Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

I can't link to the Sky news interview with Nigel Farage but it was terrible

416 replies

limitedperiodonly · 22/04/2014 15:19

It was Kay Burley. About 3pm today. She made his case for him just now and I don't even think she meant it. In fact I think she's sure she made a good job of portraying him as a mad racist while talking to him about UKIP's poster suggesting migrant workers were stealing British jobs.

He seemed quite reasonable in the face of Burley. He didn't emerge as racist - protectionist at best - xenophobic at worst. He didn't even grab anyone round the throat or ask them if they'd have given it up a bit more their husband wouldn't have been tempted to murder prostitutes.

Then she went on about a pretty young woman they're featuring as a candidate who is from her appearance, clearly of Anglo-Asian background and demanding why UKIP didn't declare her background. Burley was the one who mentioned pretty. Not me or Farage.

Farage asked why they should and to be fair I had to agree. And also, she's a pretty woman who's used a flattering picture on her literature. Wouldn't you? If you want to know more about her views then read her literature and ask her questions, rather than the party.

Oh criminy. I had to admit that Nigel seemed reasonable. They're heading for a major result in the European elections. In my mad moments I toy with voting UKIP just because I've always lived in Tory constituencies and want to crush them now more than ever.

It could happen here. I won't do it, but the temptation is fucking strong.

I'd think it was a right-wing plot if I didn't know Burley of old and realise it was incompetence.

OP posts:
claig · 23/04/2014 19:25

Isn't there a Monster Raving Looney you could vote for?

I don't think limitedperiodonly wants to vote for the Tory candidate

Removetheblinkers · 23/04/2014 19:54

Watching Kay Burley was embarrassing, she was so desperate to call him a racist at every opportunity she made herself look pathetic.

To those who think Britain would falter outside of the EU, are you mad? Without Britain the EU would be screwed. We can trade with any and every country in the world, we don't need the EU to facilitate this, regardless of what the career politicians say.

And to the poster who put the link up with "1 in 7 UK businesses are set up by immigrants", yep, that sure is an impressive statistic and a good spin on unlimited immigration! When you look at the facts as to what these businesses are you'll find they're predominantly hand car washes and takeaways.......... Look it up!

Open your eyes people, being patriotic is NOT racist. We need controlled skilled immigration, and we need to get out of the joke that is the EU.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:08

Wetaugust your response to my post has confirmed that you really do not understand what happens in the eu.

Eg no way in this world does the UK just have weight by itself. If you don't believe me see what the US has said about this, not to mention what China has said. I suspect you really need to read up on this. Weight is not just about the permanent security council but about trade.

Regarding visas 'why would you need it when you have passports'. Perhaps you have forgotten the days when it was necessary to get visas to go to each European country along with your passport. Bureaucratic nightmare. You often need visas as well as your passport to travel to many other countries.

I don't believe the instability thing is just scaremongering, look at what happened in history in the years before the eu and the years after (ie Prussian/ FR war, 1st WW, 2 WW). Now since the WW2 EU countries have not fought each other, it seems inconceivable. And that is not coincidental, it is because of the closer ties forged between our countries. The riots are partly to do with austerity, some imposed by the EU I'd agree and others to do with major issues in the different countries. You may know a bit about the total Greek taxation mess.

Have you seen what is happening in Ukraine, perhaps you are aware that Putin has similar interests in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The difference is that there is no way he could invade those countries. And why is that?

Now finally onto legislation, Again you do not understand how it works. So in a few short words.

The European council is made up if the governments of Europe, democratically elected by their citizens. They set the mandate and direction for eu policy, adopting conclusions which show the way they want the Commission to go. The Council also nominates the Commissioners every 5 years.

The commission is made up of civil servants as you know which draft legislation. But t's legislation does not just directly go into UK law, the Council (ie our government and others) and the European Parliament together amend and adopt the legislation. The EP are the MEPs that WE elect, which is why it is so damaging to vote for UKIP because this means we have far fewer MEPS actually working on the legislation for the UK since UKIP cannot be bothered to actually participate. The UK used to be really influential in the EP but has gradually lost its power because such a large proportion of its MEPs are UKIP! National parliaments also now have a scrutiny period for legislation so you are also incorrect on that.

You may ask, why do we need the EU to make the legislation in the first place? The question is do you want a million different types of plug socket across Europe? Or petrol station pumps? There are benefits to boring technical standardisation. When it comes to the environment, pollution can just as easily come to the uk through air pollution from the continent or through acid rain, or in the seas. Do you think it is actually possible to deal with air quality on a country by country basis??? If a company in the UK wants to make a car and sell it, it wants the biggest possible market for it, without customs tariffs etc. this is how it is now trading with the EU for businesses in the UK. Don't believe the hype that if we left we would magically never have to pay anything towards customs tariffs, trade barriers etc, it doesn't work like that.

Finally I don't think you can know what your family might want to do in the future, maybe your grandchild might be interested in working abroad. But in any case even if you don't want to do you really want to deny the opportunities to other peoples children's and row back on the freedom we have achieved?

The thing is there are so many issues or problems with the EU and things that should be changed but it really frustrates me that people are not focusing on the things which could be done and are just operating on the basis of total myths and misunderstandings about how it all works!

Leaving would lead to major disadvantages for the UK, financial and political, please please please read up a bit more and understand what you are advocating for!!!!

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:14

Removetheblinkers I'm sorry but you are just wrong on how the UK can just trade with anyone it likes. Do you think China wants to talk to just the UK when it could talk to the European continent as a whole? Same for the US. Am afraid you are just wrong. Show me your evidence that the UK would be fine to just trade by itself. Out of the eu it would lose MAJOR benefits.

We lost our empire years ago I think many people still believe half the world is pink. When in fact the powers are the US, China, India, Brazil, the EU as a block and with some nations having more sway ( including the UK, but also Germany, France etc)

Just look at how many people live in the UK and how many people live int eh Continent as a whole, and this will give you your answer.

WetAugust · 23/04/2014 21:23

That's you spin Xpatmama.

The EP has no ability to propose or repeal legislation. It can only amend. It's like the House of Lords.

I've been travelling to Europe since the mid 1970s. Unless you were going somewhere quite obscure you have never needed a visa.

You really do have a very poor view of this nation;s capabilities. That's sad. We did actually mange quite well before we joined the EU.

Of course America wants us inside the tent. It saves them from having to bail Europe out in WW3. I don't need lectures on the Uk's best interest from deadbeats like Obama.

I don't need to read up on geopolitics either thanks. You have your opinion on current affairs and I hold a very different view.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:27

No you are wrong. The EP and Council can reject Commission legislation. And have. I have not given any spin on the legislative process, just the facts. I can direct you to the treaty if you are bored.

Also for a long boring discussion of why it's better for trade from an organisation which is a bit iffy on Europe, here you go:

www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/2012EUTrade_new.pdf

I believe in uk capabilities. I also believe that we should be allowing ourselves proper access to the biggest single market in the world.

I have not seen a convincing case yet that the benefits of leaving are higher than those of staying. We gain more financially and politically.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:28

Plus the EP is in now way like the House of Lords. If you believe that then you are really out of date.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:30

And finally you have give me NO evidence at all for your geopolitical views. And isn't it good that the US doesn't want a WW3? What a weird thing to say. I don't think it is only Obama who thinks that.

WetAugust · 23/04/2014 21:34

55 million per day in EU contributions = 20075 million punds pa.

That's what it costs us.

For what?

So they can send us some back in 'EU subsidies' and stick a nice blue flag with gold stars on the latest project they have funded.

It's a farce.

We lose politically because we have given away many of our soveriegn rights.

We definitely lose financially. That 20075 million per year would go a very long way towards our budget deficit.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:38

There is a net benefit due to trade and other benefits. This is where u are wrong. The money doesn't just go into a vacuum, if it did we would have actually left years ago.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:39

Plus name which sovereign rights we have given up? I would be interested to know...

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:42

Here is a critical blog on the eu from the telegraph discussing the cbi 's report that there is a net benefit of over 60 BILLION to staying in the eu blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100025991/the-cbis-estimate-of-benefits-of-eu-membership-is-arbitrary/

Just so you don't think I am only quoting supporters. Note that the telegraph has issues with it but does not disagree entirely

claig · 23/04/2014 21:46

"Have you seen what is happening in Ukraine, perhaps you are aware that Putin has similar interests in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The difference is that there is no way he could invade those countries. And why is that?"

It is because of the US, nothing to do with Europe. Europe tried to sort out Yugoslavia and it was only because the Americans intervened that Serbia had to accept defeat.

WetAugust · 23/04/2014 21:49

I think I'd rather keep my 200745,000,000.

Plus the intangible benefits of having fishing rights, having the right to determine who can reside and work in this country, which laws I chose to enact etc.

Don't bother telling me that I've got it all wrong and yes, I appreciate the Home Sec can issue a non-entry order to individuals, yes, I realise that a bill can explicyly state that it overrides EU law (try making that stick).......

I want the UK out of the EU and nothing will change my mind.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:49

Sorry claig. Not just to do with the US and the situation is not like Yugoslavia.

Latvia etc are EU MEMBER STATES. Yugoslavia was not. I have no idea why you think the situation is comparable. (although Croatia now is...)

Quite a lot more to do with NATO but that's another issue.

claig · 23/04/2014 21:53

Plus name which sovereign rights we have given up?

The EU make most of our laws. They determine and legislate for our environmental policy. They have competition laws that work against state subsidies to our industries and leave them open to privatisation and foreign takeover.

"Flooding: Somerset Levels disaster is being driven by EU policy

EU directives actually require certain plains to become flooded"

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html

Our luvvies end up implementing their directives and our population have no say in making these regulations or even challenging them.

claig · 23/04/2014 21:55

' I have no idea why you think the situation is comparable'

It is comparable because the EU would be powerless to take on Russia militarily without US help. Yes, NATO would have to do it, but NATO without the US would be powerless against Russia.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 21:59

Basically wetaugust what you are saying is at no amounts of the actual facts will change your mind.. You have totally closed your mind to the facts because of your fundamental beliefs about Europe

Ok... Again note that the telegraph does not totally disagree with the CBI. The 60 billions are not intangible, they present tangible benefits for the UK. How else do you think we would get more jobs and growth???

He stuff about the Home Secretary is not what I was saying, I was saying that the EP and the Council can reject legislation. And our Home Secretary sits on one of those councils (justice and home affairs). Many eu laws are also interpreted and implemented nationally with a lot of room for manoeuvre - that's what a Directive is, different to a regulation which is directly implemented because they tend to involve lots of technical standard things. Like how you might monitor shipping emissions.

Fishing rights. Good grief. Now there's something where I disagree with eu policy cos I think they should impose much bigger limitations - we really are running out of fish - they currently let some of the big trawlers get away with murder. Not to mention some of the trade stuff agreed with African countries which basically have involved taking a lot of fishing rights. BUT for me the answer to that is not leaving but strong campaigns for change, which already have had some impact, but a lot more needs to be done.

claig · 23/04/2014 22:00

We have an open door immigration policy with the EU. Not one of our luvvies in Parliament can do anything to stop it or challenge it. The public are not in favour of it, but the luvvies listen to Brussels and not to the voting public.

babybarrister · 23/04/2014 22:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WetAugust · 23/04/2014 22:05

Xpatmama

I have been debating this subject (EU) since about 5pm today.

I am tired.

I would love to stay and carry on the debate but I shall leave that to Claig.

There are no 'facts' that would persuade me to adopt a pro-EU stance.

Perhaos we can continue the debate tomorrow?

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 22:06

Claig, there are so many things wrong with your posts I just don't know where to begin. The eu didn't initially intervene in a civil war in Yugoslavia, no. Probably wrongly. Mind you foreign policy has changed enormously since then.

Latvia etc are potentially threatened by an external army, ie an invasion of an EU member state. That is a totally different situation.

On the Somerset levels, the blog you cite mixes up many different issues.

Firstly if you agree with it, you are basically against habitat protection, biodiversity protection etc. secondly the dredging issue as you might know is Far more complicated than the guy says. It's an incredibly partial and misleading blog.

claig · 23/04/2014 22:06

The EU is a club for unaccountable elites and business interests. Of course, business prefers it and of course the US prefers it. Kissinger said something like when he phones Europe, who should he talk to? Now he can talk to one luvvie instead of different ones in different countries. That makes it easier for the elite. But it means that unaccountable luvvies make decisions and regulations that do not reflect the opinions of the European peoples.

It is a centralised empire to faciilitate easy rule over 450,000,000 people by an unelected tiny elite.

It does not reflect the wishes of the people and that is why Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Bob Crowe and Nigel Farage were and are all against it.

xpatmama · 23/04/2014 22:10

Baby barrister I linked to a blog further down in ether thread outlining some of the issues as to who to vote for.

It's just frustrating for me and I know I'm getting shouty because so much of what is said is just wrong and based on fundamental misconceptions.

I would agree with MANY criticisms of the EU but many of these are just not based in truth.