Yet another piece of UKIP brilliance

[Herr Tubthumper]

No but it stiffens the resolve to vote for the party exactly because people are so unable to engage in political discussion and instead decide to throw around childish insults. Maybe if I called all Germans Nazis it might hammer home what a daft generalisation your post is.

It makes no sense to me that someone will vote for a party based on the fact they get picked on. It seems plain daft to me. I really cannot see this any other way.

 

[beorhthelm]

As for the trade block, I think it probably is all in or nothing. I'm not an expert about the EU but I'm reasonably informed about politics and I don't feel I've ever had the whole story. I don't think the EU would accept us dropping out but coming up with trade agreements and we would probably be of no interest to much of the rest of the world e.g USA, Japan, China etc once we left the EU.

see, right there, you've presented the EU as the same thing as the free trade EEC. pro-EU gets more publicity than i think is credited, admittedly not as much as the anti-EU, and usually in more subtle or high brow areanas. when politicans are talking about returning powers, renegotiation they are implictly talking about staying in Europe. but no, cant be had, the rest of the EU wont be interested in us... the 5/6th largest economy, top 3 export market for many EU, top ten for the rest, why would they be interested? rest of the world trade doesnt stop if a country is outside the EU (for some markets it might improve). i know a free trade agreement would work because thats what we use to have.

 

[beorhthelm]

... The various countries you refer to did have options but preferred to stick with the EU and bail-outs.

yeah, with a gun to their head and a knife against their neck. leave the Euro, leave the EU; leave the EU the markets and economic consequences will be even worse. the only reason they sold bailout package was by deflecting blame on nasty Germany. im amazed you've interpretted events as positive in support of EU, when they were desperate and widely disliked.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It makes no sense to me that someone will vote for a party based on the fact they get picked on. It seems plain daft to me. I really cannot see this any other way.

Maybe not the party as such but with your "UKIP voters are idiots" generalisation you are insulting people that have carefully thought about our relationship with the EU and disagree with the relationship. Every time someone calls me a racist, xenophobe or idiot it ensures even more that I will vote for a party that will most likely assist in getting us out of the EU.

If your argument decends to calling people like me idiots then you really don't have much of a sensible argument. Your generalisation is rather pathetic and unintelligent. Strange because I thought we'd agreed that healthy debate rather than insults was the way forward ?

 

[cunning fergus]

Every time he implies that if he won every uk seat in Strasbourg the Uk will leave the EU he lies.

They will never win any election


From who?


UKIP will NEVER win a general election they can never deliver anything they pledge.

1) regarding lies, and assuming you are correct he is not alone is he? I assume you feel just as angry with other politicians making statements/commitments they don't act on? The difference is that at the moment he has no power, if he makes promises he cannot deliver then the electorate will punish him. That is how democracy works, as politicians of mainstream parties are finding out.

2) they may not need to, if mainstream politicians play the ball instead of the man then they will re align their own policies to spike UKIPs guns. It's no coincidence surely that we have had contrite Labour politicians confirming they got immigration wrong when they were in power and confirming they want to support British workers interests.

3) the public, despite all the smears and UKIPs own capacity for self destruction the polls are holding up. It's possible this is a novelty, however the reaction of the mainstream politicians to UKIP has been unedifying at best.

4) I don't disagree see 2).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Every time someone calls me a racist, xenophobe or idiot it ensures even more that I will vote for a party that will most likely assist in getting us out of the EU.

But the party "most likely to assist in getting us out of the EU" is not UKIP is it? It's the Tory party. Most likely is the key term here. You're not putting across a very good case for voting UKIP.

 

[Nibble]

I don't understand you Nibbs you seem to belittle anyone who doesn't follow your pattern of thinking, you either call the racist (which seem to be your favourite and thick, stupid .... were you bullied at school or were you the Bully.... some people maybe will not ever think along the same lines so you will need to get used to it and accept it, then maybe your bitterness you feel will won't be so bad

You seem to have me spot on actually. I'll live with it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I love the smell of a UKIP thread in the morning.

 

[Albumen]

https://vine.co/v/MvEA1b575Ed

Hehe

 

[Seagull on the wing]

But the party "most likely to assist in getting us out of the EU" is not UKIP is it? It's the Tory party. Most likely is the key term here. You're not putting across a very good case for voting UKIP.

No it isn't I'm afraid...Tories like Labour promised a referendum before they got elected,both changed the ground rules when elected and reneged on the promise.
Maybe if the EU cleaned up it's act...first by ratifying their accounts for the last 13 years. As it stands now it's a very undemocratic body,faceless Eurocrats passing laws in this country that affect our laws and working practices,which we poor gullible souls pay £50m a day.
Our import/expot balance iwith the EU is minus 50 billion on top of our daily rate.
We subsidise EU farming...a lot of the so called subsidies going on fields which are no more than scrubland.
We have no control on our borders or our fishing grounds.
Why does the EU parliament shift from Brussels to Strasboug at a cost of millions every year then back again,methinks that there is political jealousy from certain countries.
People are fed up by being told what to do by unelected gravy train MEPS.
UKIP Offers the voters a chance to have a say.
Even 'your' Labour party admitted they got the open door immigration policy wrong
Anyway,the results of the EU election will make politicians sit up and take notice.

 

[El Presidente]

No it isn't I'm afraid...Tories like Labour promised a referendum before they got elected,both changed the ground rules when elected and reneged on the promise.
Maybe if the EU cleaned up it's act...first by ratifying their accounts for the last 13 years. As it stands now it's a very undemocratic body,faceless Eurocrats passing laws in this country that affect our laws and working practices,which we poor gullible souls pay £50m a day.
Our import/expot balance iwith the EU is minus 50 billion on top of our daily rate.
We subsidise EU farming...a lot of the so called subsidies going on fields which are no more than scrubland.
We have no control on our borders or our fishing grounds.
Why does the EU parliament shift from Brussels to Strasboug at a cost of millions every year then back again,methinks that there is political jealousy from certain countries.
People are fed up by being told what to do by unelected gravy train MEPS.
UKIP Offers the voters a chance to have a say.
Even 'your' Labour party admitted they got the open door immigration policy wrong
Anyway,the results of the EU election will make politicians sit up and take notice.

1: We don't pay £50million a day
2: The balance of trade is determined by 'us' as consumers, who choose not to buy goods manufactured in this country. It has nothing to do with the EU or UKIP.

People like [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] and I don't agree on certain matters, although we do have a lot of common ground, but at least we discuss the issues rather than spout nonsense.

 

[keaton]

Every time someone calls me a racist, xenophobe or idiot it ensures even more that I will vote for a party that will most likely assist in getting us out of the EU.
QUOTE]

I think if someone said those things about a party I supported i'd probably have a think about why they were saying them.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

...... i know a free trade agreement would work because thats what we use to have.

But that was not when seeking to trade with a single market. Are the legislative requirements such as those agreed with EFTA and Switzerland acceptable to you as a potential UKIP voter? If not then what is the option?
More specifically, would you consider that the relocation of the European Medicines Agency from London (Canary Wharf) would have a negative or positive impact on UK pharmaceutical research, development, manufacturing, employment and healthcare provision (eg medicine availability)?

 

[Nibble]

From what I've heard of Farage on the wireless recently he has a tone to his voice like he doesn't believe what he's saying anyway. He knows as well as any sane person that his party is unlikely to do much apart from get Cameron promising things he'll never deliver in order to cut off the possible UKIP votes. Farage was talking about the possibility of going for Newark this morning, it was like listening to a schoolboy promising you he's done his homework when everyone in the room, including him doesn't believe a word of it. Odd man in way over his nut.

 

[beorhthelm]

But that was not when seeking to trade with a single market.

I'm referring to when there was a single market, the EEC, before it grew into the EU. the options need to be discussed, i dont think assuming it has to follow the EFTA is necessarily the answer, there's possibility of restructuring how the EU and membership works. i don't want to say two tier, but there is already a defacto two tier structure with those in and out of the Euro. and I reckon the relocation of another bureaucratic entity would have sweet fa effect on actual UK pharma research.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I'm referring to when there was a single market, the EEC, before it grew into the EU. the options need to be discussed, i dont think assuming it has to follow the EFTA is necessarily the answer, there's possibility of restructuring how the EU and membership works. i don't want to say two tier, but there is already a defacto two tier structure with those in and out of the Euro. and I reckon the relocation of another bureaucratic entity would have sweet fa effect on actual UK pharma research.

So where's your line in the sand - EC accession (1973?), Single European Act (1987), Maastricht Treaty (1993), Lisbon Treaty (2009) or where?
I agree with you about the need to look at how the EU functions but this should be an on-going and transparent dialogue between the govt's of the Member States, the EU Parliament and Commission. I've never seen anything from UKIP that shows any interest in this approach or how it intends to ensure access to the single market if/when the UK were to withdraw? For me, it's pretty naïve to:
1) Assume the UK will be in a position to the dictate terms of withdrawal and to base an in/out decision on this assumption.
2) Contend it will all work out OK for the UK because the EU needs us more than we need them and, in any case, "Corporate Business" will ensure it.

There are two separate arrangements in place that enable EFTA countries and the Swiss to access the single market; the latter may seem a bit dysfunctional at times but both basically require the respective governments to adopt any single market legislation into national law. There's no meaningful input to the legislation or debate, you just adopt it. Currently, unless the legislation is a certain type of regulation then any legislation (ie Directive) emanating from the EU, having already been through the Council of Ministers (ie the National Governments) and probably the EU Parliament beforehand, has to be approved by the Westminster Parliament before it can become law in the UK. Our government may be treaty bound to adopt but Parliament is not, there is absolutely nothing stopping the HoC saying no. The question for UKIP is does it want us to be in the single market or not and, if yes, how does it intend to achieve this. There's plenty for them to chew over in the EFTA and Swiss models but the party seems to say absolutely nothing of any substance on this issue.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is most certainly not "another bureaucratic entity" and there is good reason it is located in the UK - the pre-eminence of the UK Pharmaceutical Industry. Without it you will find all the regional pharmaceutical company offices relocating to Bonn (or wherever the EMA goes to), progressively followed over time by their investment in manufacturing and R&D because a UK outside of the single market is now too small to support such an infrastructure. Factories will be downsized and close because the products are already dual sourced from Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Slovenia, Poland or wherever, and the investment will be directed to them. New medicine approval times in the UK will be extensive as the Medicinal and Healthcare Products Agency (MHRA) will be having to undertake its own assessments (new chemical entities are all currently assessed by EMA and approved via the EU Commission), many existing product authorisations will have to be reviewed and re-assessed by MHRA as they may cross-refer to EMA approvals or products licenced in other member state. The retention of EMA in the UK is pivotal to the future of the UK pharmaceutical industry.

 

[beorhthelm]

So where's your line in the sand

I dont have a particular line in the sand necessarily, i want the debate to rise above simplistic all in/all out as if they are the only possible options.

 

[cunning fergus]

So where's your line in the sand - EC accession (1973?), Single European Act (1987), Maastricht Treaty (1993), Lisbon Treaty (2009) or where?
I agree with you about the need to look at how the EU functions but this should be an on-going and transparent dialogue between the govt's of the Member States, the EU Parliament and Commission. I've never seen anything from UKIP that shows any interest in this approach or how it intends to ensure access to the single market if/when the UK were to withdraw? For me, it's pretty naïve to:
1) Assume the UK will be in a position to the dictate terms of withdrawal and to base an in/out decision on this assumption.
2) Contend it will all work out OK for the UK because the EU needs us more than we need them and, in any case, "Corporate Business" will ensure it.

There are two separate arrangements in place that enable EFTA countries and the Swiss to access the single market; the latter may seem a bit dysfunctional at times but both basically require the respective governments to adopt any single market legislation into national law. There's no meaningful input to the legislation or debate, you just adopt it. Currently, unless the legislation is a certain type of regulation then any legislation (ie Directive) emanating from the EU, having already been through the Council of Ministers (ie the National Governments) and probably the EU Parliament beforehand, has to be approved by the Westminster Parliament before it can become law in the UK. Our government may be treaty bound to adopt but Parliament is not, there is absolutely nothing stopping the HoC saying no. The question for UKIP is does it want us to be in the single market or not and, if yes, how does it intend to achieve this. There's plenty for them to chew over in the EFTA and Swiss models but the party seems to say absolutely nothing of any substance on this issue.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is most certainly not "another bureaucratic entity" and there is good reason it is located in the UK - the pre-eminence of the UK Pharmaceutical Industry. Without it you will find all the regional pharmaceutical company offices relocating to Bonn (or wherever the EMA goes to), progressively followed over time by their investment in manufacturing and R&D because a UK outside of the single market is now too small to support such an infrastructure. Factories will be downsized and close because the products are already dual sourced from Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Slovenia, Poland or wherever, and the investment will be directed to them. New medicine approval times in the UK will be extensive as the Medicinal and Healthcare Products Agency (MHRA) will be having to undertake its own assessments (new chemical entities are all currently assessed by EMA and approved via the EU Commission), many existing product authorisations will have to be reviewed and re-assessed by MHRA as they may cross-refer to EMA approvals or products licenced in other member state. The retention of EMA in the UK is pivotal to the future of the UK pharmaceutical industry.

If you would forgive my cynicism, this vital non bureaucratic entity that is the EMA, is it funded wholly by the EU taxpayer or are the contributions from the pharmaceutical industry?

No doubt the venerable EMA has the European citizenry interests at heart, however just how independent is it?

Was it involved in the breast implant scandal?

Anything else we should know about it, you know, like licensing drugs for use in Europe that were manufactured by multinational pharmaceutical companies..........which were actually a bit shit?

I know little about pharmaceuticals, I suspect though it is not averse to the worst excesses of capitalism. I may be wrong of course.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you would forgive my cynicism, this vital non bureaucratic entity that is the EMA, is it funded wholly by the EU taxpayer or are the contributions from the pharmaceutical industry?

A combination of EU, Pharma industry and member states. It streamlined a process which previously cost companies a total of approx 400 million per year and as I have mentioned previously supports a UK industry worth 60b. As an aside the EU also funds Pharma research into select and specific areas not covered by commercial companies and the UK benefits from this in a number of ways.

 

[cunning fergus]

A combination of EU, Pharma industry and member states. It streamlined a process which previously cost companies a total of approx 400 million per year and as I have mentioned previously supports a UK industry worth 60b. As an aside the EU also funds Pharma research into select and specific areas not covered by commercial companies and the UK benefits from this in a number of ways.

That's a relief for one moment I thought they might be a load of corrupt shits lining their pockets at the expense of European taxpayers...........

http://euobserver.com/institutional/115818

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2687/european_union_corruption_knows_no_shame

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2011/08/anti-fraud-agency-puts-spotlight-e.u.s-drug-watchdog

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drug-watchdog-in-fraud-investigation-6258244.html

Don't worry though, you have restored my faith in the integrity of EU institutions..........