EU debate Round 2: Farage wins again

By more than two-to-one debate viewers say Nigel Farage did better than Nick Clegg, a YouGov poll for The Sun finds

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and UKIP leader Nigel Farage clashed again this Wednesday in the second of two debates about the future of Britain’s relationship with the E.U.

A YouGov poll conducted for The Sun finds that 68% of people who watched the debate say Nigel Farage performed better overall. 27% say Clegg came out on top and 5% don't know.

A YouGov poll conducted for The Sun after the previous debate (held on March 26) found that debate viewers gave Farage the edge over Clegg by 57% to 36%.

Both polls are weighted to be representative politically and by attitudes to EU membership.

The 60-minute debate was broadcast on the BBC.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/02/round-2-farage-wins/

Who won will really be decided by how many people are influenced one way or the other in whether they have changed their minds about being in or out of the EU.

Despite Farage winning last time most people didn't change their minds.

Hi Irn. I watched the debate and was very impressed by the comments Nigel Farage made. I made a point of noting the applause, and believe me folks, Farage won the debate. His comments and replies were lucid, up-front and to the point. All Clegg did was waffle the current political agendas on the EU. Nothing new, no prospects or promises of a future British Britain.

I personally felt both were a load of hot air.

Farage came out with populist cliches; no substance just saying the usual nationalist stuff for optimum reaction- without really going deep into issues. He also tried to simply laugh off points and shout over Clegg.

Clegg was like politicians always are on shows like this, the usual Question Time/Newnight tactile evasion of difficult questions; as well as diverting the subject occasionally to focus on trying to smear Farage.

To be honest I'd have had someone else take up the EU cause; there are other people both less damaged than Clegg as well as more able to debate reality- basically who could have debated Farage into the ground.

The thing that got me was Clegg did not seem to be listening to Farage at all - time and time again Nigel made a point and instead of responding to it Nick just wittered on almost as if making memorised speeches.

Take the constant references to moving forward - Nigel could come out with facts and figures about trading with the world - and Nicks response is the world of the 1950s does not exist any more. Not only bad debate technique but bloody rude to boot.

Incidentally anyone thinking UKIP is isolationist and inward thinking should read "Out of Europe into the World" http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328 which gives details of markets outside of Europe and UKIPs wish to utilize them.

Eilzel wrote:I personally felt both were a load of hot air.

Farage came out with populist cliches; no substance just saying the usual nationalist stuff for optimum reaction- without really going deep into issues. He also tried to simply laugh off points and shout over Clegg.

Clegg was like politicians always are on shows like this, the usual Question Time/Newnight tactile evasion of difficult questions; as well as diverting the subject occasionally to focus on trying to smear Farage.

To be honest I'd have had someone else take up the EU cause; there are other people both less damaged than Clegg as well as more able to debate reality- basically who could have debated Farage into the ground.

To simplify it down what is wrong with having trade without political union? Look at NAFTA - that is 3 countries managing to have free trade without either political union or freedom of movement.

For our US buddies who occasionally like to get involved in these EU debates try looking at the UK position as how the US would be if NAFTA had a freedom of movement rule and all those of Mexican Nationality could freely come to work and reside in the US without any checks or requirements whatsoever.

UKIP does not want separation from Europe - it wants freedom from the EU.

Trading is actually one of the points on which Clegg was correct- he just wasn't very good at putting it over effectively.

Like Les said - he's damaged goods.

Yep, Clegg should have a let a Lib Dem who is more of a fighter handle Farage.

Irn Bru wrote:Trading is actually one of the points on which Clegg was correct- he just wasn't very good at putting it over effectively.

Like Les said - he's damaged goods.

Trade does not depend on political union - in fact the rest of the world manages it very well without political union.

go UKIP and hopefully goodbye eu...  

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Trading is actually one of the points on which Clegg was correct- he just wasn't very good at putting it over effectively.

Like Les said - he's damaged goods.

Trade does not depend on political union - in fact the rest of the world manages it very well without political union.

I never said it did but but the free trade agreement we have with the EU depends on us being in the EU.

Do you want to put the barriers back up with our biggest and nearest trading partners?

Well -do you?

Clegg was very poor - a disjointed, script ridden performance.
Farage is popularist, is a good orator, but has insufficient choice of ammunition in his armoury to seriously affect any election outcome. He will draw a few % from the Conservatives, but that will only strengthen Labour's position.

Eilzel wrote:I personally felt both were a load of hot air.

Farage came out with populist cliches; no substance just saying the usual nationalist stuff for optimum reaction- without really going deep into issues. He also tried to simply laugh off points and shout over Clegg.

Clegg was like politicians always are on shows like this, the usual Question Time/Newnight tactile evasion of difficult questions; as well as diverting the subject occasionally to focus on trying to smear Farage.

To be honest I'd have had someone else take up the EU cause; there are other people both less damaged than Clegg as well as more able to debate reality- basically who could have debated Farage into the ground.

Agreed, Clegg was poor mid but did not go at Farage with the right come backs, I would of hit him with one what he would do with his party if the people decided to stay in the EU, would he then not respect the view of the people of Britain.
I would have loved to see him respond to that.
His answers were though all based off fear and not tackled on a real debate, again I would have countered his view on climate change and asked him how it is on the fence being 98% of scientists back climate change is being affected by humans and nobody has been able to produce a paper disputing this, I would have made him look daft on that to then claim we should bring back industries that would create pollution again where we have since reduced this, Clegg missed a right opening on that one and could have made him look stupid

Clegg just doesn't have a very strong voice that projects his views with any degree of authority.

Farage has that in abundance.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Trade does not depend on political union - in fact the rest of the world manages it very well without political union.

I never said it did but but the free trade agreement we have with the EU depends on us being in the EU.

Do you want to put the barriers back up with our biggest and nearest trading partners?

Well -do you?

Seriously you need to read the http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328

Does the trade the EU does with China, Mexico, or the US depend on them being in the EU?

Why the hell would the EU even attempt to put up barricades to trading with us? What would it gain? This is what gets me - the way the world has changed putting up trade blocks is pointless now - globalization has (as Farage pointed out) changed the game regards tariffs and blocks. The world is not the same as when we joined the EEC when there was reason for big trade blocks but that was 40 years ago. I mean if the EU did not exist now would anyone think of designing even so much as the EEC?

Much smaller countries than us are making their own trade agreements separate from the EU and doing bloody well out of it. They pay a "membership" fee to the EU because the bulk of their trade is and has to be with other EU countries - that is not the case with us. Free from the EU we have the ability and the goods to reduce what we send to the EU and increase what we send world wide.

People accuse UKIP of being backwards looking and hankering after the past when in actual fact UKIP is the one that wants to move forward into the sort of trade that non EU countries around the world are enjoying which is denied to us because of EU membership. It is the EU that is living in the past and holding us there not UKIP.

Irn Bru wrote:Clegg just doesn't have a very strong voice that projects his views with any degree of authority.

Farage has that in abundance.

Clegg does not have the clam of Farage, Irn, but again there was so many points to get over him on which the opportunity was missed, I gave a couple but the whole questions were set up to me to make it easier for Nigel to respond to and Clegg took the wrong road in the debate.


Again I shall ask Sphinx which she ignored earlier, what does she think of the new EU and US agreement which even UKIP think is great news?

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Trade does not depend on political union - in fact the rest of the world manages it very well without political union.

I never said it did but but the free trade agreement we have with the EU depends on us being in the EU.

Do you want to put the barriers back up with our biggest and nearest trading partners?

Well -do you?

Seriously you need to read the http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328

Does the trade the EU does with China, Mexico, or the US depend on them being in the EU?

Why the hell would the EU even attempt to put up barricades to trading with us?  What would it gain?  This is what gets me - the way the world has changed putting up trade blocks is pointless now - globalization has (as Farage pointed out) changed the game regards tariffs and blocks.  The world is not the same as when we joined the EEC when there was reason for big trade blocks but that was 40 years ago.  I mean if the EU did not exist now would anyone think of designing even so much as the EEC?

Much smaller countries than us are making their own trade agreements separate from the EU and doing bloody well out of it.  They pay a "membership" fee to the EU because the bulk of their trade is and has to be with other EU countries - that is not the case with us.  Free from the EU we have the ability and the goods to reduce what we send to the EU and increase what we send world wide.

People accuse UKIP of being backwards looking and hankering after the past when in actual fact UKIP is the one that wants to move forward into the sort of trade that non EU countries around the world are enjoying which is denied to us because of EU membership.  It is the EU that is living in the past and holding us there not UKIP.

So you believe that we can be out of the EU but still have free trade with then without any barriers? Tell me what that agreement would be like and how it would work.

If you think that we can negotiate our own trade agreements with all the countries that you mention better than the whole EU can then you really are dreaming.

Why do you think that many foreign investors have been setting up in the UK?. Are they just after the UK market or is it because they will get access to all the EU countries together with the benefits of free trade?

What do you think?

...as Cameron and co say regards to Scottish independence....


We are better together, this is certainly true with EU membership, the more countries in the EU,surely the better the trading?..

An amazing win for Farage - well done to him and UKIP.



 ::rockout:: 

Handy Andy wrote:Clegg was very poor - a disjointed, script ridden performance.
Farage is popularist, is a good orator, but has insufficient choice of ammunition in his armoury to seriously affect any election outcome. He will draw a few %  from the Conservatives,  but that will only strengthen Labour's position.

UKIP are left wing socialists just like Labour.

They have a policy which will attract most of the English population - anti mass immigration.

They will take from all Parties.

Joy Division wrote:...as Cameron and co say regards to Scottish independence....


We are better together, this is certainly true with EU membership, the more countries in the EU,surely the better the trading?..

Depends on the countries surely? Just having more weight doesn't always improve things you know, it's like the bottom of a boat being weighed down with barnacles - the more that cling on the slower and less efficiently the boat will sail. Eventually they have to be scraped off to make it run smoothly. It's time we scraped the barnacles from our boat and sailed on...

Joy Division wrote:...as Cameron and co say regards to Scottish independence....


We are better together, this is certainly true with EU membership, the more countries in the EU,surely the better the trading?..

Weird, everything in my house is from China...

Now, when did they join the EU?

Tesstacious wrote:

Joy Division wrote:...as Cameron and co say regards to Scottish independence....


We are better together, this is certainly true with EU membership, the more countries in the EU,surely the better the trading?..

Depends on the countries surely?  Just having more weight doesn't always improve things you know, it's like the bottom of a boat being weighed down with barnacles - the more that cling on the slower and less efficiently the boat will sail.  Eventually they have to be scraped off to make it run smoothly.  It's time we scraped the barnacles from our boat and sailed on...

Love it. Fabulous analogy. Bravo. Greenie given   

I was thinking the barnacle analogy myself just the other day.


We still have loads clinging on and in receipt of tax payers money for doing very little.

sphinx wrote:The thing that got me was Clegg did not seem to be listening to Farage at all - time and time again Nigel made a point and instead of responding to it Nick just wittered on almost as if making memorised speeches.

Take the constant references to moving forward - Nigel could come out with facts and figures about trading with the world - and Nicks response is the world of the 1950s does not exist any more.  Not only bad debate technique but bloody rude to boot.

Incidentally anyone thinking UKIP is isolationist and inward thinking should read "Out of Europe into the World" http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328 which gives details of markets outside of Europe and UKIPs wish to utilize them.

thats the left for you

just look at this forum, i could say water was wet and the left would be arguing that im an idiot for thinking water wasn't wet

Tommy Monk wrote:I was thinking the barnacle analogy myself just the other day.


We still have loads clinging on and in receipt of tax payers money for doing very little.

So you are a very clever sausage too.....................

my god

just watched the highlights and i am now truly terrified that that child clegg is in a position of power in the UK, that mong shouldn't be trusted to swab out the shitters at poundland on his own and you lot made him your deputy prime minister

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Trade does not depend on political union - in fact the rest of the world manages it very well without political union.

I never said it did but but the free trade agreement we have with the EU depends on us being in the EU.

Do you want to put the barriers back up with our biggest and nearest trading partners?

Well -do you?

Tye're not actually our biggest trading partners - had this debate elsewhere and the figures show we export to other countries outside the EU as much as within - and when you factor in the £65 billion a year we pay to belong to this failing club, then we'd do much better without it!

smelly_bandit wrote:my god
just watched the highlights and i am now truly terrified that that child clegg is in a position of power in the UK, that mong shouldn't be trusted to swab out the shitters at poundland on his own and you lot made him your deputy prime minister

Ha ha ha ha!


He used to have a top job in the EU before didn't he? So no surprise he is so pro EU.



And thank you Gerbs!

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Seriously you need to read the http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328

Does the trade the EU does with China, Mexico, or the US depend on them being in the EU?

Why the hell would the EU even attempt to put up barricades to trading with us?  What would it gain?  This is what gets me - the way the world has changed putting up trade blocks is pointless now - globalization has (as Farage pointed out) changed the game regards tariffs and blocks.  The world is not the same as when we joined the EEC when there was reason for big trade blocks but that was 40 years ago.  I mean if the EU did not exist now would anyone think of designing even so much as the EEC?

Much smaller countries than us are making their own trade agreements separate from the EU and doing bloody well out of it.  They pay a "membership" fee to the EU because the bulk of their trade is and has to be with other EU countries - that is not the case with us.  Free from the EU we have the ability and the goods to reduce what we send to the EU and increase what we send world wide.

People accuse UKIP of being backwards looking and hankering after the past when in actual fact UKIP is the one that wants to move forward into the sort of trade that non EU countries around the world are enjoying which is denied to us because of EU membership.  It is the EU that is living in the past and holding us there not UKIP.

So you believe that we can be out of the EU but still have free trade with then without any barriers? Tell me what that agreement would be like and how it would work.

If you think that we can negotiate our own trade agreements with all the countries that you mention better than the whole EU can then you really are dreaming.

Why do you think that many foreign investors have been setting up in the UK?. Are they just after the UK market or is it because they will get access to all the EU countries together with the benefits of free trade?

What do you think?

thats not what the debate is

there is a difference between free trade across borders that works both ways and being forced to be part of a political super bloc that effectively reduces sovereign nations to puppet states governed by a central government in Brussels that not one single person in all the millions in europe voted into power

Tommy Monk wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:my god
just watched the highlights and i am now truly terrified that that child clegg is in a position of power in the UK, that mong shouldn't be trusted to swab out the shitters at poundland on his own and you lot made him your deputy prime minister

Ha ha ha ha!


He used to have a top job in the EU before didn't he? So no surprise he is so pro EU.



And thank you Gerbs!

You are more than welcome.

Top job...............  More cloggy licence to thrill my one voter.................  he was a researcher, quickly redacted, was unaware he was my MEP   :\\:[:

Some may learn a view things here which is actually also funny how I do not think some UKIP supporters really understand about:





"If it is good enough for Iceland to do it," Nigel Farage remarked in the first of his two televised debates with Nick Clegg, "I'm damned certain the British with 64million can do even better." The Ukip leader was referring to a free trade agreement that the Icelandic government signed with China in April 2013, despite the tiny Nordic country not being a member of the EU. Is this what proud British Euroscepticism has been reduced to - comparisons with Iceland? Together with Norway (population: five million) and Liechtenstein (population: 36,000) - those two powerhouses of the global economy - Iceland (population: 326,000) is a member of the snazzily named European Economic Area. The EEA is, in essence, the faux-EU, the geopolitical equivalent of a knock-off Gucci handbag. Rather than having all of the pros of EU membership with none of the cons - as some British Eurosceptics disingenuously suggest - EEA membership guarantees some of the pros and most of the cons.

Take Norway, often cited by the anti-EU brigade as a possible model for Britain. Despite being outside the EU, Norway has had to implement 75% of its laws - 6,000 pieces of legislation. "We have been more compliant than many EU member countries," the premier Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservative Party, has confessed. (In the 1990s, Norway was known as the "fax democracy", with Brussels simply faxing new directives for the Norwegians to follow.)

It's not a cheap deal, either. Norway's total financial contribution to the EU each year is about €340m - which, per capita, works out to be slightly higher than the UK's.

As for the 'free movement' of workers that so upsets Tory backbenchers, the non-EU Norway, like the non-EU Iceland, is a signatory of the Schengen Agreement, which scrapped internal borders - unlike the UK, an EU member, which opted out. Is it any wonder that a government-commissioned report concluded in 2012 that Norway had seen "extensive Europeanisation" over the past two decades and that it was an 'illusion' to believe it was outside of the EU?

Forget Norway, then. How about the wealthy, dynamic, free-market Switzerland (population: eight million), which arranges its own bilateral deals with all its trading partners, including the EU? The Swiss negotiate on an individual, case-by-case basis and are under no obligation to implement all of the EU's internal market legislation. What's not to like? Boris Johnson is so keen on the so-called Swiss model that he coined the term "Britzerland".

But wait. First, Switzerland has a free trade agreement in goods with the EU but no agreement on services - including, astonishingly, on financial services. Remember that the UK accounts for a third of the EU's wholesale finance industry. Want to try selling the Swiss option to the City of London now? No? I didn't think so.

In 2009, the Swiss government acknowledged: "The existing [EU] barriers to market access place Switzerland at an economic disadvantage." It added: "Switzerland loses out in terms of jobs, value creation and tax receipts."

Second, whatever happened to no taxation without representation? Although it is outside the EU and outside the EEA, too, Switzerland contributes about €450m a year to the EU budget.

Third, Swiss sovereignty is overrated. The country relies on roughly 120 separate bilateral agreements with the EU and it is expected to adopt every single EU regulation in each of those areas - again, without any say on their shape, structure or content.

Eurosceptics harp on about the need for democracy. But the Swiss, like the Norwegians and the Icelanders, choose to eat food from a table at which they have no seat. They have no spots on the European Commission, no members of the European Parliament, no invitations to the Council of Ministers, no judges on the European Court of Justice. Yet, to varying degrees, they submit to EU legislation over which they have no votes, no vetoes and very little influence.

The simple truth is that whether the UK is inside the EU or out, we'll have to follow EU rules and regulations. Eurosceptics say they like the EU's single market but don't like the EU's regulations. What they seem unable - or unwilling - to understand is that there is no single market without regulations; it is the regulations that make it a single market, rather than a continent-wide free-for-all.

And it is the single market that gives EU member states power, clout and influence on a global scale. Do we want to negotiate with the Chinas and Russias of the world as part of a 28-member bloc of 500 million people? Or quit the biggest single market in human history in order to emulate Iceland, a country with a population smaller than Bristol? Eurosceptics bridle at being called 'Little Englanders'. Yet their obsession with the likes of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland suggests the label may be an understatement. Tiny Englanders, perhaps?

The EU is far from perfect. It does need to change - to become less austerity-focused and neoliberal, for a start. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy needs reforming and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the US, which will empower unelected corporations at the expense of elected governments, needs rewriting. But you don't win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in, stay in and keep fighting your corner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/nigel-farage-eu-debate_b_5081860.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Puffington post is bad enough but a medhi hasan article too!

What a load of bollocks!

UKIP want out of EU and out of their control on our laws.

We have all the cons too and there are no pros I can think of.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Seriously you need to read the http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/96/attachments/original/1396261328/EFd_doc_2.0.pdf?1396261328

Does the trade the EU does with China, Mexico, or the US depend on them being in the EU?

Why the hell would the EU even attempt to put up barricades to trading with us?  What would it gain?  This is what gets me - the way the world has changed putting up trade blocks is pointless now - globalization has (as Farage pointed out) changed the game regards tariffs and blocks.  The world is not the same as when we joined the EEC when there was reason for big trade blocks but that was 40 years ago.  I mean if the EU did not exist now would anyone think of designing even so much as the EEC?

Much smaller countries than us are making their own trade agreements separate from the EU and doing bloody well out of it.  They pay a "membership" fee to the EU because the bulk of their trade is and has to be with other EU countries - that is not the case with us.  Free from the EU we have the ability and the goods to reduce what we send to the EU and increase what we send world wide.

People accuse UKIP of being backwards looking and hankering after the past when in actual fact UKIP is the one that wants to move forward into the sort of trade that non EU countries around the world are enjoying which is denied to us because of EU membership.  It is the EU that is living in the past and holding us there not UKIP.

So you believe that we can be out of the EU but still have free trade with then without any barriers? Tell me what that agreement would be like and how it would work.

If you think that we can negotiate our own trade agreements with all the countries that you mention better than the whole EU can then you really are dreaming.

Why do you think that many foreign investors have been setting up in the UK?. Are they just after the UK market or is it because they will get access to all the EU countries together with the benefits of free trade?

What do you think?

thats not what the debate is

there is a difference between free trade across borders that works both ways and being forced to be part of a political super bloc that effectively reduces sovereign nations to puppet states governed by a central government in Brussels that not one single person in all the millions in europe voted into power

Of course the debate is about all that. And who is being forced to be part of a political super bloc? This country signed up to what we have and if you think that our free trade agreement and foreign investment isn't important then you are living in a dream world.

No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.



I'm all for trade, but I'm also for democracy, and the right to self determination which is a fundamental part of that.


At the moment the EU costs us between £65-100 billion a year to be told what to do and have no control of our borders.

Tommy Monk wrote:Puffington post is bad enough but a medhi hasan article too!

What a load of bollocks!

UKIP want out of EU and out of their control on our laws.

We have all the cons too and there are no pros I can think of.

Spelling error moron...

Tommy Monk wrote:No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.



I'm all for trade, but I'm also for democracy, and the right to self determination which is a fundamental part of that.


At the moment the EU costs us between £65-100 billion a year to be told what to do and have no control of our borders.

And then Thatcher signed us up to the Single European Act and Major to the Maastricht Treaty.

Know your history - look it up.

I know that Torys signed us up to that, I was against it at the time.

Then labour signed us up to Amsterdam, Nice and then Lisbon treaties, the Lisbon treaty being the EU constitution completing the EU strangle hold of power.


The French voted no, the Dutch voted no and the Irish said no but then got to vote again to give the 'right'answer.


We have never voted for this and neither has anyone else!


Or do you not know your history? And you think this is something we actually votes for?

Tommy Monk wrote:I know that Torys signed us up to that, I was against it at the time.

Then labour signed us up to Amsterdam, Nice and then Lisbon treaties, the Lisbon treaty being the EU constitution completing the EU strangle hold of power.


The French voted no, the Dutch voted no and the Irish said no but then got to vote again to give the 'right'answer.


We have never voted for this and neither has anyone else!


Or do you not know your history? And you think this is something we actually votes for?

I'm talking about the creation of the EU which was down to Thatcher and Major.

Amsterdam was on the table and almost done and dusted before Blair signed it off.

And that and Lisbon were not in/out referendums.

Go read Treason at Maastricht - tells you all you need to know.

I an well aware of what the EU is and who is responsible for signing us up into it.


This is not about blaming either Tory or labour, they are both equally to blame.


This is about the EU and what it has become and the fact that the people who it purports to represent don't want it and have never voted for it.


And those who still wish to keep us in and deny the British people a say are the traitors of today!

Tommy Monk wrote:I an well aware of what the EU is and who is responsible for signing us up into it.


This is not about blaming either Tory or labour, they are both equally to blame.


This is about the EU and what it has become and the fact that the people who it purports to represent don't want it and have never voted for it.


And those who still wish to keep us in and deny the British people a say are the traitors of today!

You started off by saying...

No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.

So we didn't just sign up to what you said then?

Making it up as you go along won't cut the mustard on here. Read Treason at Maastricht or a brief summary of it yet?

Irn you are wasting your time with matti, sorry tommy, he just ignored very point he cannot answer from the link I presented, he instead choose to abuse it because he never has an answer.

He thinks if we leave we can ignore EU rules, when lets face facts even if we did and we still want to trade we have to abide by these rules unless we negotiate, because leaving is not going to change many of them, as we still have to abide by them to trade. Something I find very amusing

Didge, putting the cudgels down for a second, is Matti obsessed with women's bums, because if he isn't, this isn't Matti, it's probably Drinky.

Didge wrote:Irn you are wasting your time with matti, sorry tommy, he just ignored very point he cannot answer from the link I presented, he instead choose to abuse it because he never has an answer.

He thinks if we leave we can ignore EU rules, when lets face facts even if we did and we still want to trade we have to abide by these rules unless we negotiate, because leaving is not going to change many of them, as we still have to abide by them to trade. Something I find very amusing

Spot on Didge. That's exactly how it is and exactly how it is for every country in the world that wants to trade with any EU country.

Sassy wrote:Didge, putting the cudgels down for a second, is Matti obsessed with women's bums, because if he isn't, this isn't Matti, it's probably Drinky.

No it is Matti


The fact os I am all for negotiating with the EU and if we leave then we have no chance to do so and as seen we like other nations like the Swiss have to abide to trade, it is as simple as that and the Swiss have no say and here is the funny part, UKIP claim there is no democracy in what the EU govern on its rules but even if we were not in, we would have completely no say on its trading and would have to abide by its rules, that is absurd and then we have to do what they say, thus less democracy to even trade and if we fuck that up, we fuck up our economy.
When people learn this they will see UKIP is nothing but an utter joke

I think businesses in this country would seriously worried if they thought there was a chance of us pulling out of the EU. We have threads on here about massive contracts that we got because we are in the EU and on condition that we stay in it.

Didge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Didge, putting the cudgels down for a second, is Matti obsessed with women's bums, because if he isn't, this isn't Matti, it's probably Drinky.

No it is Matti


The fact os I am all for negotiating with the EU and if we leave then we have no chance to do so and as seen we like other nations like the Swiss have to abide to trade, it is as simple as that and the Swiss have no say and here is the funny part, UKIP claim there is no democracy in what the EU govern on its rules but even if we were not in, we would have completely no say on its trading and would have to abide by its rules, that is absurd and then we have to do what they say, thus less democracy to even trade and if we fuck that up, we fuck up our economy.
When people learn this they will see UKIP is nothing but an utter joke

That's the Norwegian experience to a tee Didge. They have to sign up to everything including much of the budget but have no seat at the table therefore no influence.

Negotiate is the key in all this and bringing on board allies like Germany etc.to bring that about It's the best way.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


No it is Matti


The fact os I am all for negotiating with the EU and if we leave then we have no chance to do so and as seen we like other nations like the Swiss have to abide to trade, it is as simple as that and the Swiss have no say and here is the funny part, UKIP claim there is no democracy in what the EU govern on its rules but even if we were not in, we would have completely no say on its trading and would have to abide by its rules, that is absurd and then we have to do what they say, thus less democracy to even trade and if we fuck that up, we fuck up our economy.
When people learn this they will see UKIP is nothing but an utter joke

That's the Norwegian experience to a tee Didge. They have to sign up to everything including much of the budget but have no seat at the table therefore no influence.

Negotiate is the key in all this and bringing on board allies like Germany etc.to bring that about  It's the best way.

I mean if both you and I see sense on this Irn and no disrespect because we both support parties apart, it says much about how people are so easily led by UKIP's lies, as they would bring the country to ruin

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I an well aware of what the EU is and who is responsible for signing us up into it.
This is not about blaming either Tory or labour, they are both equally to blame.
This is about the EU and what it has become and the fact that the people who it purports to represent don't want it and have never voted for it.
And those who still wish to keep us in and deny the British people a say are the traitors of today!

You started off by saying...
No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.
So we didn't just sign up to what you said then?
Making it up as you go along won't cut the mustard on here. Read Treason at Maastricht or a brief summary of it yet?

What are you talking about you bell end?

The British people agreed to a trade arrangement based on coal and steel in the referendum 40 years ago.

That is what I'm talking about by saying 'we signed up to....', meaning the British people agreed to it.


What the people have never agreed to is what it has changed into since Then. The mission creep has been happening since Then bit by bit, treaty after treaty, all the while we got told that it wouldn't mean anything and it was just amending treaty or to tidy up etc, while all the time vast powers were being transferred to an ever increasing EU political controlling dictatorship.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
You started off by saying...
No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.
So we didn't just sign up to what you said then?
Making it up as you go along won't cut the mustard on here. Read Treason at Maastricht or a brief summary of it yet?

What are you talking about you bell end?

The British people agreed to a trade arrangement based on coal and steel in the referendum 40 years ago.

That is what I'm talking about by saying 'we signed up to....', meaning the British people agreed to it.


What the people have never agreed to is what it has changed into since Then. The mission creep has been happening since Then bit by bit, treaty after treaty, all the while we got told that it wouldn't mean anything and it was just amending treaty or to tidy up etc, while all the time vast powers were being transferred to an ever increasing EU political controlling dictatorship.

Bless, the anger of UKIP supporters, speaks volumes, they are utterly clueless, so how ar you going to trade with the EU when out if we did?
You do realise we would still have to abide by non democratic rulings just like the new EU and US agreement, where no British or many other government had a say, but to trade we have to abide by the rules, or do you want our nation to go bankrupt because you are having a tantrum?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I an well aware of what the EU is and who is responsible for signing us up into it.
This is not about blaming either Tory or labour, they are both equally to blame.
This is about the EU and what it has become and the fact that the people who it purports to represent don't want it and have never voted for it.
And those who still wish to keep us in and deny the British people a say are the traitors of today!

You started off by saying...
No we signed up to a simple trade arrangement on coal and steel, not to what it has evolved into, a political federal super state dictatorship.
So we didn't just sign up to what you said then?
Making it up as you go along won't cut the mustard on here. Read Treason at Maastricht or a brief summary of it yet?

What are you talking about you bell end?

The British people agreed to a trade arrangement based on coal and steel in the referendum 40 years ago.

That is what I'm talking about by saying 'we signed up to....', meaning the British people agreed to it.


What the people have never agreed to is what it has changed into since Then. The mission creep has been happening since Then bit by bit, treaty after treaty, all the while we got told that it wouldn't mean anything and it was just amending treaty or to tidy up etc, while all the time vast powers were being transferred to an ever increasing EU political controlling dictatorship.

No, we didn't agree to it. That's what Heath signed us up to at the same time as he signed us up to the Treaty of Rome and he never asked the electorate. Check the records. What we (the people) did agree to was to stay in the EEC at a later date in a referendum delivered by a Labour government.

This discussion was about what the country signed us up to (the governments) not the people.

You're just moving the goalposts and making things up as you go along now.