Kingdom because its people chose to leave, then that is up to them and not us. Friends with Europe, not ruled by Europe.

Leaving Europe would be a blow for international relations whether you like it or not. Britain spent decades trying to join Europe after it's application was repeatedly vetoed by De Gaulle. Let's not undo all that and go back to the state that Britain and Europe were in before where we are kind of in and kind of out. We aren't ruled by Europe, not at all. The EU puts very few regulations on Britain and most of the stuff that is publicised is complete and utter rubbish. Like "Banning Chocolate", that was never gonna happen.

What world problems are we facing which require the need to pool our sovereignty to an unelected, corrupt and undemocratic body?

The Environment. But no I totally agree, the European system does need a firm kick up the backside but it is still better than not being in it.

Wrong, we did not vote to join the European Union in 1975. Oh yes, most campaigners such as the Kinnocks who opposed the European Union, who opposed the Lords and who opposed capitalism - yet right now the Kinnocks have not only reeped millions in from their EU roles, but also are now both Lords in the very house they opposed so much. How strange how money & privelages soon changed their opinions!

I'm not talking about the Kinnocks but in general. Yes, we did vote on the European Union in 1975 however it was under a different name of the EEC because every time there is a major European Treaty it's name is changed, hence the "European Union" title.

Socialism is communism, and look no futher than the very name of the most powerful socialist nation in history; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). On distribution, can I ask - why should somebody who has worked and earnt their money have that taken away by the state aka stolen?

No it's not. Don't be so naive. It's things like this that make me believe you are simply regurgitating what you have been told. Socialism is purely economic whereas Communism is both political and economic. The reason they say they are socialist is because they don't want to admit that they are controlling their population.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not going to go into Switzerland because it's one specific example but I think you need to read up on the so called "Swiss miracle". By the first world war Switzerland was a very wealthy country and in fact Britain's wealth and prestige declined well before it joined Europe because it had to give up its empire. So it's all really rather irrelevant.

Our economy still generates more money than that of Switzerland, so what is your point? - why do we need to surrender our sovereignty for 'economic reasons' when a country with a smaller economy than ours does not have to? - the point is, we don't.

Many of Britain's key trade partners are within Europe so yes it would hinder trade. Like I said that's why the "EU" was originally formed to manage coal and steel which soon became the EEC which is based around Economic improvement for those involved (European Economic Community).

So why would Europe stop trading with us if we left? - Europe still trades with the rest of the world, so if they did stop trading with us because of us leaving the European Union does that not show to you how utterly arrogant and unfair they are?

Leaving Europe would be a blow for international relations whether you like it or not. Britain spent decades trying to join Europe after it's application was repeatedly vetoed by De Gaulle. Let's not undo all that and go back to the state that Britain and Europe were in before where we are kind of in and kind of out. We aren't ruled by Europe, not at all. The EU puts very few regulations on Britain and most of the stuff that is publicised is complete and utter rubbish. Like "Banning Chocolate", that was never gonna happen.

We are ruled by Europe, there are varying figures but the figure is around the 80% mark of the number of laws that are made every year for the United Kingdom come from the European Union. Stupid? - oh yes, just like the EUs very real policy on the size of fruit, if its a millimetre the wrong curvature or size, it gets thrown away as the supermarkets are barred from selling it.

International relations, hmm strange - so does the European Union also have bad international relations with the United States, Canada, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil and the other hundred or so countries around the world? - Do not use scare-mongering to justify your cause, it is wrong. Infact a European Empire was the exact thing Hitler wanted to build and his reason was to create something that would rival the United States and the British Empire.

The Environment. But no I totally agree, the European system does need a firm kick up the backside but it is still better than not being in it.

Yes, paying billions and billions into something that can tell you what to do is really worth the money isn't it, especially when the very body that is taking your money has got billions and billions missing from its record and has not had its audits signed in years which would spell out to the least knowledgable of people; utterly corrupt to the bones.

I'm not talking about the Kinnocks but in general. Yes, we did vote on the European Union in 1975 however it was under a different name of the EEC because every time there is a major European Treaty it's name is changed, hence the "European Union" title.

No, we did not vote for the European Union.

Lets explain this;

European Economic Community - A community of states who have streamlined trading, who retain sovereignty aka a economic community.

European Union - a union of states who have created a political, social and economic union.

As you can quite clearly see, the very thing we signed upto has become something it claimed it would not become. We have not been asked, we have never been given the chance to decide and vote on whether we want a political, social and economic union of Europe. So in short, no we did not vote to join the European Union.

No it's not. Don't be so naive. It's things like this that make me believe you are simply regurgitating what you have been told. Socialism is purely economic whereas Communism is both political and economic. The reason they say they are socialist is because they don't want to admit that they are controlling their population.

I have not been told to believe in anything, infact believe it or not I used to be just like you;- I supported the Liberal Democrats, believed in global warming, believed wealth should be taken from some and given to others. I then, with a negative mind towards Thatcherism, Conservatism and the right went and read on all of it, and most importantly read history. What I believe in today has come from that, history taught me a lesson. I was naive, yes.

Whether or not you know, socialism and communism are the same thing just socialism is considered to be an earlier stage of communism on the road to the 'socialist uptopia' - Karl Marx has said it, and infact its the very reason why Labour Party members in the 1970s and 1980s were members of communist groups who were sympathetic to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism controls the people and always has done, you may like others on this forum try to distance yourself from socialism/communism but the very words you write are socialist through and through.

I still wish to know why the state should take from somebody who has earned their money and 're-distribute' that wealth, in other words, steal.

[Madox]

I support the BNP, not because they're racist, they're simply being smart.






If we tell someone they can't come in, then they come in, if we keep them in, Britain would be walked all over.



I agree. If someone breaks OUR rules, they don't have the right to stay in OUR country. Simple.



Yes. UK have been too soft on these people, so they should be reviewed again and sent home if they shouldn't be here.



Depends on the money. It'll be nice for a grant to compensate them, but not too much, we don't need lots of government spending now.



Agreed, all other countries do it, why can't we?



Yeah. They passed through countries they could've stayed in.




Exactly. They just want Britain to be British!



Exactly my argument.



YES. Britain is British and shouldn't be swarmed with others just because they like it better.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain the right to be British.

your the dumbest person ive meet ever, anyone with a red passport that has the united kingdom creset on it is british no matter if there black, Asian , green , yellow or god knows what colour. i bet your not even "BRITISH" as you claim, if you support there views define them in more detail thank you.

[AlexOC]

Hmm.
Although i do not stand fully for what the BNP stand for, and in no way are racist, i do understand that this country is under serious threat by immigrants so i do understand where they are coming from.

[-:Undertaker:-]

your the dumbest person ive meet ever, anyone with a red passport that has the united kingdom creset on it is british no matter if there black, Asian , green , yellow or god knows what colour. i bet your not even "BRITISH" as you claim, if you support there views define them in more detail thank you.

Depends what you define as British; from the jist I gather of the BNP they say that you can be any colour and be British, but not ethnically British. Just as in China you could hold a Chinese passport/citzenship but you wouldn't be classed as 'ethnically Chinese' - would you?

Hmm.
Although i do not stand fully for what the BNP stand for, and in no way are racist, i do understand that this country is under serious threat by immigrants so i do understand where they are coming from.

Thank you, you are a classic example like many other non-racist people who are turning to the extremes, not by choice but because theres little alternative anymore. All because our cowardly politicians are out of touch and just simply do not represent the man or woman on the street anymore.

[Catzsy]

Thank you, you are a classic example like many other non-racist people who are turning to the extremes, not by choice but because theres little alternative anymore

Yes I do believe there is a danger of this but it's not because they are BNP positive just that they are disaffected voters.

YouGov surveyed 1000 BNP voters as to where they stood demographically and these were the results:

Our sample included almost 1,000 BNP voters, and much larger numbers of those who backed the other five parties. As our final prediction poll was the most accurate of all the pre-election surveys, with an average error of just one point, we are confident of the results from this very large sample.First, who voted BNP? They were mainly men: their voted divided 61 per cent male, 39 per cent female. (Men comprise just 48 per cent in the electorate as a whole.)

They were also more working-class. In the country at large, professional workers outnumber manual workers by 20 per cent to 18 per cent. Among BNP voters the pattern is very different: 36 per cent manual workers, 11 per cent professionals.

One third of them read the Sun or Daily Star as against one in five adults generally; just 6 per cent of BNP voters read the upmarket papers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian etc), which is less than half the national average.

This seems to back up what Nick Griffin said on 'The Cook Report':

BNP leader Nick Griffin calls white people ‘stupid’

The people who have the brains and ability got out [of London] years ago, one way or another. The people who are left are either the 15 per cent of the population who are happy to put up with it, they’re so decadent they actually like it, or they are too stupid to do anything about it. They will vote BNP, but you can’t build a movement on those people.

This website is quite enlightening and whilst may be said to be 'propaganda' by some members is pretty substantial on substance with examples backing up what they say.

Warning - Some of the quotes by BNP Members in this link may offend members and do contain language that is
filtered on the forum.

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-re...ck-Griffin.php

My conclusion is that if you vote BNP then you are voting for a facist party that will basically say anything to get votes. They try to hide under veil of respectibility but their true intentions are pretty clear and they are quite sinister.

UKIP on the other hand whilst being a right wing party are honest in their manifesto and intentions so if you genuinely believe in the following they are a better option.:

Here is a summary of the broad range of policies proposed by UKIP for an independent Britain in which democracy really works.


UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans.
UKIP upholds the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals.
We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say.
We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes.
We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling.
We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance.
We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.
We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists.
Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters.

Personally I would not vote for them but I would definitely not for the BNP. Realistically neither party has gone any real chance of getting more than a couple of MPs so if people have concerns about the way the country is being run then they should lobby their MP's to get things changed. It is not possible to please all the electorate - the minority are always going to feel cheated in one way or another.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes I do believe there is a danger of this but it's not because they are BNP positive just that they are disaffected voters.

YouGov surveyed 1000 BNP voters as to where they stood demographically and these were the results:

My conclusion is that if you vote BNP then you are voting for a facist party that will basically say anything to get votes. They try to hide under veil of respectibility but their true intentions are pretty clear and they are quite sinister.

UKIP on the other hand whilst being a right wing party are honest in their manifesto and intentions so if you genuinely believe in the following they are a better option.:

Personally I would not vote for them but I would definitely not for the BNP. Realistically neither party has gone any real chance of getting more than a couple of MPs so if people have concerns about the way the country is being run then they should lobby their MP's to get things changed. It is not possible to please all the electorate - the minority are always going to feel cheated in one way or another.

I have said that, those who want a curb on immigration will turn to the BNP because none of the other parties (with exception of UKIP) are listening. It is also noted that while the Labour Party and co. continue to treat white people as second class people (with the equality bills and candidate shortlists) then people who supported controlled immigration will start to think "well why put up with something when we are just trampled on and ignored" and they will turn to the BNP.

You say lobbying, but no matter what we do and no matter what we say; Lib/Lab/Con continue to ignore us. Expenses scandel - they still refused to resign and accept and responsibility. Lisbon Treaty - UKIP came second in the election which gives a pretty damn clear indication of what people think of the EU. But to our ruling elite, does hell that matter? - no it doesnt.

As for never getting in, well 50 years ago the SNP were said to be the same. If the PR electoral system was introduced then going by summer 2009 results, right now we'd have a Conservative government and a UKIP opposition. The sooner, the better.

[Catzsy]

I have said that, those who want a curb on immigration will turn to the BNP because none of the other parties (with exception of UKIP) are listening. It is also noted that while the Labour Party and co. continue to treat white people as second class people (with the equality bills and candidate shortlists) then people who supported controlled immigration will start to think "well why put up with something when we are just trampled on and ignored" and they will turn to the BNP.

You say lobbying, but no matter what we do and no matter what we say; Lib/Lab/Con continue to ignore us. Expenses scandel - they still refused to resign and accept and responsibility. Lisbon Treaty - UKIP came second in the election which gives a pretty damn clear indication of what people think of the EU. But to our ruling elite, does hell that matter? - no it doesnt.

As for never getting in, well 50 years ago the SNP were said to be the same. If the PR electoral system was introduced then going by summer 2009 results, right now we'd have a Conservative government and a UKIP opposition. The sooner, the better.

I didn't say UKIP would never get in. I said they only had a realistic prospect of a couple of seats this time. Of course it may happen in time but it is pure fantasy to think otherwise in the coming election and how can you say of we proportional representation UKIP would be the opposition? They aren't even pulling 5% in the polls are they? Problem is the apathetic nature of most of the electorate - if they did shift their behinds into gear and lobby this country would be a much better place. I haven't mentioned Labout specifically as I feel voters are pretty much disaffected with most of the main parties and I am not going down your re-gurgitated world of labour bashing at every oppportunity as this debate is about the BNP. You as a member of UKIP should be pointing out the flaws of the BNP at every opportunity because they are your main rivals IMHO and need stopping. =]