UKIP Party Political Broadcast - Bradford

First topic message reminder :



It's an invasion - I'm worried.

PhilDidge wrote:We are though Andy talking about A&E a huge difference which you would not jump

That's true, and I wouldn't expect to.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:We are though Andy talking about A&E a huge difference which you would not jump

That's true, and I wouldn't expect to.

Glad to hear Andy, catch you later

UKIP supporters remind me of spoiled/rebellious teenagers not getting their own way, so sway toward a party who hate blacks and foreigners.

I would be feeling embarrassed as a UKIP supporter.

Hate and spite filled 'chavs'.

Joy Division wrote:UKIP supporters remind me of spoiled teenagers not getting their own way, so sway toward a party who hate blacks and foreigners.

I would be feeling embarrassed as a UKIP supporter.

Hate and spite filled 'chavs'.

Excellent points except until the last word, a poor stereotype Joy sorry mate, really dislike that word for some reason

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:UKIP supporters remind me of spoiled teenagers not getting their own way, so sway toward a party who hate blacks and foreigners.

I would be feeling embarrassed as a UKIP supporter.

Hate and spite filled 'chavs'.

Excellent points except until the last word, a poor stereotype Joy sorry mate, really dislike that word for some reason  

Cheers Didge, but that is why I used inverted commas!...I hate the word too!

Joy Division wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Excellent points except until the last word, a poor stereotype Joy sorry mate, really dislike that word for some reason  

Cheers Didge, but that is why I used inverted commas!...I hate the word too!

No probs Joy


  

Yeah that word 'chav' sounds so cheap, unoriginal and somewhat rebellious like those UKIP followers mate.

Irn Bru wrote:

kevins58 wrote:

Phil you exhibit all the qualities of a lefty these days. UKIP is not my party I want a RW tory party but they better reflect my views than Cleegy or Milliband. I take it you prefer Clegg?

No he doesn't. Didge is just asking the type of questions you would expect from someone who wants answers from someone who is claiming that UKIP has detailed economic policies.

Where are they?

The same place as the detailed Tory economic policies, detailed Labour economic policies, detailed Liberal Democratic policies - at head quarters being worked on to keep them up to date until they are needed for the general election campaign.

Joy Division wrote:Just wondered if UKIP followers BA or Sphinx could clarify UKIP's policy on welfare?..

Apart from the..' Welfare will be a safety net for those most needy and not a bed for the lazy'..

I've strong feeling that they will make most on benefits work full time for their money, but that would surely be
Illegal to do that?...

No wonder they want us rid of the EU, so they can shaft the poor even further.

You might want to read what our disability spokesman has to say - I am afraid you may have a problem with the person being as contrary to your expectations of a Chauvinistic party she is most definitely a woman, and your expectations of prejudice against minorities will also be disappointed as she is disabled.

http://www.staretheridge.co.uk/comments-and-guestbook/

kevins58 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


The problem is what will UKIP do if people vote to stay in, that would be democratic and thus most of their policies would become redundant.


Oh you will love this NHS policy they proposed, that people pay to jump the A&E que

  

And there you have it. If they voted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can't get a vote Labour Liberals and the Tory leadership to a point are making sure they don't get a vote.

The question isn't whether the EU is good or bad its whether it is democratic enough to allow ratification of its transition from Common market to Pan European govt.

It never was a common market - the original documents from the 1950s make it clear it was always going to be a pan european state with its own armed forces, legal system, and currency (all of which are in place) the common market aspect was highlighted as a sales hook from the start.

So what exactly do you lot do when faced with the black gay and women members of UKIP?

EDIT - google David Coburn, Winston Mckenzie, etc.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No he doesn't. Didge is just asking the type of questions you would expect from someone who wants answers from someone who is claiming that UKIP has detailed economic policies.

Where are they?

The same place as the detailed Tory economic policies, detailed Labour economic policies, detailed Liberal Democratic policies - at head quarters being worked on to keep them up to date until they are needed for the general election campaign.

Dear me more utter babble.

can you imagine the live debate with Nick, "so Nigel what policies do you have?"
"Nick its a secret, we will only tel you if you come down to you local UKIP branch"

"Sorry but people need to know if you have only viable policies Nigel"

"No need Nick, people just have blind faith in me, call me the second coming of Christ"

sphinx wrote:

kevins58 wrote:

And there you have it. If they voted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can't get a vote Labour Liberals and the Tory leadership to a point are making sure they don't get a vote.

The question isn't whether the EU is good or bad its whether it is democratic enough to allow ratification of its transition from Common market to Pan European govt.

It never was a common market - the original documents from the 1950s make it clear it was always going to be a pan european state with its own armed forces, legal system, and currency (all of which are in place)  the common market aspect was highlighted as a sales hook from the start.

Really, what European army?


Who enforces this legal system, Santa?

So Sphinx do you dread the day the world combines together to have representatives from every nation form a world government being as we are all humans and they then bring about peace on earth and unite all mankind.

Will you still quibble over your rights being taken away because the world unites to agree together, because you live on a piece of land somewhere on this planet and this somehow denies you any democracy if and when the world decides to lay down its differences and looks after solely the interests of the world as a whole?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The same place as the detailed Tory economic policies, detailed Labour economic policies, detailed Liberal Democratic policies - at head quarters being worked on to keep them up to date until they are needed for the general election campaign.

Dear me more utter babble.

can you imagine the live debate with Nick, "so Nigel what policies do you have?"
"Nick its a secret, we will only tel you if you come down to you local UKIP branch"

"Sorry but people need to know if you have only viable policies Nigel"

"No need Nick, people just have blind faith in me, call me the second coming of Christ"

Sorry I missed the publication by the Lib Dems of their detail policies before the debate.

Why are you so insistent that UKIP should be doing things the other parties are not? The other parties are not splashing detailed policies about neither is UKIP. When the others splash detailed policy about so will UKIP.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me more utter babble.

can you imagine the live debate with Nick, "so Nigel what policies do you have?"
"Nick its a secret, we will only tel you if you come down to you local UKIP branch"

"Sorry but people need to know if you have only viable policies Nigel"

"No need Nick, people just have blind faith in me, call me the second coming of Christ"

Sorry I missed the publication by the Lib Dems of their detail policies before the debate.

Why are you so insistent that UKIP should be doing things the other parties are not?  The other parties are not splashing detailed policies about neither is UKIP.  When the others splash detailed policy about so will UKIP.

Am I asking about the Lib Dems, I thought this was about the UKIP and its supporters running scared.
The other parties always put forth their economic policies in detail and always have, so stop being a turnip!

PhilDidge wrote:So Sphinx do you dread the day the world combines together to have representatives from every nation form a world government being as we are all humans and they then bring about peace on earth and unite all mankind.

Will you still quibble over your rights being taken away because the world unites to agree together, because you live on a piece of land somewhere on this planet and this somehow denies you any democracy if and when the world decides to lay down its differences and looks after solely the interests of the world as a whole?

Right so because I object to the EU single state non democracy (if you think it has bought peace spend some time in Greece or Cyprus) that obviously means I would also object to world government bought about democratically doesnt it?

My problem is nothing to do with power being held by 28 unelected commissioners who cannot be called to account it is totally to do with those commissioners being from another country.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So Sphinx do you dread the day the world combines together to have representatives from every nation form a world government being as we are all humans and they then bring about peace on earth and unite all mankind.

Will you still quibble over your rights being taken away because the world unites to agree together, because you live on a piece of land somewhere on this planet and this somehow denies you any democracy if and when the world decides to lay down its differences and looks after solely the interests of the world as a whole?

Right so because I object to the EU single state non democracy (if you think it has bought peace spend some time in Greece or Cyprus)  that obviously means I would also object to world government bought about democratically doesnt it?

My problem is nothing to do with power being held by 28 unelected commissioners who cannot be called to account it is totally to do with those commissioners being from another country.

That is not what I asked is it, you seem to get such a mouse head on about being asked simple questions, try answering the question

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Sorry I missed the publication by the Lib Dems of their detail policies before the debate.

Why are you so insistent that UKIP should be doing things the other parties are not?  The other parties are not splashing detailed policies about neither is UKIP.  When the others splash detailed policy about so will UKIP.

Am I asking about the Lib Dems, I thought this was about the UKIP and its supporters running scared.
The other parties always put forth their economic policies in detail and always have, so stop being a turnip!

#

UKIP is not running scared - god how people wish they were because they are spending vast amount so energy trying to make it happen.

The other parties put their economic polices forth in detail at appropriate times - which is what UKIP will do.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Right so because I object to the EU single state non democracy (if you think it has bought peace spend some time in Greece or Cyprus)  that obviously means I would also object to world government bought about democratically doesnt it?

My problem is nothing to do with power being held by 28 unelected commissioners who cannot be called to account it is totally to do with those commissioners being from another country.

That is not what I asked is it, you seem to get such a mouse head on about being asked simple questions, try answering the question

The question was loaded and I answered the implications that my problems are with race not with a lack of democracy.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Am I asking about the Lib Dems, I thought this was about the UKIP and its supporters running scared.
The other parties always put forth their economic policies in detail and always have, so stop being a turnip!

#

UKIP is not running scared - god how people wish they were because they are spending vast amount so energy trying to make it happen.

The other parties put their economic polices forth in detail at appropriate times - which is what UKIP will do.

You and UKIP are running scared from answering questions on its policies, its like you are back from the tea and cake meeting and have been taught your lines what to say to others to avoid difficult questions, that is running scared

Dear me, you really have been suckered into believing so much in them have you not to the extent your anger replies carries this through when relying, seriously is it you having the affair with Nigel? 

Anyway try answering my questions which you constantly avoid 

So enforces EU law?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



That is not what I asked is it, you seem to get such a mouse head on about being asked simple questions, try answering the question

The question was loaded and I answered the implications that my problems are with race not with a lack of democracy.

No the question was simple and yet again you run scared from replying, they must be really brainwashing you down the local UKIP mothers meeting. It is beginning to make me laugh how you keep avoiding and making up bullshit

Well Farage is probably getting an ear bashing from his wife round about now:

Farage uses EU money to employ 'former mistress' says MEP
Ukip leader Nigel Farage declines to comment on accusations that he uses his secretarial allowance to employ both his wife and "former mistress".



Speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning (see video above), MEP Nikki Sinclaire, who represented Ukip from 2009-2010, said: "With unemployment still a problem across Europe and indeed the UK, does Mr Farage think it's a fair use of taxpayers' money, namely his secretarial allowance, not only to employ his wife Kirsten but his former mistress Annabelle Fuller. Is this a responsible use of taxpayers' money Mr Farage?"

Invited to respond, Mr Farage told the chamber "I don't want to answer that at all".

The website of the European Parliament shows that Mr Farage employs five "local assistants": Christopher Adams, Raymond Finch, Stephen Harriss, Annabelle Fuller and Kirsten Farage (his wife).

A Ukip spokesman told Channel 4 News the party was "not commenting on cowardly and malicious smears."

Annabelle Fuller issued a statement saying: "I have been continually hounded by the press with these false allegations since 2006, including having journalists camp outside my house. It's a shame that as a woman I am considered fair game for accusations of alleged affairs.

"It's hard enough being a woman in politics without having to justify why I am employed. It is safe to say that this would not have happened if I was a man."

Ms Fuller appeared alongside the former MEP Godfrey Bloom when he was defending comments he had made referring to a room of female delegates as "sluts" during a Ukip conference last year.

In footage shown on Channel 4 News on 20 September (see below), Ms Fuller is seen suggesting to Mr Bloom "I think people don't understand the difference between the word 'slut' and 'slag'. Maybe it's something to do with the lack of grammar schools in our education system."

'No exceptions'

Another former Ukip MEP, Mike Nattrass, told Channel 4 News that in 2004, at the first meeting of new MEPs, Mr Farage had laid down Ukip rules, the main one being: "Ukip MEPs will not employ wives."

Mr Nattrass recalled: "I said 'but my wife attends the parliament with me .. she would like to donate (quite legally) her pay to Ukip.'

"Farage replied: 'There will be no exceptions.'

"Later that year Ukip's MEPs found out that he had employed his wife without consulting. This is exactly what the pigs in Animal Farm would have done."
'Self-styled Trojan horse'

The Ukip leader has long known the value of employing a wife on EU expenses.

In a film called the Enemy Within, screened on BBC2 in 2000, a youthful-looking Mr Farage is described by the filmmakers as "the self styled 'Trojan Horse' of Europe, whose mission is to expose corruption and waste in the system.

In the footage Mr Farage is seen saying pointedly: "everyone's a winner with Europe."

He goes on to explain "I worked it out, because so much of what you get is after tax, that if you used the secretarial allowance to pay your wife - on top of all the other games that you can play - I reckon that this job in sterling terms is worth over a quarter of a million a year to you."

The rules of the European Parliament state: "In general, MEPs can no longer have close relatives among their staff, though there is a transitional period for those who were employed in the previous term."

The maxiumum monthly amount an MEP could claim for staff costs was 21,209 euros in 2011. But these funds cannot be paid to an MEP directly. There is also a general expenditure allowance of up to 4,299 euros in 2011, for office, phone, post and computing costs.

This allowance can be halved if the MEP doesn't attend at least half of the plenary sittings in one parliamentary year

http://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-annabelle-fuller-former-mistress-nikki-sinclaire-mep-allowances


Bloody hypocrite !!!!!

Some example he is setting, what with his mistress etc and the misuse of money ...

Once a cheat always a cheat.

Bloody fools can't keep their willies tucked away never mind run a country.

Seriously, how is UKIP going to convince people Sphinx if you cannot convince me?

The reality is UKIP is holding all their eggs in one basket, if people do not vote to leave then what will become of UKIP, its major policies will be void, because democratically the people could well chose to stay.

Again I am on the fence over the whole EU issue and would rather try to talk through a better deal going forward, but you are hardly going to convince many people if you shy away from simple points and questions.

The reality is when it comes to it, even if people are at odds with the EU, if they have no viable plans or policies, they will not get voted in because people are very finicky and whilst they may like the ideas being proposed by a party, they will not vote for them when it really matters if they have none or try and bull their way out of answering them as you keep doing

Ach, I don't even take the UKIPS seriously , load of belters who don't have a clue where they are going and the majority of their ' supporters' are disgruntled ex Tory supporters,...

They have had their fifteen minutes of fame , now they should just lie down and accept severe Nairobi.

PhilDidge wrote:Seriously, how is UKIP going to convince people Sphinx if you cannot convince me?

The reality is UKIP is holding all their eggs in one basket, if people do not vote to leave then what will become of UKIP, its major policies will be void, because democratically the people could well chose to stay.

Again I am on the fence over the whole EU issue and would rather try to talk through a better deal going forward, but you are hardly going to convince many people if you shy away from simple points and questions.

The reality is when it comes to it, even if people are at odds with the EU, if they have no viable plans or policies, they will not get voted in because people are very finicky and whilst they may like the ideas being proposed by a party, they will not vote for them when it really matters if they have none or try and bull their way out of answering them as you keep doing

I tell you again - when the other parties bring out their detailed proposals (like Mr Clegg telling us all how he is going to finance the removal of all petrol and diesel cars from the roads by 2040 or preferably sooner) then UKIP will do the same.

Sorry that that is not good enough for you - sorry you want to hold UKIP to standards you dont wish to apply to others but that is the way it is.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Seriously, how is UKIP going to convince people Sphinx if you cannot convince me?

The reality is UKIP is holding all their eggs in one basket, if people do not vote to leave then what will become of UKIP, its major policies will be void, because democratically the people could well chose to stay.

Again I am on the fence over the whole EU issue and would rather try to talk through a better deal going forward, but you are hardly going to convince many people if you shy away from simple points and questions.

The reality is when it comes to it, even if people are at odds with the EU, if they have no viable plans or policies, they will not get voted in because people are very finicky and whilst they may like the ideas being proposed by a party, they will not vote for them when it really matters if they have none or try and bull their way out of answering them as you keep doing

I tell you again - when the other parties bring out their detailed proposals (like Mr Clegg telling us all how he is going to finance the removal of all petrol and diesel cars from the roads by 2040 or preferably sooner)  then UKIP will do the same.

Sorry that that is not good enough for you - sorry you want to hold UKIP to standards you dont wish to apply to others but that is the way it is.

Epic Fail


You will never convince many people like that

So all you have now is on how Nick will remove all petrol and diesel cars of which I am interested to and would do exactly what I am asking you now, though I doubt he would shy away from answering

So again Sphinx what will UKIP do if people vote to stay in the EU, will not their party become very much redundant unless they radically change their policies?

If a proper fair open binding referendum is offered and the vote is to remain in then UKIP will of course accept that - its called democracy.

However the belief is that if any referendum is offered by the other parties which is doubtful in itself judging by the number of promises to do just that which have not materialized is likely to be unfair, unopen (not massively important) and most of all not binding.

There is a history of countries having referendums about EU membership - which has shown that where populations vote NO to the EU they either get given another referendum and "persuaded" to say YES or simply ignored.

EU exit is one of the few areas that a UKIP government would not offer a referendum on as they would take being elected into government as mandate in itself.

sphinx wrote:If a proper fair open binding referendum is offered and the vote is to remain in then UKIP will of course accept that - its called democracy.

However the belief is that if any referendum is offered by the other parties which is doubtful in itself judging by the number of promises to do just that which have not materialized is likely to be unfair, unopen (not massively important) and most of all not binding.

There is a history of countries having referendums about EU membership - which has shown that where populations vote NO to the EU they either get given another referendum and "persuaded" to say YES or simply ignored.

EU exit is one of the few areas that a UKIP government would not offer a referendum on as they would take being elected into government as mandate in itself.

That again did not answer my question, as to what if people do vote to stay, then what will UKIP become?

It will have to reinvent itself would it not?

You keep dodging the real question by diverging to other what if's based on your party being the only party that wants to give a referendum, and now other nations using again an already bullshit excuse as to whinge some more about if the majority do not agree with you

Why would it have to reinvent itself?

Did Labour reinvent itself when the majority of people decided they did not want it to form the government? Or did it keep campaigning on its policies?

Ditto for the Tory Party when it was out of government.

sphinx wrote:Why would it have to reinvent itself?

Did Labour reinvent itself when the majority of people decided they did not want it to form the government?  Or did it keep campaigning on its policies?

Ditto for the Tory Party when it was out of government.

Still unable to see the point, the majority of your vague economic policies are based off leaving the EU, so where would UKIP find the resources and money to then thus implement any of their plans? You see even though they have vague claims to policies which are not viable, they would have to reinvent themselves if in power, because they would not then go against such a referendum, proving yet again that UKIP has no conception of contingencies plans, they place all their eggs in one basket, which is a huge flaw

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Why would it have to reinvent itself?

Did Labour reinvent itself when the majority of people decided they did not want it to form the government?  Or did it keep campaigning on its policies?

Ditto for the Tory Party when it was out of government.

Still unable to see the point, the majority of your vague economic policies are based off leaving the EU, so where would UKIP find the resources and money to then thus implement any of their plans? You see even though they have vague claims to policies which are not viable, they would have to reinvent themselves if in power, because they would not then go against such a referendum, proving yet again that UKIP has no conception of contingencies plans, they place all their eggs in one basket, which is a huge flaw

I take it you are also demanding that the Labour and Tory supporters on this board are providing detailed policy statements from there parties to show how they would manage the economy in the case of a referendum indicating people want to exit? I seem to have missed your accusations that those parties are not prepared with contingency plans for such an eventuality.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Still unable to see the point, the majority of your vague economic policies are based off leaving the EU, so where would UKIP find the resources and money to then thus implement any of their plans? You see even though they have vague claims to policies which are not viable, they would have to reinvent themselves if in power, because they would not then go against such a referendum, proving yet again that UKIP has no conception of contingencies plans, they place all their eggs in one basket, which is a huge flaw

I take it you are also demanding that the Labour and Tory supporters on this board are providing detailed policy statements from there parties to show how they would manage the economy in the case of a referendum indicating people want to exit?  I seem to have missed your accusations that those parties are not prepared with contingency plans for such an eventuality.

PMSL again missing the point and yet again unable to answer, I really must get myself on question time and ask this as I hope Nigel is not so evasive and poor as you with answers, because this is fundamental to their plans, which seems to have escaped your attention Sphinx, to the point you go on about Labour and the Tories who are not reliant on a referendum to make their policies work.
The reality is both have policies to work within the EU, but do you not think they have not thought about policies is now even more comical, because at present they do not have to form any until a referendum is decided upon which could happen if the Tories get back in of which I know it will

But hey you keep dodging the points best laugh to date

Well let me see - the first think UKIP depend on to make their policies work is to get elected - seeing as their getting elected would mean EU exit automatically as that is the platform they stand on so they have policies that work together.

You would think that as the Tory policy is a guaranteed referendum that they would indeed have policies based on people voting for an exit otherwise it would appear that they have no intention of exiting even if that is what people vote for. Yet do you see them talking about their policies in advent of a yes exit vote?

So you have a party whose policy is a referendum but who do not show policies for both in and out and that is not a problem for you and another party whose policy is OUT and you are complaining they do not have a policy for in.

You are disingenuous aren't you?

sphinx wrote:Well let me see - the first think UKIP depend on to make their policies work is to get elected - seeing as their getting elected would mean EU exit automatically as that is the platform they stand on so they have policies that work together.

You would think that as the Tory policy is a guaranteed referendum that they would indeed have policies based on people voting for an exit otherwise it would appear that they have no intention of exiting even if that is what people vote for.  Yet do you see them talking about their policies in advent of a yes exit vote?  

So you have a party whose policy is a referendum but who do not show policies for both in and out and that is not a problem for you and another party whose policy is OUT and you are complaining they do not have a policy for in.

You are disingenuous aren't you?

How would it mean automatically an exit from the EU, did you ever think also people would vote because they like the idea of a new party and they are appealing, but yet still vote to stay in the EU, again showing how badly your perception of why people vote is utterly poor? 

I am sure the Tories do have policies in mind, but for them to win the election their economic policies are not bound by being not within the EU, which again shows how badly your conception o this whole dilemma you face. You are banking and proving badly that people are only voting for the UKIP only because of the EU, that is your first fatal flaw as seen, because you think it is a given then that people will vote to get out.

You really have not thought any of this through have you and again fail to understand they would have to reinvent most of their policies because they are solely reliant on the public voting to get out of the EU, none of the others are as yet, do you not see the difference ha ha, sorry you are really running scared Sphinx from yet again a reality they have absolutely no contingencies UKIP and what is worse is you know it.

This is why on this debate and every debate you have with me on UKIP you will always be on the back foot, because they have no contingencies and they are reliant on this one policy, which makes them very flawed. Thus untill we see some transparency and openness about the pro's and cons of being in or out of the EU UKIP are creating their own problems here and will have to branch out more on just the EU policy, because without it they have nothing to back their policies with and even worse will not be able to implement another major issue they have, immigration.

So again tooo many, way too many eggs in one basket, why BNP was such a flop and merely a protest party

Can anyone tell me....

how much does the EU COST us? in purely "cash" terms
how much do we GAIN from the EU in purely "cash" terms...in both cases as opposed to "business" costs etc.

How much does the EU cost business
how much does business gain ...again in terms of a single business needing to comply with all the EU bollocks there is?

How much does the benefit in trade terms outweigh (if at all ) the cost of that trade
ie we know business trades with the EU...but not all do...is it a case of a "few big" industries gaining at the expense of 100's of smaller businesses...

are the costs of complying with idiotic EU regulations passed on to the EU consumer, or are they nicely disguised and passed on to US ? (so in fact we the BRITISH consumer pay the total net price of belonging to this "club" for the fat and rich)

Finally...why is didge so scared of the EU?...whats it going to do if we leave...invade???
sanction?
trade barriers???

yeah right....and like we have nobody else to trade with....

victorismyhero wrote:Can anyone tell me....

how much does the EU COST us? in purely "cash" terms
how much do we GAIN from the EU in purely "cash" terms...in both cases as opposed to "business" costs etc.

How much does the EU cost business
how much does business gain ...again in terms of a single business needing to comply with all the EU bollocks there is?

How much does the benefit in trade terms outweigh (if at all ) the cost of that trade
ie we know business trades with the EU...but not all do...is it a case of a "few big" industries gaining at the expense of 100's of smaller businesses...

are the costs of complying with idiotic EU regulations passed on to the EU consumer, or are they nicely disguised and passed on to US ? (so in fact we the BRITISH consumer pay the total net price of belonging to this "club" for the fat and rich)

Finally...why is didge so scared of the EU?...whats it going to do if we leave...invade???
sanction?
trade barriers???

yeah right....and like we have nobody else to trade with....

Got me all wrong buddy I do not fear the EU, but thanks for avoiding yet again all the points raised.

Again I am all for some honesty about the pro's and cons of which I am already well versed in dear Victor, so no fear from me, but this is exactly what UKIP is playing off fear, when as stated the EI has no power to enforce anything and is reliant on nations being in agreement to implement policies of which as seen they don;t hold to this at times the point you and sphinx clearly fail to understand.

Now if you wish to go over they what if's  then happy to because that is the point as yet many people do not know, because nobody is sure how anyone is going to react. The fact is only 1 in 5 want out, others like me have reservations, hence being on the fence and wanting some clarity over the pro's and cons showing again how badly UKIP is reliant upon the fear factor

Right have to go, hope to see some real honesty about this tomorrow, all the best Victor and Sphinx, was enjoyable

no avoiding going on didge...so stop putting words/motives into peoples mouths....there is a REASON i asked the above questions....

and YES we ARE controlled by brussels....the EU DOES enforce its rules...when there is cash to be made....

vis all the CRAP about CE marking of goods...that HAS to be done to trade....if its one of the "classified items" and it aint got CE on it (often at great cost) it cant even be sold in your home country...let alone in the EU itself...
yet ...and heres the rub...half the knowlege needed to "self certify" (which is offered as the cheaper option) is the most closely guarded secret going....why??... in order to force (especially small firms and individuals) to use the (incredibly expensive) services of "test houses"....now I dont know for sure...but it would be enlightening to see who has their dirty little fingers in those cash cows

PMSL again, so answer this before I go, who is and where is the Police enforcing the rules Victor?

There is none, showing again you prove my point on using fear, as the only group that can implement EU laws is our own Governments, as already have we ignored laws on prisoners voting?
Yes
Ignored life sentences to be set?
Yes  
Ignored no benefit checks for EU migrants?
Yes
Showing the Eu can only spit its dummy out really showing again everything you present is based upon fear.

What is not fear though is how and what will happen to our trade or the prices for businesses, that will be a reality as we will not be covered as we were to trade, something lost upon you and making me go back over the same dull points.

The reality is your fear is not based upon people making decisions but people not living in this land making decisions, as if they hold the power when they do not, as people will have the chance to vote, because if people wnat this vote, then they will vote in someone to gain this vote, thus nothing is being denied and again ignoring the one problem UKIP has

Being reliant solely on getting out.

My view like many is to change EU policies and if not to then decide to vote on it, which is sensible and to again have transparency on voting.

The net cost to the UK per day - ie the difference between what we pay them and what they pay back is somewhere between £35 million and £55 million -PER DAY. Or around £60 per week for the average family.

Working out the costs/benefits to business is far more complicated but you are looking at things like 90% of our businesses are not involved in trading in or with the EU and yet are legally required to meet their standards it aint cheap.

An interesting thought I saw somewhere the other day - cant remember where was the association of EU membership with VAT - begging the question if we left the EU could we wipe out VAT?

sphinx wrote:The net cost to the UK per day - ie the difference between what we pay them and what they pay back is somewhere between £35 million and £55 million -PER DAY.  Or around £60 per week for the average family.

Working out the costs/benefits to business is far more complicated but you are looking at things like 90% of our businesses are not involved in trading in or with the EU and yet are legally required to meet their standards it aint cheap.

An interesting thought I saw somewhere the other day - cant remember where was the association of EU membership with VAT - begging the question if we left the EU could we wipe out VAT?

PMSL laughing, did you just get this info straight back from UKIP HQ in what to post sphinx, more fear factors

Still no answers to my points, I am beginning to see the reality of some UKIP supporters, desperation because they have nothing of value to offer accept fear, as seen above again.

The reality is you need to prove to business they are not going to be affected or make their profits shrink and become untenable here, which is the dilemma you face again, because charges will be placed higher than what they had protection under the EU with, that is a reality

so te EU is actually a "protection racket"? ahh...i see

and YES the EU DOES enforce...try selling something that needs it ....WITHOUT the ec marking...even in your home country. let alone sending it into europe....

@Sphinx...unlikely we could wipe out VAT, the americans have "sales" tax, we had a "sales tax" before we had vat. It is actually one of the "better" taxes....when its targeted properly, as ever it isnt, things that should most definitley NOT be taxed are, yet stuff that could and should be taxed isnt...

victorismyhero wrote:so te EU is actually a "protection racket"?   ahh...i see

and YES the EU DOES enforce...try selling something that needs it ....WITHOUT the ec marking...even in your home country. let alone sending it into europe....

@Sphinx...unlikely we could wipe out VAT, the americans have "sales" tax, we had a "sales tax" before we had vat. It is actually one of the "better" taxes....when its targeted properly, as ever it isnt, things that should most definitley NOT be taxed are, yet stuff that could and should be taxed isnt...

So thanks again for proving my point nobody can enforce these rules except the country themselves, thus again showing UKIP plays off fears and again it boils down to whether we agree on criminal or human right laws, which is really your beef so lets be honest eh Victor

PhilDidge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:so te EU is actually a "protection racket"?   ahh...i see

and YES the EU DOES enforce...try selling something that needs it ....WITHOUT the ec marking...even in your home country. let alone sending it into europe....

@Sphinx...unlikely we could wipe out VAT, the americans have "sales" tax, we had a "sales tax" before we had vat. It is actually one of the "better" taxes....when its targeted properly, as ever it isnt, things that should most definitley NOT be taxed are, yet stuff that could and should be taxed isnt...

So thanks again for proving my point nobody can enforce these rules except the country themselves, thus again showing UKIP plays off fears and again it boils down to whether we agree on criminal or human right laws, which is really your beef so lets be honest eh Victor

what the hell are you ON about???

the EU DOES enforce these rules....CE mark...or you cant trade......even if you were to ignore the rule at home...those companies who do trade with the EU CANNOT trade stuff in europe WITHOUT the CE mark. AND ...now....IF you were to sell something at home...and your home country ignored the EU, and someone from the EU complained to the commission that "fred" in greater whatsit was making and selling ITEM X without a CE mark...you could (and would) be arrested on a EAW and hauled off to a court in brussels...

victorismyhero wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So thanks again for proving my point nobody can enforce these rules except the country themselves, thus again showing UKIP plays off fears and again it boils down to whether we agree on criminal or human right laws, which is really your beef so lets be honest eh Victor

what the hell are you ON about???

the EU DOES enforce these rules....CE mark...or you cant trade......even if you were to ignore the rule at home...those companies who do trade with the EU CANNOT trade stuff in europe WITHOUT the CE mark.  AND ...now....IF you were to sell something at home...and your home country ignored the EU, and someone from the EU complained to the commission that "fred" in greater whatsit was making and selling ITEM X without a CE mark...you could (and would) be arrested on a EAW and hauled off to a court in brussels...

Again how does it enforce these rules?

Where is the EU army and Police force to enforce them?

There is none, the fact is many companies already take the piss with EU rulings, something showing again how out of touch you are with the real world


Your view somebody could be arrested and hauled off to Brussels really is the funniest load of bollocks I have ever heard for anyone breaking any EU law, which of course has never happened without the consent of its nation, proving more so again you are talking bull

I will be voting for UKIP in May

On a very selfish issue, I hate Sprouts and wish them to be removed as soon as possible from the supermarket shelves.  The rows we have on 25 Dec over Brussels is noboby's business.

Out of Brussels away with the Sprout

READ up about the EAW....

perhaps you are unaware of the scope and reach of that instrument.....