Fifty Labour amendments to kill Bill for EU referendum

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:28 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10588539/Fifty-Labour-amendments-to-kill-Bill-for-EU-referendum.html

Clearly Labour does not want the British people to have a say about their own affairs and is content to let Brussels ride roughshod over British interest.

Brussels has fought for thirty years to avoid referenda in individual countries. Far from attacking such undemocratic forces Labour is colluding. Is this really the party of the people?

I don't think so.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:50 am

Look this is just a tactic to divert people so they dont notice that the Tories have no intention of having a proper referendum anyway.

Firstly even if this bill does go through unchanged and is voted into legislation it is totally meaningless because no future government can be held to promises made by the present government - even if David Cameron is voted in again he is not obliged to keep his promises even if they have be legislated for.

Secondly his "promise" is based on him being able to "renegotiate" our ties with Brussels which simply cannot happen. The only way he could renegotiate would be to give formal notice of this countries intent to leave - and Brussels could quite easily say OK then nice having you and still not renegotiate.

Then there is the fact that he has stated publicly even if he did hold a referendum the government would not be bound to act on the results - and that he would be campaigning to stay in the EU.

So lets be totally clear hear - whatever is said Tories will keep us in Europe, Labour will keep us in Europe, Lib dems will move us further into Europe so we are no longer even pretending to be a sovereign nation. There is only one party who will act to bring this country out of the EU - if you want to get out of the EU and vote for anyone else you have been conned.

The party is UKIP - your only choice if you want out.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:20 am

sphinx wrote:Look this is just a tactic to divert people so they dont notice that the Tories have no intention of having a proper referendum anyway.

Firstly even if this bill does go through unchanged and is voted into legislation it is totally meaningless because no future government can be held to promises made by the present government - even if David Cameron is voted in again he is not obliged to keep his promises even if they have be legislated for.

Secondly his "promise" is based on him being able to "renegotiate" our ties with Brussels which simply cannot happen. The only way he could renegotiate would be to give formal notice of this countries intent to leave - and Brussels could quite easily say OK then nice having you and still not renegotiate.

Then there is the fact that he has stated publicly even if he did hold a referendum the government would not be bound to act on the results - and that he would be campaigning to stay in the EU.

So lets be totally clear hear - whatever is said Tories will keep us in Europe, Labour will keep us in Europe, Lib dems will move us further into Europe so we are no longer even pretending to be a sovereign nation. There is only one party who will act to bring this country out of the EU - if you want to get out of the EU and vote for anyone else you have been conned.

The party is UKIP - your only choice if you want out.

Oh behave yes and UKIP are the saviours on this because they tell the truth and will do so because you believe them?

So no you assume the Tories will keep us in the EU, when they will have a referendum, which will be Democratic and decided by the people, which as it stands people are willing to stay in if changes are made.

yes lets be totally clear here, you are talking shite basing this on assumptions

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:23 am

UKIP will be lucky to win two seats in a general election and their votes will ensure labour back in power, so yes, vote UKIP and ensure another 5 years of Labour

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:56 am

Sphinx most Tory MPs are straining at he bit to have a referendum. If there was a vote amongst Tory MPs alone we would have a referendum.

Contrast that with Labours and Liberals subterfuge. They are worlds apart.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:UKIP will be lucky to win two seats in a general election and their votes will ensure labour back in power, so yes, vote UKIP and ensure another 5 years of Labour

Well then we might as well cancel elections altogether, if voting for any new party's a waste of time because of a faulty system. Anyway, UKIP's got a lot of support from ex Labour voters, so you may be in for a surprise.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:24 pm

Tess. wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:UKIP will be lucky to win two seats in a general election and their votes will ensure labour back in power, so yes, vote UKIP and ensure another 5 years of Labour

Well then we might as well cancel elections altogether, if voting for any new party's a waste of time because of a faulty system. Anyway, UKIP's got a lot of support from ex Labour voters, so you may be in for a surprise.

Do the UKIP stand a realistic change of making change happen?

No, will their votes allow Labour in?

What is the lesser evil?

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:26 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Tess. wrote:

Well then we might as well cancel elections altogether, if voting for any new party's a waste of time because of a faulty system. Anyway, UKIP's got a lot of support from ex Labour voters, so you may be in for a surprise.

Do the UKIP stand a realistic change of making change happen?

No, will their votes allow Labour in?

What is the lesser evil?

Not doing what you feel is right.[/quote]

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:28 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Do the UKIP stand a realistic change of making change happen?

No, will their votes allow Labour in?

What is the lesser evil?

Not doing what you feel is right.

[/quote]

I know and have seen UKIP policies, and that is not the right way forward

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:45 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Tess. wrote:

Well then we might as well cancel elections altogether, if voting for any new party's a waste of time because of a faulty system. Anyway, UKIP's got a lot of support from ex Labour voters, so you may be in for a surprise.

Do the UKIP stand a realistic change of making change happen?

No, will their votes allow Labour in?

What is the lesser evil?

Yes

No

Doing nothing (greater evil)

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:21 pm

If UKIP ignore Cameron and target seats with Europhile Tories and Labour and Liberal Europhiles then they will achieve a result all round.

If they deny Tory EU critics votes and Labour gets in we shall be sold out by Milliband. The comrades on here positively delight in the fact that Labour sold us out last time but why they do is beyond me.

Clearly they have no love for democracy.

We shall never get a say on Europe and will be lead into a Sham pan European dictatorship run by the Commission with an almost powerless parliament.

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:21 pm

If UKIP ignore Cameron and target seats with Europhile Tories and Labour and Liberal Europhiles then they will achieve a result all round.

If they deny Tory EU critics votes and Labour gets in we shall be sold out by Milliband. The comrades on here positively delight in the fact that Labour sold us out last time but why they do is beyond me.

Clearly they have no love for democracy.

We shall never get a say on Europe and will be lead into a Sham pan European dictatorship run by the Commission with an almost powerless parliament.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:23 pm

Tess. wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Do the UKIP stand a realistic change of making change happen?

No, will their votes allow Labour in?

What is the lesser evil?

Yes

No

Doing nothing (greater evil)

No they don't Tess, best predictions is they will gain 15 seats

Wow

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:51 pm

You want to know what difference UKIP will make and how many seats it will take to make it?

It will only take one seat. One single seat.

Why will that make a difference?

It will make a difference because one single seat will mean that during nearly every debate in the house about policy someone standing up and pointing out that said debate is pointless because Westminster has no power in the outcome as the outcome is already decided by Brussels.

As for the effectiveness of UKIPs policies - they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so I suggest people go and look up the returns for areas around the Norfolk/Suffolk borders where UKIP first got its footholds - a town councilor, a town council, and expanding. Those who returned UKIP candidates first are reelecting them with landslides. Those next to the areas with UKIP candidates are electing their own UKIP representatives with huge majorities. They do so because as that area has learned UKIP do not just talk different they walk different too and once experienced that walk is something the electorate wants more of.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:05 pm

Two years ago Cameron was rejecting calls for a referendum on the EU stating that it was not Conservative policy. What he is doing now is just a stunt to satisfy the hard liners in his party by offering them a referendum in 2017 FGS. Why won't he have one now? Because he doesn't want to be seen as a prime minister campaigning for the EU instead of against it.
It's a con and there is no chance of Britain leaving the EU in 2017

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:43 pm

I think you will find Irn that the Tories are in a Coalition, which without they would no doubt call for one sooner, they are thus hoping to win out right in the next election. I think personally they want to get a better deal and retain more power as before from the EU, well they could if they wanted to because what can the EU really do, most countries when they want to ignore EU rulings.

Sphinx on UKIP running a council, whoop dee doo, a tad different to running a country, being elected again may have more to do with keeping UKIP in because of fears of immigration!

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:51 pm

I repeat for those who seem to keep missing it that neither the Tories nor anyone else can "get a better deal" or "retain more power" because the EUs own rules dont allow it.

The only way such renegotiation can be done is through the invoking of article 50 - ie giving formal notice of intention to leave.

They said we could not run a council - we did it so well that now the neighbours want us running their councils. What effect does a town council or even a county council have on immigration? None whatsoever. They kept UKIP in with an increased majority simply because UKIP got the job done.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:53 pm

sphinx wrote:I repeat for those who seem to keep missing it that neither the Tories nor anyone else can "get a better deal" or "retain more power" because the EUs own rules dont allow it.

The only way such renegotiation can be done is through the invoking of article 50 - ie giving formal notice of intention to leave.

They said we could not run a council - we did it so well that now the neighbours want us running their councils. What effect does a town council or even a county council have on immigration? None whatsoever. They kept UKIP in with an increased majority simply because UKIP got the job done.

Can it not, if Britain had balls like other nations they can just ignore EU rules of which they do?

Lets see how this pans out Sphinx because as seen other nations now are coming on board with Britain and if they do UKIP will fall as quickly as it rose

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:59 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:I repeat for those who seem to keep missing it that neither the Tories nor anyone else can "get a better deal" or "retain more power" because the EUs own rules dont allow it.

The only way such renegotiation can be done is through the invoking of article 50 - ie giving formal notice of intention to leave.

They said we could not run a council - we did it so well that now the neighbours want us running their councils. What effect does a town council or even a county council have on immigration? None whatsoever. They kept UKIP in with an increased majority simply because UKIP got the job done.

Can it not, if Britain had balls like other nations they can just ignore EU rules of which they do?

Lets see how this pans out Sphinx because as seen other nations now are coming on board with Britain and if they do UKIP will fall as quickly as it rose

So if a Tory government simply started breaking the rules you would consider that to be a successful renegotiation on the grounds that everyone else breaks the rules anyway?

If you have been paying attention to the other countries starting to agree with the UK about renegotiation you will understand that what they are actually thinking about doing is considering whether it will be possible to vote in a new rule that overturns the old rule so countries can renegotiate things if enough countries want to renegotiate the same thing in the same way. You will further realize that even if they decide it is possible to vote in such a rule change it would require every EU country to vote for such a rule change and there are several countries who have made it clear they would not so vote - so while it might be technically possible it wont become reality.

Really didge you want to start going along to your local UKIP branch you might learn something.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:03 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Can it not, if Britain had balls like other nations they can just ignore EU rules of which they do?

Lets see how this pans out Sphinx because as seen other nations now are coming on board with Britain and if they do UKIP will fall as quickly as it rose

So if a Tory government simply started breaking the rules you would consider that to be a successful renegotiation on the grounds that everyone else breaks the rules anyway?

If you have been paying attention to the other countries starting to agree with the UK about renegotiation you will understand that what they are actually thinking about doing is considering whether it will be possible to vote in a new rule that overturns the old rule so countries can renegotiate things if enough countries want to renegotiate the same thing in the same way. You will further realize that even if they decide it is possible to vote in such a rule change it would require every EU country to vote for such a rule change and there are several countries who have made it clear they would not so vote - so while it might be technically possible it wont become reality.

Really didge you want to start going along to your local UKIP branch you might learn something.

I think you need to learn something your local Ukippers are not telling you

Last week I wrote about how angry Ukippers (henceforth to be known as kippers) tend to be and suggested that rather than write nasty things in the comment section, they should get stoned and chill out. Apparently some people seemed to miss the light-hearted nature of this recommendation and decided to go ahead and write nasty things in the comment section anyway.

One lady made the quite valid point that if you are high on drugs, you probably aren't very well placed to fight off invading armies of fascist eurocrats, hell-bent on destroying British democracy. So I would like to state clearly that I did not, and do not, condone the use of illegal drugs to enhance one's ability to kill European regulators.

Despite my request for the angries to email me rather than insult me in the comment section, no one did. So I'd like to tackle one of the recurring themes from the comments spattered below last week's post. Many people seem to be convinced that the European Union is genuinely satanic and driven by forces that would make even my namesake, Harry Potter, tremble.

To pre-empt the frothing kippers' insults (again), I would like to say (again) that I am not that pro-European, think the UK would probably do just fine outside the EU and that by remaining in it, the UK is holding up a lot of stuff the Europeans need to do to avoid certain economic doom.

But when I hear descriptions of Brussels as capital of a hideous European USSR or fascist dictatorship, I have to say I feel a tad confused. Having lived in this slightly drab, miserable city for two years, I fail to see any of the hallmarks of an evil empire. Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't see anyone being crucified or fed to lions and I don't think my flat has been bugged by any secret police. There are no public floggings and the eurocrats I know are definitely not closet Nazis. The capital of Europe, unlike its Roman or Soviet equivalents, is actually quite grimy and non-functioning. Indeed if its capital city is anything to go by, Europe is in fact covered in dog sh*t. And where are the Euro-stormtroopers? I imagine their blue uniforms would be covered in yellow stars, making them quite adorable, if they actually existed.

So if it doesn't look like an evil empire, why do people think it is? Red tape and immigrants appear to be the rallying cry for most British patriots, which is actually quite uninspiring when you think about it. For Churchill, it was liberating Europe from fascism. For Thatcher, it was amputating the dead hand of the state. For our contemporary leaders, it is the injustice of European SME regulation and Polish fruit pickers.

In this context, I read with interest comments made by an angry frother on ConHome last week. The person claimed that, in relation to the UK being taken to court over its benefits tests, 'the EU's reach is now so great that many of those top 10 issues [that voters say they care about] are influenced in part or controlled in totality by Brussels.'

It's hardly surprising that the kippers (or wannabe kippers) are experiencing such waves of orgiastic pleasure over this particular event. After all, it combines three of their favourite themes: immigrants, benefits and Europe. However despite what they seem to see as an example of Europe's power, I see it as quite the opposite.

Firstly we should clarify what we mean when we say ''the EU' because at the moment most coverage in the UK is misleading. It is the European Commission, which is the understaffed and under-resourced civil service of the EU, that has initiated these proceedings, not 'the EU', which covers a lot more. The EC spends most of its time complaining, but has very little real authority or power. So already, and unsurprisingly, the court case is being blown way out of proportion.

Secondly, this particular tiff between 'the EU' and the UK has been going on for years. The UK has happily got away with applying its own benefits tests all that time without 'the EU' spanking Iain Duncan Smith for being a naughty boy.

Thirdly, the UK is supported by Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, all of whom are part of 'the EU' which the kippers and IDS so passionately detest. Given that the 'rich' northern member states tend not to like 'poor' southern member states, we can assume that the 'benefits test' alliance will expand to include Finland, Sweden and Denmark. This is hardly the unity one would expect from an evil empire.

Fourthly, what happens if the UK is found guilty by the European Court of Justice? Not much actually. After several years of bitching and moaning, the ECJ will either say 'legal', which means case closed, or it will say 'illegal', which means the laws will then be changed. There might be a fine, but no one is going to force the UK to pay it. And at no point will 'the EU' invade the UK to enforce a law that has been ignored for years already.

The EU's reach is, in effect, non-existent because 'the EU' relies on its member states, including the UK, to implement and enforce legislation. When a member state doesn't implement or enforce legislation, 'the EU' (meaning the Commission civil service) can complain all it likes. But it has no actual power to make member states do things they don't want to do, like reduce fiscal deficits, stop burning toxic waste or making sure olive oil is dispensed from sealed containers in restaurants.

The EU is more an aspiration than a solid entity to worry about. The most it can do is ask politely that we desist from doing something. So to all the kippers out there who are stamping their feet and getting very upset, calm the f*ck down. If you must be angry, direct your frustration at the real culprit, which is our own government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/harry-cooper/eu-has-no-power-to-make-us-do-anything_b_3363961.html

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Scary that people remain so blinkered.

Not to mention so willing to go along with rule breaking because everyone else does it.

By the way you do know what who I am referring to as blinkered in the first sentence and how they are being blinkered dont you?

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:23 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Two years ago Cameron was rejecting calls for a referendum on the EU stating that it was not Conservative policy. What he is doing now is just a stunt to satisfy the hard liners in his party by offering them a referendum in 2017 FGS. Why won't he have one now? Because he doesn't want to be seen as a prime minister campaigning for the EU instead of against it.
It's a con and there is no chance of Britain leaving the EU in 2017

LABOUR HAD ALREADY STUFFED US BY THE TIME CAMERON WON,

LABOUR LIED PURE AND SIMPLE. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE BECAUSE TO ADMIT THEY DID TOTALLY UNDERMINES YOU. LABOUR ARE DECEITFUL AND ANTI DEMOCRATIC. YOR ARE LIKEWISE.

PROUD TO SELL OUT THE BRITISH PEOPLE IS THE CRY OF LABOUR SUPPORTERS EVERYWHERE.

WHY IS IT THE LEFT HATE DEMOCRACY?

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:27 pm

sphinx wrote:Scary that people remain so blinkered.

Not to mention so willing to go along with rule breaking because everyone else does it.

By the way you do know what who I am referring to as blinkered in the first sentence and how they are being blinkered dont you?

No I just know that UKippers talk a lot of baloney as seen by the article!

Facts are facts, you are just Gullible to what UKIP says without researching further like I do, I look at what all parties say, not just one and I hear the views of many people, you should try it sometime

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:41 pm

Clarkson wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Two years ago Cameron was rejecting calls for a referendum on the EU stating that it was not Conservative policy. What he is doing now is just a stunt to satisfy the hard liners in his party by offering them a referendum in 2017 FGS. Why won't he have one now? Because he doesn't want to be seen as a prime minister campaigning for the EU instead of against it.
It's a con and there is no chance of Britain leaving the EU in 2017

LABOUR HAD ALREADY STUFFED US BY THE TIME CAMERON WON,

LABOUR LIED PURE AND SIMPLE. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE BECAUSE TO ADMIT THEY DID TOTALLY UNDERMINES YOU. LABOUR ARE DECEITFUL AND ANTI DEMOCRATIC. YOR ARE LIKEWISE.

PROUD TO SELL OUT THE BRITISH PEOPLE IS THE CRY OF LABOUR SUPPORTERS EVERYWHERE.

WHY IS IT THE LEFT HATE DEMOCRACY?

Where in my post above did I lie?

And the Lisbon Treaty was not an EU in/out referendum.

by Clarkson Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:45 pm

Wriggle all you like Bru Brown gave away more powers which he said we would get a say on beforehand. Poll after poll showed we would reject it he therefore screwed us.

Brown is a low life Jock which you seem only too keen to emulate by your own obfuscation.

What a slippery unsavoury guy you are defending the indefensible.

Answer me this why did he not give us the referendum?

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:47 pm

sphinx wrote:I repeat for those who seem to keep missing it that neither the Tories nor anyone else can "get a better deal" or "retain more power" because the EUs own rules dont allow it.

The only way such renegotiation can be done is through the invoking of article 50 - ie giving formal notice of intention to leave.

They said we could not run a council - we did it so well that now the neighbours want us running their councils. What effect does a town council or even a county council have on immigration? None whatsoever. They kept UKIP in with an increased majority simply because UKIP got the job done.

I don't believe that is true. An individual country can call for a Convention to be convened to call for Treaty revisions. They need a majority of 15 countries to back it to put the proposed revisions to the full EU Commission involving all 27 member states.
It's a long road but not impossible. Cameron is right to at least try it - anything is possible.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:49 pm

Clarkson wrote:Wriggle all you like Bru Brown gave away more powers which he said we would get a say on beforehand. Poll after poll showed we would reject it he therefore screwed us.

Brown is a low life Jock which you seem only too keen to emulate by your own obfuscation.

What a slippery unsavoury guy you are defending the indefensible.

Answer me this why did he not give us the referendum?

The commitment to a referendum was never given on a Treaty and you know that.

And it was never an EU in/out referendum and you know that as well.

So where did I lie?

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:06 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Scary that people remain so blinkered.

Not to mention so willing to go along with rule breaking because everyone else does it.

By the way you do know what who I am referring to as blinkered in the first sentence and how they are being blinkered dont you?

No I just know that UKippers talk a lot of baloney as seen by the article!

Facts are facts, you are just Gullible to what UKIP says without researching further like I do, I look at what all parties say, not just one and I hear the views of many people, you should try it sometime

Try this little fact.

The EU is paying people to "troll" forums and comment sections and post pro european propaganda whereever they find anti EU sentiment.

Your little cut and paste above is a lovely example.

While you try digesting that fact you might want to add this thought to it - where exactly does the EU get the money to pay said trolls.

Oh and looking at what all the parties say is a really really crap way of getting facts - it just gets you several different interpretations. Seriously go along to some local branch meetings of parties and find out what real people are saying and why why they are saying it.

PS google Viviane Reding

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:11 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Scary that people remain so blinkered.

Not to mention so willing to go along with rule breaking because everyone else does it.

By the way you do know what who I am referring to as blinkered in the first sentence and how they are being blinkered dont you?

No I just know that UKippers talk a lot of baloney as seen by the article!

Facts are facts, you are just Gullible to what UKIP says without researching further like I do, I look at what all parties say, not just one and I hear the views of many people, you should try it sometime

Try this little fact.

The EU is paying people to "troll" forums and comment sections and post pro european propaganda whereever they find anti EU sentiment.

Your little cut and paste above is a lovely example.

While you try digesting that fact you might want to add this thought to it - where exactly does the EU get the money to pay said trolls.

Oh and looking at what all the parties say is a really really crap way of getting facts - it just gets you several different interpretations. Seriously go along to some local branch meetings of parties and find out what real people are saying and why why they are saying it.

PS google Viviane Reding

Have you got a link to that? Not a newspaper article but a link to the EU statement, policy and the budget set aside for it.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:16 pm

Yes I am interesting in this claim, some Ukipper conspiracy no doubt doing the circuit

My article proved Sphinx you have not the first clue what you are talking about here as seen we could if we want just ignore rulings but I bet they don't tell that down the loacal Ukippers tea and cream buns mothers meeting do they?

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:12 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Yes I am interesting in this claim, some Ukipper conspiracy no doubt doing the circuit

My article proved Sphinx you have not the first clue what you are talking about here as seen we could if we want just ignore rulings but I bet they don't tell that down the loacal Ukippers tea and cream buns mothers meeting do they?

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:35 pm

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:59 pm

Try this guys.

http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

UKIP are perfectly aware that rulings can be ignored - we just have this stupid idea that ignoring rules undermines justice and increases criminal tendencies as people ask if you can break that rule why cant I break this one.

Britain should be proud of her heritage of life by rule of law - and should not be lowering her standards.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:07 pm

sphinx wrote:Try this guys.

http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

UKIP are perfectly aware that rulings can be ignored - we just have this stupid idea that ignoring rules undermines justice and increases criminal tendencies as people ask if you can break that rule why cant I break this one.

Britain should be proud of her heritage of life by rule of law - and should not be lowering her standards.

lol it says reportedly discovered by the Telegraph.

So do you have any other evidence?

Or we go by what laws we have already and not have interference from the EU, so your logic is absurd, because we are not breaking sovereign law, as people believe EU law does not apply

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:44 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Try this guys.

http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

UKIP are perfectly aware that rulings can be ignored - we just have this stupid idea that ignoring rules undermines justice and increases criminal tendencies as people ask if you can break that rule why cant I break this one.

Britain should be proud of her heritage of life by rule of law - and should not be lowering her standards.

lol it says reportedly discovered by the Telegraph.

So do you have any other evidence?

Or we go by what laws we have already and not have interference from the EU, so your logic is absurd, because we are not breaking sovereign law, as people believe EU law does not apply

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:49 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Try this guys.

http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

UKIP are perfectly aware that rulings can be ignored - we just have this stupid idea that ignoring rules undermines justice and increases criminal tendencies as people ask if you can break that rule why cant I break this one.

Britain should be proud of her heritage of life by rule of law - and should not be lowering her standards.

lol it says reportedly discovered by the Telegraph.

So do you have any other evidence?

Or we go by what laws we have already and not have interference from the EU, so your logic is absurd, because we are not breaking sovereign law, as people believe EU law does not apply

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

Sphinx, this is an interpretation of something that someone working for a newspaper has written so we can't check unless we can see where it originally came from.

They could have quoted the source as is normal even if they didn't give a direct link.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:03 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

Sphinx, this is an interpretation of something that someone working for a newspaper has written so we can't check unless we can see where it originally came from.

They could have quoted the source as is normal even if they didn't give a direct link.

Have you ever seen an EU source?

Put it this way - they would not win any prizes from Plain English.

I think in this case the choice is take it on the Telegraphs reputation or not - and I dont believe that reputation is for making things up.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

lol it says reportedly discovered by the Telegraph.

So do you have any other evidence?

Or we go by what laws we have already and not have interference from the EU, so your logic is absurd, because we are not breaking sovereign law, as people believe EU law does not apply

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

I guess you have never read any Andrew Gilligan articles then Sphinx in the Telegraph, having said that I do like that paper but it did say reportedly, thus why I have asked for some real evidence

Yes other Governments have and our own can turn round and say no we wish to abide by our own laws, is quite simple really. Breaking what rules, as seen they will not do much about it and are you telling me if one of your sons broke a school rule by defending someone you would not back him up, behave. Rules are made and are always broken what matters is the repercussion if you do and as seen there is not much in the way of that with the EU, so again your logic is absurd

Night

by Irn Bru Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

Sphinx, this is an interpretation of something that someone working for a newspaper has written so we can't check unless we can see where it originally came from.

They could have quoted the source as is normal even if they didn't give a direct link.

Have you ever seen an EU source?

Put it this way - they would not win any prizes from Plain English.

I think in this case the choice is take it on the Telegraphs reputation or not - and I dont believe that reputation is for making things up.

Yes.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:58 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yeah cause US papers are totally into the whole UKIP conspiracy thing arent they? If you paid any attention you would see US media is, if it has any leaning, slightly pro EU and takes great pleasure in mocking the same way you do.

Various of our governments have signed up to rules superseding our sovereign rules. UKIP would have Britain keep her word as she always has done - not simply ignore what is inconvenient and pretend breaking rules we have agreed to keep does not matter.

By the same token I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for one who supports breaking rules because they are inconvenient.

I guess you have never read any Andrew Gilligan articles then Sphinx in the Telegraph, having said that I do like that paper but it did say reportedly, thus why I have asked for some real evidence

Yes other Governments have and our own can turn round and say no we wish to abide by our own laws, is quite simple really. Breaking what rules, as seen they will not do much about it and are you telling me if one of your sons broke a school rule by defending someone you would not back him up, behave. Rules are made and are always broken what matters is the repercussion if you do and as seen there is not much in the way of that with the EU, so again your logic is absurd

Night

I am telling you when my son did break school rules I did back the school up because the first rule from home is and has to be you will abide by the rules of the place you are in.

The rules may not have been the same as at home - but he was expected to obey them. I am totally appalled by your attitude that breaking rules does not matter because it is the that attitude that is the very centre of disintegrating social adhesion and rising crime.

I am shocked and saddened that people I respected and thought decent have been infected with the disease that if the consequences cant be enforced it doesnt matter if you commit the crime.

Tell me didge do you speed when you are driving?

by Sponsored content