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

[limitedperiodonly]

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.

Claig or you want the eu to take accountable decisions, then the answer for me is not to vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to protect British people's interests while laws are being made and at the same time weakens the ability of elected British MEPs to actually do something.

The council is elected. The parliament is elected. There are other unelected people but things are not just adopted on their say so.

MEPs can have a lot more influence than you think. Sometimes unfortunately because some of them are idiots but that goes for a lot of politicians.

'The eu didn't initially intervene in a civil war in Yugoslavia, no. Probably wrongly. Mind you foreign policy has changed enormously since then.'

The EU have not got the capability. they needed US hardware to launch attacks and to airlift out people. NATO countries were under tremendous strain as some of the population of NATO countries were against 90 days of bombing of buildings and bridges and TV stations in Serbia. There was no invasion of Serbia because European populations may not have been able to accept the losses. Without the US, the EU policy would have eventually collapsed.

Now we have Marine Le Pen riding high in the polls, who wants to take France out of NATO. France was independent and out of NATO for decades under De Gaulle and it was only Sarkozy who recently took them back in.

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

And if Russia did that, do you think the EU would attack Russia and take Latvia back? Without US help?

Firstly if you agree with it, you are basically against habitat protection, biodiversity protection etc

I am for the protection of the habitat of teh people of this country, for teh protection of their properties and businesses, not for £31 million bird sanctuaries and the habitat of a rare mollusc, because that is what has been decided by unaccountable EU bureaucrats and implemented y lamentable luvvies whose expenses and salaries are paid for by the hardworking people whose homes and businesses have been ruined due to their policies.

Ps UKIP is just as elite. One of their MEPs is the earl of Dartmouth . Who's a major climate denier but that's another story.

'UKIP is just as elite. One of their MEPs is the earl of Dartmouth'

Yes, there are elite and wealthy backers of UKIP too. But there are also ordinary non-career politicians and all of them oppose the real unelected, unaccountable elite in Brussels and that is why Brussels and the bureaucrats and the career politicians are all against UKIP.

I am glad that UKIP have climate change deniers and long may they have the courage to do so, because they are against the real elite who are pushing climate change and trying to implement Agenda 21 on the entire population of the planet for the benefit of the elite who control the luvvies.

The reason all the media, in unison and without exception, attacks UKIP and tries to convince the public that they are fruitcakes and racists is because the elite are terrified that the popular will will overturn their plans and that people will stop voting for establishment luvvies who have sold the people down the river.

Xpatmama, of COURSE we can trade with anyone we like, what on earth makes you think we can't? China will trade with any country!
Politicians will have you believe that if we leave the EU the lights will go out and we'll be flung back into the dark ages. It's not true, they have a vested interest in being in the EU.

Baby barrister

I could maybe help you if I knew on what basis you are against the eu.
This is the blog

www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2014/01/how-to-work-out-who-to-vote-and-not-vote-for-in-the-2014-european-parliament

Are you like claig who is a climate denier and thinks that the eu is a cabal?

Or do you have issues regarding economic issues, sovereignty etc?

For me as I said there are many issues with the eu but I believe there some serious net benefits.so I choose to vote for those I think push change in the direction I agree with.

Actually the greens are very effective in the EP, maybe you don't believe in their manifesto but they often manage to punch above their weight because they are incredibly hard working.

Removeblinkers. Of course we would be able to trade with whoever. But on much worse terms :-)

Removeblinkers do you seriously think that the uk has the same negotiating weight as the largest single market in the world when it comes to trade agreements? It's a numbers game, not an attack on the UK!

xpatmama, trade is not everything. Are you a lobbyist for bog business and big banks? National sovereignty comes above trade. Independence comes above trade. Why do you think the Scottish people are split over independence. Economics is not everything. Democracy and representation of the people's wishes comes above harmonised plugs and trade standards.

We are the largest export market for the EU and so we will be ale to make favourable trade deals. We are the sixth largest economy in the world and China will do a deal with us, just as they have done with Iceland.

We will be able to make our own deals instead of having them made by a committee of luvvies from the EU who may not have our national interests at heart.

UKIP has given a voice to the people, to the great unwashed and the elite and the oligarchs and the establishment luvvies don't like it. It is about democracy, about self-government, about independence, about representation and about the people having a say in policy rather than having it determined for us by bankers and policy elites who are often funded by and later work for the banks.

That is why the entire media have the operation "stop UKIP" and Cleggy thought he had the brains to do so, but fell at the first hurdle.

"Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

Xpatmama, this is the problem, some people genuinely believe what the pro-EU propaganda machine is churning out. Yes, we can trade with any country in the world on terms that suit US. We always have!

Having common trade agreements with other European countries is fine, but it's not when it involves anything other than trade, like laws and single currency. Trade is the keyword, trade! Not an EU superstate.

Claig I fear that we will never agree because I believe anyone who denies climate change is unfortunately a fruit loop. I don't understand why on the one hand you are anti big business nd on the other hand have swallowed the Exxon etc funded propaganda that they is no climate change. This is certainly an issue where the 99% of scientists are fighting a tiny elite that do not want change.

And I certainly am not a trade lobbyist!!

Removeblinkers - l realise we can negotiate.i just believe that the more weight behind you the better you can negotiate. I think that we put ourself in a much weaker position if we are by ourselves. This Is common sense Rather than propaganda.

There are some strange heartless wierdos on here. I don't understand how you can deny climate change and not care about animals or humanity. Mama I'm impressed with your arguments and thanks for so articulately restoring some balance to this scarily one sided debate.

'This is certainly an issue where the 99% of scientists are fighting a tiny elite that do not want change.'

Are they fighting people like Gordon Brown who said "we have only 50 days left to save the planet"?

Companies like Exxon are not fighting "the green crap", only the ordinary people are, the great unwashed.

"ExxonMobil: Green Company of the Year

There are two ways for a big oil company to go green. There is the political approach and there is the engineer’s approach. ExxonMobil uses both.

Purely political: the grand announcement in July that ExxonMobil would put $600 million into algae farms that would turn sunlight into automotive fuel. It takes a leap of faith to think tanks of algae can compete with oil wells, even allowing for the advantage that biofuels would have in a world of carbon permits (or carbon taxes)."

www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0824/energy-oil-exxonmobil-green-company-of-year.html

I believe anyone who denies climate change is unfortunately a fruit loop

That just shows that you make mistakes too. One day it will be proved to be a fraud, and the elite will say "sorry" they relied on inaccuarte computer models.

Hahahahaaaaa claig. You think Exxon is green??????

They do some biofuels stuff sure, but really. They also spend billions lobbying against anything that would restrict fossil fuels.

Thanks eyebrows

As quoted from Forbes* ;)

' They also spend billions lobbying against anything that would restrict fossil fuels.'

Why don't they lobby Gordon Brown? Exxon have more money than the backers of the Labour Party, Tory Party and LibDem Party combined.

Why don't they back UKIP if they are opposed to the "green crap"? Why does UKIP have fewer donations than the politicians who implement the "green crap"?

They don't back UKIP because they are of no use to them. Since they have no political influence when it comes to changing policy.

Am afraid most canny business operators regard UKIP as fruit loops.

And because I suspect they would disagree on a number of their economic policies.

Exxon lobbies against things like strong carbon reduction targets but I would guess re in favour of business oriented policies that open trade markets....

Therefore I would suspect that they are quite in favour of some conservative policies.

Ps Gordon brown I am certain has been lobbied by Exxon and probably all big oil. I am sure he knows the arguments quite well.

' Since they have no political influence when it comes to changing policy. '

It is only a matter of time. UKIP is the first new party to break the establishment mould of politics for decades. It is a new party and it is on the way up. The other parties are on the way down. The LibDems may even get wiped out in the EU elections, we will have to wait and see.

UKIP are now more popular than the LibDems.

Yes but claig, at European level Exxon for example would want to engage with politicians that have an impact on the debate / European legislation on climate.

Since UKIP spends it's time at the pub and making controversial speeches rather than taking on parliamentary legislative work, UKIP is of no use to Exxon eg. The kinds of statements UKIP makes on immigration, women, etc put big business off. UKIP do not have a legitimate, coherent political programme - remember all the fuss about the massive manifesto that had all kinds of random shit in it?

Plus when it comes down to it UKIP will likely be marginalised in the EP. The Centre Right and Centrr left will control the Parliament, plus it is likely that the further left (people who really like talking about the masses!!!) will do very well and be able to ally with the centre left.

Plus I think that the UKIP is unlikely to have the same success in national elections - Exxon wants parties with MPs.