On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.

Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race. Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?

On 02/05/2014 18:15, Tim Streater wrote:
....
Your characterisation is this: I don't like the reasons advanced so I
will label it as Xenophobic as a way of shutting down debate....

I am perfectly willing to debate, as you will see from some of my other
contributions in this thread. That doesn't stop me believing that there
is no good argument for leaving the EU and that, therefore, the
motivation of anybody wanting to leave is most likely to be xenophobia,
although I will also accept that they might simply be badly misinformed.

Colin Bignell

On 02/05/2014 17:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so it
would be surprising if they did not attract racists.


Nothing wrong with Xenophobia.
It has kept us alive as a nation.
We are the best nation in the world.

The lefties like to shriek "racist", "jingoist" and "xenophobic".
They are afraid to rationally discuss the issues because they know they will
lose any discussion.

The biggest issue is whether of not their will be a civil war in this
country

As I have mentioned before, you really ought to move to a survivalist
bunker in Montana. You would really feel at home in a place like that.

Colin Bignell

On 02/05/2014 19:04, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race.
Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?

Are you saying that, contrary to my experience when meeting people from
all over the world, they are *not*, by and large, more similar than
different?

It took growing up in a multi-national, multi-lingual community to teach
me that, though.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 02/05/2014 12:50, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 12:38:28 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

The concerns are about the rights (mostly bestowed by the EU) of a
virtually unlimited number people not born in the UK to come and work
here - and the effect which that has on our infrastructure and jobs
scene.

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,


What referendum? When?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 19:57:48 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

The concerns are about the rights (mostly bestowed by the EU) of a
virtually unlimited number people not born in the UK to come and work
here - and the effect which that has on our infrastructure and jobs
scene.

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

What referendum? When?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_ref erendum,_1975

On Fri, 02 May 2014 19:42:17 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 02/05/2014 17:17, harryagain wrote:
the usual ********

As I have mentioned before, you really ought to move to a survivalist
bunker in Montana. You would really feel at home in a place like that.

Among all those _foreigners_? As an _immigrant_?

The only question is whether they'd kill him before he topped himself.

gets stopwatch out, fires up youtube uploader

On 02/05/14 19:51, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2014 19:04, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race.
Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?

Are you saying that, contrary to my experience when meeting people from
all over the world, they are *not*, by and large, more similar than
different?

No - just raising a counter thought.

In my limited experience, Swiss people seem to be more engaged than
British people in politics.

They have a system that allows them to engage in a more fine grained
way. However, they respond by making the effort to be informed.

It took growing up in a multi-national, multi-lingual community to teach
me that, though.

Living in a peaceful and mostly civilised village it is also immediately
apparent what an annoying bunch of sods some other people can be when I
visit, say, Hastings and have to wade through the foul mouthed alchys
and chavs hanging around looking for trouble.

So I'm reasonably convinced that whilst people might be generally quite
similar on an average, there are huge disparities between relatively
close neighbours.

On 02/05/14 16:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Triumph Of Blair was to encapsulate the principle that if anything
is wrong the government will take another tenner off you to pay fir £5
of solution that doesn't work that you could have done yourself for £0.50p

*applause*

--
djc

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other
than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.

Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race.
Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?


The French, the Welsh or the Scots?































They all live next door to the English

--
Adam

In article ,
ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people other
than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.

Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race.
Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?


The French, the Welsh or the Scots?


They all live next door to the English

and the Dutch, the Belgians, the Danes and the Irish.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 02/05/14 22:29, ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/14 13:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 09:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
However, its time to decide what racism is, and whether people
other than
English white persons can be it.

Racism is, like climate denialism, a term used by the left to shut down
rational debate on a subject where their idealism gives a nonsensical
answer.

"I said I used to be proud to be British and he said then you were a
racist".

More likely proud to be English unless the press were around.

Being scared of the next village is nothing new. Or country. Or race.
Just
something one would hope civilisation would overcome.


What if the next village *really are* ****s?


The French, the Welsh or the Scots?


No - West Sussex. Cannot trust those Brighton types...

djc wrote:
On 02/05/14 16:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Triumph Of Blair was to encapsulate the principle that if anything
is wrong the government will take another tenner off you to pay fir £5
of solution that doesn't work that you could have done yourself for
£0.50p

*applause*


You all seem to be missing two lessons from history.
1) You cannot stably unify a state with a large number of disparate
languages and culture.
2) Treaties are made to be broken.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 17:13:20 +0100 The Medway Handyman wrote :
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

Its fairly obvious that there is a deliberate media smear campaign
against UKIP.

Which leads me to believe a lot of people are ****ting themselves....

It's amusing (I nearly wrote 'hilarious') to see the Mail's ongoing UKIP
smear campaign, especially given its core values and the views of its
rusted-on supporters - the front page is still running "UKIP founder calls
Farage 'dim, racist alcoholic'" two weeks after first publishing this
story.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar wrote
harryagain wrote

Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they
have, so it would be surprising if they did not attract racists.

I really didn't have you pegged as as ignorant as that, Colin.

On both statements

I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can
be driven by anything other than xenophobia.

More fool you.

There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

Even sillier on who gets to decide
how things are done in Britain alone.

Similarly for their stance on immigration.

Even sillier.

This country owes a lot to previous generations of
immigrants, from the Huguenots (a proportionately
much larger influx than we see today) onwards.

Sure, but some clearly feel that things have changed
significantly now, particularly with all those from the
ex colonys deciding that they would prefer to live in
Britain than where they came from.

As for the racists, are you saying they won't be
attracted to any party that has xenophobic policies?

You haven't established that they are xenophobic policys.

On 02/05/14 18:03, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 17:13:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

Its fairly obvious that there is a deliberate media smear campaign
against UKIP.

It's fairly obvious to the rest of us that UKIP's own candidates and
representatives seem to be single-handedly responsible for the vast
majority of any "smearing".

Only because you believe what you read in te guardian and are too lazy
to check the facts.

A natural labour voter.



Only a handful of candidates and representatives, and yet they're STILL
the bottom of the barrel...



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 17:47, Nightjar wrote:
Depending upon which source you choose and ignoring misleading
sensationalist headlines, our net contribution to the EU - our
contribution less what we get back in grants - is between £5 billion and
£8 billion, compared to the £700 billion our government spends every
year. That is easily offset by the overall economic benefits that
membership brings us.

Name one economic benefit.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 17:47, Adrian wrote:
So will PM Farage hold a referendum? Or will he say "Oh, OK. Well, since
we don't have a majority, we won't do anything about leaving the EU"?

And, if he does hold a referendum - and loses - will his government
immediately resign?

Interesting questions that I forgot to ask him tonight.

I think the answers need to be actually spelled out before 2015.


Whether YOU believe it or not, UKIPs policy is predicated on two basic
assumptions:

1/. That what UKIP want to do is not possible if we stay in the current EU.

2/. That the EU is constitutionally incapable of reform from inside.

If the EU did suddenly change its spots, there might be no reason to
leave it.

I think a UKIP government with a slender majority and about 40% of the
popular vote would be almost the worst possible outcome for UKIP.

All they could hope to achieve would be to use the government resources
to run a massive publicity campaign with most of the media against them,
until they felt they could get either 50%+ of the vote at a general
election or a referendum.

And with all the usual suspects from the left creating anarchy on the
streets egged on by their paymasters, it could be VERY divisive. Think
Thatcher/miners times 10.

Force majeuere - just doing it - might actually be the better option
and use the 5 years rule to stay in power long enough for people to get
used to it and realise it wasn't actually a problem after all.

If their electoral pledge was NOT a referendum, but 'if we get into
power we WILL DO IT', they could easily argue that if enough people
didn't want it, they could have placed their votes elsewhere.

And it was failure of the other parties to reach accomodation so that a
'vote for tory/labour' wasn't a 'vote for UKIP'.

Nigel is probably bold enough to go that route.

I think the wily fox will look at the polls in the run up to 2015 and
make up his mind then.

If UKIP look like getting anywhere near 'ukip largest party in
parliament' or even second largest, then I think Nigel might simply go
say 'if we are in parliament, in a majority we will exit, if we are in
position or in a balance of power, we will block everything from europe
we can and push for a referendum'

The danger from UKIPS perspective is that an EU exit might be reversed
if it goes wrong., The danger from the other parties POV is that it
night in fact go right, and there simply be no popular taste to re-enter
and the EU itself might not survive Brexit. Or might not offer re-entry.

IN a very real way 2015 will be your referendum on Europe. Straight in/out.

Vote UKIP for out, vote party with chance of beating them in your
constituency, to stay in.

If you think the EU is in fact the most important thing on the agenda.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 17:50, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:43:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum,

Not by me.

Is there some kind of minimum frequency with which you think every past
agreement should be re-confirmed by a referendum?

No but there should be some sort of minimum level of support a policy
has to have before it is NOT reconsidered by a referendum.

Without a referendum, how do you know what level of support a policy
has...?

if one party has as its sole election manifesto 'out of EU' and they get
40% of the vote, that's a pretty good guide.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 17:50, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 15:31:08 +0100, charles wrote:

No-one has voted for our Prime Minsiter, either.

Nobody EVER votes for "the PM" in this country.

Rubbish.

mire importantly we all voted AGAINST Brown in 2010.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 17:53, Adrian wrote:
have decided before 1997 whether they are pro-Europe, or anti. They
can't be both.
Couldn't the same be said of_all_ parties, over one issue or another?
Labour, over socialism, for a start...


It's not pro or anti-europe. Everybody, UKIP include are very pro
Europe. It's the EU that is the issue.

The point is that until recently the fiction that 'EU membership didn't
matter' was carefully maintained by all political parties.

UKIP have thrown a huge spanner in that works. After all, if the EU
didn't matter, why are we having an election in 2 weeks time?

UKIP have managed to turn the whole European elections into not 'whether
liberals tories or labour have the best policies to represent is in the
EU' but 'should we even be in this ridiculous discredited organisation
at all?

And the polls seem to be saying that in certain parts of the country the
answer is in fact 'No' from better than 40% of the voters.

and given that a awful lot of people are in the 'dunno/dont care'
category, that is a remarkable message to send to the main tow parties
and to Brussels.

Which will be totally lost on Cameron.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 18:02, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:02:18 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

The Tories have promised an in/out referendum if they form the next
Gov't.

I count two ifs there, predicated on the absence of a referendum after
the last election.

Since there wasn't a Tory gov't after the last election...

UKIP would take that _minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.

In that light, we've had lots of unpopular policies foisted on us by
minority governments.

Not at all. Damn near every single Gov't - with one or two exceptions -
has been formed by a majority party. That's how our electoral system
works, y'know. We vote for our MP, the party with most MPs forms a gov't.

different definitions. Most if not all majority governments are voted in
by a minority of the electorate. I cant remember a 50% vote for any
party in my lifetime.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

What an extraordinary statement.

Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH
sides of the argument.

There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None of
them are xenophobic.

I don't consider any of the reasons advanced for leaving to be good
reasons,

Irrelevant to whether they are in fact good reasons anyway.

which only leaves not liking foreigners having a say in what we do.

More accurately, preferring the locals to be the
ones that decide what should should be done.

Oddly enough that is what democracy is about.

You seem to think leaving the EU is somehow akin to leaving Europe and
Europeans and building an invisible wall of prejudice round the country
and pretending to be N Korea.

I can't help but feel that is exactly what Nigel Farage would like to do.
I don't trust him. I don't trust his motives.

You are welcome to your opinion on that.

You are not however welcome to
claim that he can not be trusted.

I certainly don't trust him to tell us anything other than what he thinks
people want to hear. Probably the only politician I have ever trusted less
is Tony Blair.

Again, some clearly feel otherwise.

On 02/05/14 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/05/14 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

UKIP would take that _minority_ support as approval to leave the EU -
membership of which was supported by a majority at a referendum - to
leave the EU without any further consultation.

There's never been a referendum on membership of the EU as it is now.
In 1975 it was the EEC. And AIUI that's all that Grocer Heath promised
it would be.

It was certainly all we understood it to be at the time, whether or
not he explicitly promised it/was blackmailed into doing it/whatever.

I was far too busy to vote on something I didn't then understand.

One of the best description of the Referendum Party, and then the
UKIP positions on Europe is he

http://www.jamescarver.org.uk/blog.php?id=11

James Carver is a Cambridge economist who worked for the Financial
Services authority.

"Harold Wilson, after campaigning in the 1974 General Election on the
basis of wanting to renegotiate our terms of EEC entry, gave us a
referendum. The referendum was on whether or not we were happy with
the €œrenegotiated terms€� to approve Britains 1973 entry into the EEC
under the Treaty of Rome. In fact there were no changes at all to the
terms of entry, and the treaty itself was unchanged.

He strongly advised the country to vote YES, giving so called €œtrade€�
reasons, and directly reassuring us that there would be no loss of
sovereignty. This we did, on a low vote of only 47%. There has never
been another referendum in the last 38 years. Now, nobody below the
age of 56 has ever had the chance to vote in a referendum on how this
country should be governed."

So if Cameron tries the same thing (i.e. reneg produces nowt, hyped up
as a lot) he will be out the next minute.

No he wont.

If the tories by some miracle get an overall majority in parliament
having stuck the 5 year rule in, he has carte blanche to do what he
likes (or what the EU tells him) and legally we cant do a damned thing.

That's why its important he doesn't GET an overall majority because his
word is worth less than a sheet of used Izal.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 18:25, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 18:17:55 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

OTOH its fairly sure that a system of government which has no
democratic accountability is going to behave like a fascist regime as
soon as the most ruthless people get to the top of it.

At least as members, we get to have some input into what the EU decides.

Whilst, outside, we would still be affected by much of what "they" decide.

Whilst outside, most of what the EU decides would be of no consequence
to us.


I mean China sand India right, they are still be affected by much of
what "they" decide.

Shouldn't they be desperate to join as well?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 16:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
OTOH its fairly sure that a system of government which has no democratic
accountability is going to behave like a fascist regime as soon as the
most ruthless people get to the top of it.

At least as members, we get to have some input into what the EU decides.

Frankly I never thought there was a penny to pick between Hitler
Mussolini Franco and Stalin.

Jackboots stamping on the people every one of em. Naturally they fell
out and because we actually cared about Poland we and France got dragged
in.

I'm not sure there is much evidence that we cared a great deal about
Poland. Secret discussions between Britain and France suggest that they
were quite happy to allow it to take its chances on the outcome of the
war. However, the last minute common defence pact did give us an excuse to
fight Germany at a time of our choosing, rather than waiting until they
had completed their armaments build up. There was also concern that German
ambitions would affect our very important trade with Europe. If you look
at contemporary analyses, there was little doubt in Britain in 1939 that
war with Germany was inevitable, probably in 1940, and that Britain was
very well placed to win it. The early stages didn't work out quite how
Britain and France expected, but the final result was as predicted.

But wouldnt have necessarily have been if Japan
had not been stupid enough to do Pearl Harbor.

Japan just as bad eyeing up China and SE Asia, all wanting the empire by
force that we had acquired by sound business practice.

We actively encouraged Japanese ambitions in SE Asia, so long as they
curtailed Russian ambitions there. It was only when we decided to cosy up
to the USA in the 1920s that we broke with Japan. It has been suggested
that break and the bad feeling associated with it contributed to their
involvement in WW2.

That was much more about the sanctions imposed as a result
of the rape of Nanking and Japanese decision to ensure that
they had access to oil from what is now Indonesia after that.

On 02/05/14 18:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
There are only two vital survival issues.
Leave the EU.
Stop immigration.
Everything else can wait.

Seems we've been surviving rather well with both for a long time. Or
haven't you noticed?

The question really is would we do better as a country if we withdrew
behind closed borders?

No., that is not the questions at all and you area drivelling idiot if
you think it is.

The question is whether or not we are better in THIS EU or not.

is Singapore a country withdrawn behind closed borders? Australia? New
Zealand? Canada? Malaya? Japan? Iceland?

None of them are in the EU..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 02/05/14 19:22, Nightjar wrote:
That doesn't stop me believing that there is no good argument for
leaving the EU and that, therefore, the motivation of anybody wanting to
leave is most likely to be xenophobia, although I will also accept that
they might simply be badly misinformed.

But not that you might be badly misinformed I take it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 May 2014 18:17:55 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

OTOH its fairly sure that a system of government which has no
democratic accountability is going to behave like a fascist regime as
soon as the most ruthless people get to the top of it.

At least as members, we get to have some input into what the EU decides.

Whilst, outside, we would still be affected by much of what "they" decide.

Not with some stuff like the immigration policy and govt spending decisions.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 18:15, Tim Streater wrote:
...
Your characterisation is this: I don't like the reasons advanced so I
will label it as Xenophobic as a way of shutting down debate....

I am perfectly willing to debate, as you will see from some of my other
contributions in this thread. That doesn't stop me believing that there is
no good argument for leaving the EU and that, therefore, the motivation of
anybody wanting to leave is most likely to be xenophobia, although I will
also accept that they might simply be badly misinformed.

Or they just believe that how things are done in a particularly
country should be decided by the citizens of that country
rather than imposed by some unelected stuffed shirts outside
the country. Thats not xenophobia, that is just a difference
of opinion on who gets to decide what happens.

On Sat, 03 May 2014 02:19:20 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
different definitions. Most if not all majority governments are voted
in by a minority of the electorate. I cant remember a 50% vote for any
party in my lifetime.

Best I can find in mine was 49.7% in 1955, but that was when the Liberals
were at their lowest, 2.7% and six seats. With the growth of minor
parties it could never happen now. The landslides of Mrs T 1983 and Tony
Blair 1997 were on the back of 42.4/43.2% shares of the vote.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 02/05/2014 15:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 15:02, Nightjar wrote:

Its not the foreignness, its the democratic unaccountability.





What about the corruption? The auditors of the "eu accounts" have
refuse to sign them off for the past 19 years.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 02/05/2014 18:25, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2014 18:17:55 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

OTOH its fairly sure that a system of government which has no
democratic accountability is going to behave like a fascist regime as
soon as the most ruthless people get to the top of it.

At least as members, we get to have some input into what the EU decides.

Whilst, outside, we would still be affected by much of what "they" decide.



One of the problems with EU generated law is that most of the countries
in the EU ignore it and UK bureaucrats gold plate it and then enforce it.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 17:03, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 02/05/2014 15:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/05/2014 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/14 14:00, Nightjar wrote:
I can't see that wanting to leave the EU can be driven by anything
other
than xenophobia. There is certainly no good basis for leaving.

What an extraordinary statement.

Extraordinary in terms of everything everybody else is saying on BOTH
sides of the argument.

There are very good reasons to leave and some good ones to stay. None
of
them are xenophobic.

I don't consider any of the reasons advanced for leaving to be good
reasons, which only leaves not liking foreigners having a say in what we
do.

How about the £118 billion a year, equal to £1,968 per person?



Depending upon which source you choose and ignoring misleading
sensationalist headlines, our net contribution to the EU - our
contribution less what we get back in grants - is between £5 billion and
£8 billion, compared to the £700 billion our government spends every year.
That is easily offset by the overall economic benefits that membership
brings us.


We can decide for ourselves how to spend our own money thanks.
We don't need a bunch of foriegners to tell us.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 May 2014 15:40:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is that like Cast Iron Dave's promise that a conservative government if
it happened post 2010 would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Two small details...

- There wasn't a Conservative government after the 2010 election.
- The Lisbon treaty had already been signed by Brown, so even if there
HAD been a referendum, there's not a bloody sausage could have been done
to de-sign it.

We can do what we like.
Short of invasion, there's nothing they can do about that.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 17:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".
...

Xenophobia does seem to be the core of what little policy they have, so
it
would be surprising if they did not attract racists.


Nothing wrong with Xenophobia.
It has kept us alive as a nation.
We are the best nation in the world.

The lefties like to shriek "racist", "jingoist" and "xenophobic".
They are afraid to rationally discuss the issues because they know they
will
lose any discussion.

The biggest issue is whether of not their will be a civil war in this
country

As I have mentioned before, you really ought to move to a survivalist
bunker in Montana. You would really feel at home in a place like that.

I have been to the MidWest. The people there are very kind but barking mad.

We are fortunate enough to already live in a bunker called the British
Isles.
It has kept out invaders for centuries and enabled us to prosper.

Two things went wrong.
Socialism was invented and some ****er left the drawbridge down.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 May 2014 18:21:33 +0100, harryagain wrote:

The concerns are about the rights (mostly bestowed by the EU) of a
virtually unlimited number people not born in the UK to come and work
here - and the effect which that has on our infrastructure and jobs
scene.

Despite the fact that those rights were voted on in a referendum, and
apply equally to UK citizens - in fact, there are more UK citizens
living elsewhere in the EU than citizens of other EU countries living
in the UK.

Drivel.

Fact.

So how many Brits are living in Poland and Bulgaria?
What proportion of Brits in France and Spain are retired and bring money
in and take no jobs?

Apart from the _utter_ irrelevance of which country's which, unless
you're saying that some are inherently inferior than others...

Are retired people somehow less important, less relevant than working-age
ones? Grey second-class citizens? Is that what you're saying?

You are really thick.
They take no-ones job. They bring mony in. They are not benefit parasites on
that country.
They are not criminals or health tourists.
Unlike the immigrants we get.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2014 08:47, harryagain wrote:
Been a lot on the TV about various UKIPper being "racist".

Its fairly obvious that there is a deliberate media smear campaign against
UKIP.

Which leads me to believe a lot of people are ****ting themselves....

You are right. they are employing paid trolls to run an internet smear
campiagn.
Advetrising for them right here.
www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=45223

They are raking up all the **** they can about UKIP.
But we know **** comes from arseholes.
And if you put it on the garden it makes things (UKIP) grow.

Nobody believes liblabcon any more.
They believe the opposite of what they are told.

On 02/05/14 23:20, Tim Streater wrote:

IME of living in a Swiss village for 9 years, none of them have the
slightest interest in politics, or even any clue as to who,
f'rinstance, is the President of Switzerland.


Interesting. My contacts were in Zurich.

On Sat, 03 May 2014 01:32:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its fairly obvious that there is a deliberate media smear campaign
against UKIP.

It's fairly obvious to the rest of us that UKIP's own candidates and
representatives seem to be single-handedly responsible for the vast
majority of any "smearing".

Only because you believe what you read in te guardian and are too lazy
to check the facts.

A natural labour voter.

Have you ever been even remotely close to accuracy, on _any_ subject?