UKIP

[EalingBlue2]

If you truly believe anything you have mentioned about the EU then I would book in to see some sort of mental psychologist straight away! Don't embarrass yourself on a forum like this discussing issues and topics of debate you clearly don't understand or you are simply unable to open your own eyes and are unable to see things as they are. I can't wait for you to accuse me of being a bigot or a racist!

I have said very little about the EU other than it brought Europe and as we are talking the EU this means western Europe an unprecedented period of wealth and peace. This is not debatable it is simple fact and it is not even debatable. You say I can't see things as they are but unless I lived through and missed world war three then frankly I am not sure I even understand what you are talking about or are you claiming that there has been another Great War or we were richer in the 30's???

i
Europe has been at peace with itself since the 1950's. The EU was formed in 1992, so I don't buy in to the idea that the EU has 'brought peace'; we already had it 40 years before it was formed. Nobody is saying that co-operation between European nations isn't necessary, what we're debating is what role the EU intends to play. We have already have peace in Europe... so why does the EU need to be stronger? To be a 'force' in the world? To be a major player on the world stage? Sorry, but that's not what we signed up for. Fair trade and co-operation, not laws passed by a select few who are chosen by a commission we didn't vote for. The EU sounds more like coercion than co-operation to me.

Keep trade with European nations, continue to allow immigration with the world and European nations with all subject to the same criteria that benefits the country rather than an advantage for some being members of a union which excludes over 150 nations, and provide aid and assistance where required. All this is achievable without being a part of a political union with a group which is becoming just as corrupt and self serving as Westminster.

To clarify I am talking about the institutions which I think started with the ECSC, then EEC then EU all essentially an evolution. I am not sure whether or not the post war founders had the EU of today in mind or not but I suspect not a lot of it

In a democracy we usually get the politicians we deserve as we choose who gets elected. personally I think the media is the greater problem as it totally shapes how the majority think and it shapes how facts are perceived. That the media is controlled by a few people who shape political debate and do so for profit often never having resided in the countries they shape is a concern. But sadly the only thing worse than a "free" media is a state media

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The irony is that UKIP a is made up of the most status quo of the status quo, the group responsible for the start of many absolute fuck ups under thatcher. Now they abandon their party and pretend they are outsiders fighting against the establishment they were part of. Goebells couldn't make it up better but you get what you vote for. Lucky Scotland voted no for the future safety of Britain!

Then again I think that the EU which was established to stop another world war and to bring peace and prosperity has actually been an amazing success and helped bring incredible wealth and unprecedented peace to Europe.

But if trying to recreate a mystical golden age back in the 50's and if blaming foreigners is easier than uncovering the real issues is what you want then fair enough!

Society has one real problem and that is a system designed around people working from 18-65 paying tax and then dying at about 70 whereas people aspire to work from 23 to 60 and expect to live to 90+ it is a major major issue and as far as I can see not something that nasty foreigners are to blame for

The EU was not established to stop another world war, it was solely a trading body, originally, it has received all it's protection from the member states of NATO, it has had fuck all influence in 'bringing peace' to Europe.

NATO was about protecting the west from the soviet Union - it was not about bringing peace within western Europe. Back in the 50's many played a part in formation all based on bringing western Europe together closely to bring peace and wealth . I am not interested in any debate on the modern EU or the issues of today but I will stand by the fact that the European institutions helped bring unprecedented peace to western Europe and that Western Europe also had unprecedented levels of wealth for its people . The latter would have happened without the eec as the same was true in all the west. The former I am not convinced about - western Europe had two millennia of almost constant war before hand

NATO was the organisation that ensured the Soviets kept away from any advances into Western Europe, the formation of the EU was not undertaken to militarily protect it's members, as it looked to NATO for that protection, you are suggesting that we have not had wars within Europe because of a trading treaty. We have not been free of war in Western Europe because of the efforts of the EU, it was purely and simply a trading body that has now morphed into a Federalist gargantuan. Western Europe doesn't have its freedoms because of the activities of the EU.

 

[EalingBlue2]

The EU was not established to stop another world war, it was solely a trading body, originally, it has received all it's protection from the member states of NATO, it has had fuck all influence in 'bringing peace' to Europe.

NATO was about protecting the west from the soviet Union - it was not about bringing peace within western Europe. Back in the 50's many played a part in formation all based on bringing western Europe together closely to bring peace and wealth . I am not interested in any debate on the modern EU or the issues of today but I will stand by the fact that the European institutions helped bring unprecedented peace to western Europe and that Western Europe also had unprecedented levels of wealth for its people . The latter would have happened without the eec as the same was true in all the west. The former I am not convinced about - western Europe had two millennia of almost constant war before hand

NATO was the organisation that ensured the Soviets kept away from any advances into Western Europe, the formation of the EU was not undertaken to militarily protect it's members, as it looked to NATO for that protection, you are suggesting that we have not had wars within Europe because of a trading treaty. We have not been free of war in Western Europe because of the efforts of the EU, it was purely and simply a trading body that has now morphed into a Federalist gargantuan. Western Europe doesn't have its freedoms because of the activities of the EU.

We have been free of war for hundreds of reasons, trading, language barriers, economic interdependence, communications, spread of wealth, experience of the two great wars , it would be exceedingly naiive to deny any part in that to the economic unity in Europe or indeed to NATO or to many of the other factors .

As for wars not happening because of trade well history will show you as many times as you care to see that trade and economic interdependence can bring peace between nations.

I haven't yet experienced the great gargantuan monolith infringing on my basic rights as a Briton but I will take your word for it.

But for politicians for over a thousand years it has always been easy in times of hard problems to blame the French rather than make hard calls and I don't see this changing that much today what worked in 1400 works today!

 

[Balti]

personally I think we all pay far too much tax already

and don't get nearly enough back for it in return

and that is the fundamental problem that our society faces

too many people creaming off the top of the efforts of those who just try to get by and earn an honest living

the state is too big and too expensive and the EU is just yet another layer of bureaucratic expense that we don't need

so far we have subsidised their project by around 100 billion despite our ever increasing national debt

I can see no valid justification to continue with it personally

roll on the referendum that we have been denied for far too long

 

[Metal Biker]

I have said very little about the EU other than it brought Europe and as we are talking the EU this means western Europe an unprecedented period of wealth and peace. This is not debatable it is simple fact and it is not even debatable. You say I can't see things as they are but unless I lived through and missed world war three then frankly I am not sure I even understand what you are talking about or are you claiming that there has been another Great War or we were richer in the 30's???

i
Europe has been at peace with itself since the 1950's. The EU was formed in 1992, so I don't buy in to the idea that the EU has 'brought peace'; we already had it 40 years before it was formed. Nobody is saying that co-operation between European nations isn't necessary, what we're debating is what role the EU intends to play. We have already have peace in Europe... so why does the EU need to be stronger? To be a 'force' in the world? To be a major player on the world stage? Sorry, but that's not what we signed up for. Fair trade and co-operation, not laws passed by a select few who are chosen by a commission we didn't vote for. The EU sounds more like coercion than co-operation to me.

Keep trade with European nations, continue to allow immigration with the world and European nations with all subject to the same criteria that benefits the country rather than an advantage for some being members of a union which excludes over 150 nations, and provide aid and assistance where required. All this is achievable without being a part of a political union with a group which is becoming just as corrupt and self serving as Westminster.

To clarify I am talking about the institutions which I think started with the ECSC, then EEC then EU all essentially an evolution. I am not sure whether or not the post war founders had the EU of today in mind or not but I suspect not a lot of it

In a democracy we usually get the politicians we deserve as we choose who gets elected. personally I think the media is the greater problem as it totally shapes how the majority think and it shapes how facts are perceived. That the media is controlled by a few people who shape political debate and do so for profit often never having resided in the countries they shape is a concern. But sadly the only thing worse than a "free" media is a state media

Well sadly the politicians we elect to power in the EU aren't responsible for making the laws. That's the commission's job. All they can do is ratify the proposals into law and to my knowledge I can't think of any they haven't willingly approved.

The EU is a political union, one we didn't want nor were we entitled to a say on its creation. We voted to join the EEC; we became an EU member through proxy and have since had the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and Rome, none of which the British public have ever been consulted on or given a voice over being in favour or opposing. France, Holland and Ireland did and they all voted NO, but the treaties were ratified anyway after a few 'tweaks'. which was then not put to the public vote for a referendum because it was technically a 'new treaty' and they had all lobbied for a referendum on the OLD treaty, which they got.

This is democracy? The EU just wants as much money of the taxpayers of Europe as possible. At present members states civilians pay taxes towards their individual nation member state and the EU. The EU hates the concept of 'nation states' and is trying to blend us all together as 'Europeans', giving us a flag and an anthem to 'rally' behind in an attempt to invoke some notion of pride at being 'Europeans'. Well we're not Europeans, we're British, we're French, we're German, we're Spanish, we're Italian etcetera. We love our cultural diversity of nations in Europe, but the EU wants to do away with all that 'nonsense' so that there is no need to divide taxpayers money amongst the individual member states and just have ONE superstate in which it can gleam ALL the taxes to become a world 'superpower'.

Is that the future you want for Europe? Well you can count me out, and by the sounds of things on the continent, you can count out a fair few hundred million others.

 

[EalingBlue2]

personally I think we all pay far too much tax already

and don't get nearly enough back for it in return

and that is the fundamental problem that our society faces

too many people creaming off the top of the efforts of those who just try to get by and earn an honest living

the state is too big and too expensive and the EU is just yet another layer of bureaucratic expense that we don't need

so far we have subsidised their project by around 100 billion despite our ever increasing national debt

I can see no valid justification to continue with it personally

roll on the referendum that we have been denied for far too long

There really are only two ways that society can go, one the Ron/rand Paul way where libertarianism prevails and where we pay less tax look after ourselves and those we can, but essentially we become a society of individuals with no safety net for the poor or weak . Or we accept a lower standard of living , share the wealth and agree collectively that we are prepared to make that sacrifice for the good of people we will never meet and that we trust other people to manage that redistribution who may not be great at doing it or trustworthy Not sure which way people will go or whether either can work!

But the reality is the population is ageing, healthcare is blowing out, pensions won't exist , resources are running out and everybody wants a higher standrard of living and more than their parents which doesn't add up. Politicians need to start being more honest and discussing the scale of challenges that await us all. The EU is a smokescreen used by politicians to shift blame and the sand structural problems exist with or without it.

is the solution socialism or individualism both could work but the hybrid mix of today clearly won't as it is not sustainable

 

[EalingBlue2]

personally I think we all pay far too much tax already

and don't get nearly enough back for it in return

and that is the fundamental problem that our society faces

too many people creaming off the top of the efforts of those who just try to get by and earn an honest living

the state is too big and too expensive and the EU is just yet another layer of bureaucratic expense that we don't need

so far we have subsidised their project by around 100 billion despite our ever increasing national debt

I can see no valid justification to continue with it personally

roll on the referendum that we have been denied for far too long

There really are only two ways that society can go, one the Ron/rand Paul way where libertarianism prevails and where we pay less tax look after ourselves and those we can, but essentially we become a society of individuals with no safety net for the poor or weak . Or we accept a lower standard of living , share the wealth and agree collectively that we are prepared to make that sacrifice for the good of people we will never meet and that we trust other people to manage that redistribution who may not be great at doing it or trustworthy Not sure which way people will go or whether either can work!

But the reality is the population is ageing, healthcare is blowing out, pensions won't exist , resources are running out and everybody wants a higher standrard of living and more than their parents which doesn't add up. Politicians need to start being more honest and discussing the scale of challenges that await us all. The EU is a smokescreen used by politicians to shift blame and the sand structural problems exist with or without it.

is the solution socialism or individualism both could work but the hybrid mix of today clearly won't as it is not sustainable and I am not even sure which way you want to go. Your comment on people exploiting others honest hard work is pure Marxism but the tax comment is pure libertarianism

 

[EalingBlue2]

i
Europe has been at peace with itself since the 1950's. The EU was formed in 1992, so I don't buy in to the idea that the EU has 'brought peace'; we already had it 40 years before it was formed. Nobody is saying that co-operation between European nations isn't necessary, what we're debating is what role the EU intends to play. We have already have peace in Europe... so why does the EU need to be stronger? To be a 'force' in the world? To be a major player on the world stage? Sorry, but that's not what we signed up for. Fair trade and co-operation, not laws passed by a select few who are chosen by a commission we didn't vote for. The EU sounds more like coercion than co-operation to me.

Keep trade with European nations, continue to allow immigration with the world and European nations with all subject to the same criteria that benefits the country rather than an advantage for some being members of a union which excludes over 150 nations, and provide aid and assistance where required. All this is achievable without being a part of a political union with a group which is becoming just as corrupt and self serving as Westminster.

To clarify I am talking about the institutions which I think started with the ECSC, then EEC then EU all essentially an evolution. I am not sure whether or not the post war founders had the EU of today in mind or not but I suspect not a lot of it

In a democracy we usually get the politicians we deserve as we choose who gets elected. personally I think the media is the greater problem as it totally shapes how the majority think and it shapes how facts are perceived. That the media is controlled by a few people who shape political debate and do so for profit often never having resided in the countries they shape is a concern. But sadly the only thing worse than a "free" media is a state media

Well sadly the politicians we elect to power in the EU aren't responsible for making the laws. That's the commission's job. All they can do is ratify the proposals into law and to my knowledge I can't think of any they haven't willingly approved.

The EU is a political union, one we didn't want nor were we entitled to a say on its creation. We voted to join the EEC; we became an EU member through proxy and have since had the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and Rome, none of which the British public have ever been consulted on or given a voice over being in favour or opposing. France, Holland and Ireland did and they all voted NO, but the treaties werke ratified anyway after a few 'tweaks'. which was then not put to the public vote for a referendum because it was technically a 'new treaty' and they had all lobbied for a referendum on the OLD treaty, which they got.

This is democracy? The EU just wants as much money of the taxpayers of Europe as possible. At present members states civilians pay taxes towards their individual nation member state and the EU. The EU hates the concept of 'nation states' and is trying to blend us all together as 'Europeans', giving us a flag and an anthem to 'rally' behind in an attempt to invoke some notion of pride at being 'Europeans'. Well we're not Europeans, we're British, we're French, we're German, we're Spanish, we're Italian etcetera. We love our cultural diversity of nations in Europe, but the EU wants to do away with all that 'nonsense' so that there is no need to divide taxpayers money amongst the individual member states and just have ONE superstate in which it can gleam ALL the taxes to become a world 'superpower'.

Is that the future you want for Europe? Well you can count me out, and by the sounds of things on the continent, you can count out a fair few hundred million others.

We are not all British or Spanish though are we, we are Catalan, or Welsh or Scottish or Flemish or basque and we live in artificial borders be they UK or EU or even England. What is in the interests of London is often more allied to the interests of Washington than it is to the interests of Birmingham, Luxembourg or Bangor. It is all artificial and yes some of the EU is nonsense, so is much of Westminster and what really matters is not arguing about which politician is in control but about how we solve the very real problems of sustaining an unsustainable economic model. That same problem exists in nearly all the west (australia included) bar Norway and a few others.

We can sort that out one by one, globally or regionally or a mix of all three but arguing about the eu and making that the big discussion is shifting deckchairs on the titanic. We need solutions not a debate about who is to blame - truth is no one is to blame we just live in a world where the demographic and economic factors that underpin the economies of the west have changed more dramatically than anyone ever imagined

 

[Bill Walker]

personally I think we all pay far too much tax already

and don't get nearly enough back for it in return

and that is the fundamental problem that our society faces

too many people creaming off the top of the efforts of those who just try to get by and earn an honest living

the state is too big and too expensive and the EU is just yet another layer of bureaucratic expense that we don't need

so far we have subsidised their project by around 100 billion despite our ever increasing national debt

I can see no valid justification to continue with it personally

roll on the referendum that we have been denied for far too long

Bang on Balti, I agree,

 

[Metal Biker]

To clarify I am talking about the institutions which I think started with the ECSC, then EEC then EU all essentially an evolution. I am not sure whether or not the post war founders had the EU of today in mind or not but I suspect not a lot of it

In a democracy we usually get the politicians we deserve as we choose who gets elected. personally I think the media is the greater problem as it totally shapes how the majority think and it shapes how facts are perceived. That the media is controlled by a few people who shape political debate and do so for profit often never having resided in the countries they shape is a concern. But sadly the only thing worse than a "free" media is a state media

Well sadly the politicians we elect to power in the EU aren't responsible for making the laws. That's the commission's job. All they can do is ratify the proposals into law and to my knowledge I can't think of any they haven't willingly approved.

The EU is a political union, one we didn't want nor were we entitled to a say on its creation. We voted to join the EEC; we became an EU member through proxy and have since had the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and Rome, none of which the British public have ever been consulted on or given a voice over being in favour or opposing. France, Holland and Ireland did and they all voted NO, but the treaties were ratified anyway after a few 'tweaks'. which was then not put to the public vote for a referendum because it was technically a 'new treaty' and they had all lobbied for a referendum on the OLD treaty, which they got.

This is democracy? The EU just wants as much money of the taxpayers of Europe as possible. At present members states civilians pay taxes towards their individual nation member state and the EU. The EU hates the concept of 'nation states' and is trying to blend us all together as 'Europeans', giving us a flag and an anthem to 'rally' behind in an attempt to invoke some notion of pride at being 'Europeans'. Well we're not Europeans, we're British, we're French, we're German, we're Spanish, we're Italian etcetera. We love our cultural diversity of nations in Europe, but the EU wants to do away with all that 'nonsense' so that there is no need to divide taxpayers money amongst the individual member states and just have ONE superstate in which it can gleam ALL the taxes to become a world 'superpower'.

Is that the future you want for Europe? Well you can count me out, and by the sounds of things on the continent, you can count out a fair few hundred million others.

We are not all British or Spanish though are we, we are Catalan, or Welsh or Scottish or Flemish or basque and we live in artificial borders be they UK or EU or even England. What is in the interests of London is no more allied to the interests of Washington than it is to the interests of Luxembourg. It is all artificial and yes some of the EU is nonsense, so is much of Westminster and what really matters is not arguing about which politician is in control but about how we solve the very real problems of sustaining an unsustainable economic model. That same problem exists in nearly all the west bar Norway and a few others.

We can sort that out one by one, globally or regionally but arguing about the eu and making that the big discussion is shifting deckchairs on the titanic .

You're being pedantic there; you understood the point I was making (and for the record, the EU wants to do away with those identities also). You can consider yourself to be whatever nationality, background or cultural heritage that you wish. That is the freedom you currently enjoy. The EU wants to replace that ideology with a simple 'you ARE European' one. It sounds vaguely similar to an organisation that existed for the majority of the 20th Century onwards but is now defunct. It's on the tip of my tongue...

The Euro has failed; that much is plain for anyone to see. Who would willingly join the EU now with its mountains of debt and economic uncertainty? Yet some are willing to hand over even more powers and taxes to these people? One goes down, they all go down, as it proved to be the case and now only Germany is keeping the EU's head above water (with a little help from additional demands made on British taxpayers) and as a result they've imposed austerity measures across the board to all the struggling EU economies; if they want Germany's money, they'd better conform to the German working ethic.

It's proved a highly controversial and unpopular measure in many countries, yet some believe its easier to blame the governments of those nations rather than the EU itself, which is exactly how the EU wants it. Look at what happened in Greece; the public revolted, government was changed and it mattered little because the Greeks had no control over the demands made by the EU for their debt crisis. You can blame the Greeks for getting themselves into that mess, but what was it that made it possible? The EU itself and all the 'benefits' it brought them. Shift the blame, reject your local governments, embrace the EU as the saviour of every issue affecting the people of Europe today. Is that a circle of stars on the flag or a halo?