Do you really want this lot

[kdubya]

 

Wow, you really are desperate aren't you?

 

Have you seen how old most of those articles are? Or the fact that most of the UKIP people involved have been booted out of the party for what they've said? The only one I can see who's still with the party is Roger Helmer, who if you read the article was trying to clarify something Ken Clarke (conservative) had said.

 

At the risk of pushing your blood pressure through the roof, have a read of this:

 

http://labour25.com/

 

Then come back and tell us why these people and their party aren't plastered all over the media.

The pc elite will soon be on saying that this article is mere trivia compared to the insulting term bongo bongo land and the heinous crime of suggesting you may not want a Romanian crime gang living next door to you.

 

 

KW

[FalconFN]

The pc elite will soon be on saying that this article is mere trivia compared to the insulting term bongo bongo land and the heinous crime of suggesting you may not want a Romanian crime gang living next door to you.

 

 

KW

I think he said Romanians not Romanian crime gang......

[FalconFN]

I think your the one confused are you Brian that little robot thing? the cons promised us a referendum on Europe , it never came, now they are saying in 2017 (they wont be in power then)they will have one then so that's an empty promise, still confused? oh and my comment re the non elected was in reference to the real leaders of the EU the president and his commissioners, did you vote for them , er that will be a no then are you going to vote for them? er that will be another no then, still confused dot com? oh and please tell me what the Scots referendum has to do with me I'm English, you probably dont know that term as you will be British, and I want ENGLISH back on my passport and every other piece of paper that says "NATIONALITY" get it now then.

 

KW

Not sure who Brian is? The Tory's did promise a referendum but then changed their minds 6 months before the last election. You are right, they won't win if people vote UKIP meaning a Labour government that will NEVER hold a referendum.

 

I just like seeing you get wound up really

[kdubya]

I think he said Romanians not Romanian crime gang......

When he made his comments he was referring to Romanian crime gangs and % of criminal activity within Europe committed by these gangs, atm theft in particular.

 

KW

[smudgertoo]

Seems like Nigel Farage wasn't the first to single out the Romanians, tis a wee bit funny how Blunkett was not branded a racist/fascist/xenophobic little englander for his comments at the time.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634014/Mass-brawl-erupts-rival-groups-youths-area-former-Home-Secretary-David-Blunkett-warned-rioting-influx-Roma-immigrants.html

[keg]

Seems like Nigel Farage wasn't the first to single out the Romanians, tis a wee bit funny how Blunkett was not branded a racist/fascist/xenophobic little englander for his comments at the time.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634014/Mass-brawl-erupts-rival-groups-youths-area-former-Home-Secretary-David-Blunkett-warned-rioting-influx-Roma-immigrants.html

Unlike the poor lady that gave Brown a gobfull in Rochdale. She spoke the truth and got called a bigot.

[Gimlet]

Not sure who Brian is? The Tory's did promise a referendum but then changed their minds 6 months before the last election. You are right, they won't win if people vote UKIP meaning a Labour government that will NEVER hold a referendum.

 

I just like seeing you get wound up really

 

We will NEVER get an in/out referendum under David Cameron. His referendum pledge is a legal impossibility.

Britain is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. This is legally binding. As a Lisbon signatory (signed in our name without our consent by Gordon Brown purely as a political scorched earth policy) among legion other things our country has formally agreed that sovereign powers once surrendered to the EU can NEVER be repatriated, nor can terms of membership EVER be subject to unilateral renegotiation. Under the terms of this treaty the only legal means by which a member state can enter negotiation on the terms of it's relationship with the EU is to leave. The formal procedure for secession (to which Britain as a signatory is legally bound) is to invoke Article 50. To do this a member state must FIRST give formal notice to the Council of Europe that it intends to leave the EU. And that intent must be ratified - idle threats don't count. In other words, a referendum must have been held beforehand and a vote for secession returned. Then our Parliament must repeal the European Communities Act. Negotiations can then take place but only on the terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU as a NON-member.

The Lisbon Treaty expressly forbids in perpetuity the very thing Mr Cameron is claiming to offer the British electorate. He cannot deliver a referendum on renegotiated membership and he knows it. It will never happen. The clue, if any more were needed, that he has not the slightest intention of delivering this impossible pledge, is in his repeated public proclamations that he will fight "heart and soul" to ensure that any referendum results in Britain staying in the EU.

[Psyxologos]

oh and please tell me what the Scots referendum has to do with me I'm English, you probably dont know that term as you will be British, and I want ENGLISH back on my passport and every other piece of paper that says "NATIONALITY" get it now then.

 

KW

 

So I guess you would be happy to see Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland go their separate way, right? Go on, tell us.

[kdubya]

 

So I guess you would be happy to see Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland go their separate way, right? Go on, tell us.

If they want, the decision should be theirs,Scotland is having a referendum to determine if they want to be an independent country thought you might have heard about that

 

KW

[overandunder2012]

Not sure who Brian is? The Tory's did promise a referendum but then changed their minds 6 months before the last election. You are right, they won't win if people vote UKIP meaning a Labour government that will NEVER hold a referendum.

 

I just like seeing you get wound up really

i think your probably right because with the right wing vote split it makes the job of labour getting re elected a realistic possibility where as they were really struggling to convince people they were electable.

[welsh1]

i think your probably right because with the right wing vote split it makes the job of labour getting re elected a realistic possibility where as they were really struggling to convince people they were electable.

 

It is just dawning on labour that they are also losing votes to UKIP,and judging by their poor performance of late and ed balls distancing himself from milliband there is a possibility of a leadership challenge after the eu elections,labour seem in disarray and have no coherent policy or direction.

 

Voting UKIP is the way forward.

[keg]

Labour are also bricking themselves over scottish independence..

[Fisherman Mike]

 

We will NEVER get an in/out referendum under David Cameron. His referendum pledge is a legal impossibility.

Britain is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. This is legally binding. As a Lisbon signatory (signed in our name without our consent by Gordon Brown purely as a political scorched earth policy) among legion other things our country has formally agreed that sovereign powers once surrendered to the EU can NEVER be repatriated, nor can terms of membership EVER be subject to unilateral renegotiation. Under the terms of this treaty the only legal means by which a member state can enter negotiation on the terms of it's relationship with the EU is to leave. The formal procedure for secession (to which Britain as a signatory is legally bound) is to invoke Article 50. To do this a member state must FIRST give formal notice to the Council of Europe that it intends to leave the EU. And that intent must be ratified - idle threats don't count. In other words, a referendum must have been held beforehand and a vote for secession returned. Then our Parliament must repeal the European Communities Act. Negotiations can then take place but only on the terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU as a NON-member.

The Lisbon Treaty expressly forbids in perpetuity the very thing Mr Cameron is claiming to offer the British electorate. He cannot deliver a referendum on renegotiated membership and he knows it. It will never happen. The clue, if any more were needed, that he has not the slightest intention of delivering this impossible pledge, is in his repeated public proclamations that he will fight "heart and soul" to ensure that any referendum results in Britain staying in the EU.

Interesting theory...but in practice...

 

I dare say The Governments advisors have already negotiated this potential hurdle.

 

We can have a referendum on any constitutional item we want in fact......if its a simple in or out referendum then so be it.

[overandunder2012]

It is just dawning on labour that they are also losing votes to UKIP,and judging by their poor performance of late and ed balls distancing himself from milliband there is a possibility of a leadership challenge after the eu elections,labour seem in disarray and have no coherent policy or direction.

 

Voting UKIP is the way forward.

true they are getting some labour votes but im betting its hurting the torys more

[FalconFN]

 

We will NEVER get an in/out referendum under David Cameron. His referendum pledge is a legal impossibility.

Britain is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. This is legally binding. As a Lisbon signatory (signed in our name without our consent by Gordon Brown purely as a political scorched earth policy) among legion other things our country has formally agreed that sovereign powers once surrendered to the EU can NEVER be repatriated, nor can terms of membership EVER be subject to unilateral renegotiation. Under the terms of this treaty the only legal means by which a member state can enter negotiation on the terms of it's relationship with the EU is to leave. The formal procedure for secession (to which Britain as a signatory is legally bound) is to invoke Article 50. To do this a member state must FIRST give formal notice to the Council of Europe that it intends to leave the EU. And that intent must be ratified - idle threats don't count. In other words, a referendum must have been held beforehand and a vote for secession returned. Then our Parliament must repeal the European Communities Act. Negotiations can then take place but only on the terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU as a NON-member.

The Lisbon Treaty expressly forbids in perpetuity the very thing Mr Cameron is claiming to offer the British electorate. He cannot deliver a referendum on renegotiated membership and he knows it. It will never happen. The clue, if any more were needed, that he has not the slightest intention of delivering this impossible pledge, is in his repeated public proclamations that he will fight "heart and soul" to ensure that any referendum results in Britain staying in the EU.

He isn't offering a referendum on a renegotiated EU membership, he is offereing an in/out referendum no matter how well his attempts are at a renegotiation.

 

I guess the knowledge that Britain would certainly vote to leave the EU in its current form will be Cameron's only weapon in an attempt to renegotiate, and it us clear that an EU without Britain is substatially weaker, but I cannot see any movement from the EU to change the relationship with us. Either way as I see it the only hope of a referendum within the next couple of decades lies not with UKIP but with the Tories, you may not like it but you know it is true.

[poontang]

Labour are also bricking themselves over scottish independence..

 

Which is exactly why Cameron hasn't really made any effort with the 'NO' campaign.

 

He knows Labour are finished if Scotland leaves the union, and if they stay in the union it'll be on his 'watch'. It's a win win situation for the Tories.

Milliband's days are numbered. He's weak, ineffective and indecisive. I bet they're wishing they'd gone for his brother now.

[overandunder2012]

obviously im just speculating but i think the next government may well be another coalition as none of the big 4 are really electable in their own right which is not always a bad thing as at least in a coalition the ******** have to talk to each other before they do anything to mess us all up. if not a coalition then the right wing split will result in a labour government so old milipede may not be a gonner yet unless the torys and ukip have a deal nobody knows about yet up the old sleve.

[Gimlet]

He isn't offering a referendum on a renegotiated EU membership, he is offereing an in/out referendum no matter how well his attempts are at a renegotiation.

 

I guess the knowledge that Britain would certainly vote to leave the EU in its current form will be Cameron's only weapon in an attempt to renegotiate, and it us clear that an EU without Britain is substatially weaker, but I cannot see any movement from the EU to change the relationship with us. Either way as I see it the only hope of a referendum within the next couple of decades lies not with UKIP but with the Tories, you may not like it but you know it is true.

 

I do not know its true. Do not insult my intelligence. You may believe it's true but that emphatically does not make it so. He isn't offering a referendum, he's attempting to defuse calls for one. If the actuality of a referendum were not dependant on the outcome of negotiations (negotiations which have to be agreed to unanimously by every single EU member state before they can take place and which France and Poland have already said they will veto) then why bother to negotiate? Have a referendum now and treat us like adults.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Gimlet

[FalconFN]

 

I do not know its true. Do not insult my intelligence. You may believe it's true but that emphatically does not make it so. He isn't offering a referendum, he's attempting to defuse calls for one. If the actuality of a referendum were not dependant on the outcome of negotiations (negotiations which have to be agreed to unanimously by every single EU member state before they can take place and which France and Poland have already said they will veto) then why bother to negotiate? Have a referendum now and treat us like adults.

I'm not insulting anyone or questioning their intelligence, that isn't what I do, but I do have to question your faith in UKIPs ability to have a referendum when they are so clearly many years away from even a glimmer of power - and that is even dependent on them retaining their impressive rise. So, my question to you is if it isn't true that the best hope for a referendum in a generation lies with the Tories, then what is the (plausible) alternative?

 

Edit. Clearly there would never be a referendum a year before a GE and whilst there is a vote to decide the future on Britain going on. He is using it to stop more disgruntled Tories jumping on the good ship Farage and as a bet-hedging election tactic - after all it is politics, but it dosent mean it won't happen as they clearly see it as a possible vote winner.

Edited May 20, 2014 by FalconFN

[jasper3]

what scares me, is a vote that people don't understand, including me...

 

i know there are many bad issues about the way the EU is run, and lets be honest, its always the bad issues that get out in to the public eye…but

how will it affect britain if we do leave, i.e. trade, movements etc etc i honestly don't know enough to make a decision.

 

and this also confuses me….i have read some ex-ukip members have started their own parties….

surely this would mean, the party they 1st believed in would now loose votes, if their party gain any votes….wouldn't that mean, their own beliefs are being watered down between more parties than one strong party..

 

i really don't know enough to make a decision on whats right and wrong, it just seems a choice on what hooligan team to support

[Gimlet]

I'm not insulting anyone or questioning their intelligence, that isn't what I do, but I do have to question your faith in UKIPs ability to have a referendum when they are so clearly many years away from even a glimmer of power - and that is even dependent on them retaining their impressive rise. So, my question to you is if it isn't true that the best hope for a referendum in a generation lies with the Tories, then what is the (plausible) alternative?

 

Edit. Clearly there would never be a referendum a year before a GE and whilst there is a vote to decide the future on Britain going on. He is using it to stop more disgruntled Tories jumping on the good ship Farage and as a bet-hedging election tactic - after all it is politics, but it dosent mean it won't happen as they clearly see it as a possible vote winner.

 

You've answered your own question. You've said it yourself: Cameron is trying to buy votes (and people call Farage populist). He has held his nose and against all his avowed Europhile instincts he has dangled the possibility of a referendum, so weighed down with caveats and preconditions that it will never get off the ground, in an attempt to stem the haemorrhaging of votes to Ukip. He hasn't done this voluntarily because he believes in it. It isn't even settled Tory policy. It is merely a unsubstantiated verbal pledge made reluctantly to recapture our votes and make us shut up so he can continue with business as usual. He doesn't want a referendum. He's already declared what he wants the result of any such referendum to be. He isn't representing us, he's trying to buy us off.

But what he's done is not nearly enough. His renegotiation pledge is a complete red herring. As I have said in an earlier post and will keep on saying, it is a legal impossibility. At least two other member states have avowed that renegotiations will never take place, and without the approval of all member states, they won't. There can be no special terms of membership for existing member states. That is an inviolable principle of the EU constitution. Individual terms of business can be negotiated only for non or associate-members. All he will negotiate is how he and his EU friends can get continued subordination to the EU past the British electorate for another forty years. He is insincere. He is a liar. He is an arch Europhile. I don't believe he has the slightest intention of representing the views of those who have abandoned his party.

Even if he gets elected with a majority and against character decides this is one pledge he will keep; and if by some miracle all 27 member states decide to accommodate him in his illegal renegotiations, those renegotiations will take years and never be completed. They certainly won't be ratified in two years ready for a 2017 referendum. The EU hasn't managed to complete a set of accounts in forty years; I hardly expect them to make a special effort for the sake of the British electorate. And while this Kafka novel is playing on interminably, the poisonous tide of Euro-rule swallows more of our democracy and our national identity.

If Cameron wants my vote he will hold a referendum now before the general election. Then, if a "out" vote is returned he will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin proper legal negotiations on the terms of Britain's association with the EU as a non-member.

I agree with you on one thing: It is the Tories who will deliver an in/out referendum. But we won't get it by voting for David Cameron, but by getting rid of him.

[welsh1]

what scares me, is a vote that people don't understand, including me...

 

i know there are many bad issues about the way the EU is run, and lets be honest, its always the bad issues that get out in to the public eyebut

how will it affect britain if we do leave, i.e. trade, movements etc etc i honestly don't know enough to make a decision.

 

and this also confuses me.i have read some ex-ukip members have started their own parties.

surely this would mean, the party they 1st believed in would now loose votes, if their party gain any votes.wouldn't that mean, their own beliefs are being watered down between more parties than one strong party..

 

i really don't know enough to make a decision on whats right and wrong, it just seems a choice on what hooligan team to support

You have to consider what the aims of the eu are in the long term,and that is one state with one rule,and that rule will be the eu,all decisions and laws made by them,and you will have no democracy as you have now.

 

Britain traded with Europe before we joined the eu and they have to much to lose by not trading with us when we leave,we will also be able to persue opening markets in India and China and the rest of the world without restriction being imposed by the eu,and we could offer our own terms on trade agreements,and let's not forget we have the commonwealth.

 

Some of the people starting parties have previously left/kicked out of UKIP and are now trying to derail UKIP as they see that UKIP are becoming a success without them,it is like the school playground where you are kicked out of a gang so form your own,but is never quite as good as the real thing

 

As for who to chose you are right it is which devil you like more and what policy's are in your interest,all I will say is do you think the other parties would have tried such a massive smear campaign if they were not worried that UKIP could change the comfortable little world they have made,change is needed unfortunately the main parties are career politicians all from the same mould with the same agenda,do we want that,or do we want to change and have people who are not afraid of their ratings who will speak out and act in the country's interest not theirs.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2014 by welsh1

[wymberley]

and let's not forget we have the commonwealth.

 

 

 

 

 

As the majority of the UK completely forgot that we have a commonwealth - or at the very least decided there was something better - 1n 1975, don't be too surprised if said commonwealth in turn tells us to get stuffed.

[welsh1]

As the majority of the UK completely forgot that we have a commonwealth - or at the very least decided there was something better - 1n 1975, don't be too surprised if said commonwealth in turn tells us to get stuffed.

Thanks to the Queen the commonwealth is alive and strong,and Britain is at the centre of it

Edited May 21, 2014 by welsh1

[Gimlet]

So, my question to you is if it isn't true that the best hope for a referendum in a generation lies with the Tories, then what is the (plausible) alternative?

 

 

 

Sorry, I didn't answer this question directly. The best hope of getting a genuine referendum lies in keeping the pressure on. More, much more of what has got us this far. The pinprick of light in the far distance that is a Tory referendum has only appeared because of Ukip. The pressure is working but we are not there yet by a very long way. It must become an unconditional reality. It could be that Cameron will have a road to Damascus moment and rediscover his inner sovereign British Conservatism. I think it is more likely he will discover a need to spend more time with his family. Personally I don't care about the general election. Until this question is finally settled domestic politics is a side show. I think it will take another hung Parliament and a change of Tory leadership. I intend to keep pushing.