View Full Version : Three Cheers for Cameron?
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 10:11
Well, it's good news day for many of us. At last, a referendum on Britain being in, or out of the EU, is to take place in 2017. Is this democracy in action? We've been promised this for years, by each of the political parties, who have reneged on their promise, but now it looks to have become a reality. Or does it? What's the betting that Cameron & Co., will still be in power then and the referendum won't be scrapped by the equally nauseating Labour Party? Heads our EU Masters win; tails Britain loses. [evil]
Even Chance
23-Jan-13, 10:21
No worries, Scotland will be out in 2014.:lol:
Isnt this the same David Cameron who promised the same before the last election ??, the same man who went on about scrapping the EHCR and then choked. A blind man in a snowstorm can see this is just another bribe to get us to vote for these liars in 2015. It's just a ploy to appease the Euro sceptics in his own party and take the wind out of UKIP's sails. He will do what he did before, and what all politicians do when it comes time to make good on their promises, they will huff and puff about Britian's interests and ignore what we the people actually want. This muppet is giving away billions of our money in aid while putting thousands of service personnel on the dole. He's a politician, that means he's a liar who would fornicate with a snake if the guy holding it straight said he would vote for him.
Liked the speech though, he might have added that many British men lie at peace in the soil of mainland Europe because of their fondness of dictators. And that is what the political wing of the EU is, an unelected dictatorship. Even if we did get a vote they would just ignore the result if they disapproved and make us vote again until we got it right a la Ireland.
EDIT .. Labour and the Limp Dems are worse before anyone accuses me of being a lefty.
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 10:30
:D But doesn't Salmond want Scotland to negotiate full membership thereafter? Don't celebrate too much Even. IF England are out, then guess you'll have to shove-up to accommodate hundreds of thousands of new citizens. ;) Not to worry though, I personally believe this latest development to be all about Cameron trying to hoodwink us into voting for them in 2015. He really does think we're that stooooopid. If he was serious, then he would call the referendum next year. It won't happen, of course.
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 10:31
Brilliant post Retread. Sorry, our posts crossed in cyberspace. Agree with you 100%.
Green_not_greed
23-Jan-13, 13:41
:D But doesn't Salmond want Scotland to negotiate full membership thereafter? Don't celebrate too much Even. IF England are out, then guess you'll have to shove-up to accommodate hundreds of thousands of new citizens. ;) Not to worry though, I personally believe this latest development to be all about Cameron trying to hoodwink us into voting for them in 2015. He really does think we're that stooooopid. If he was serious, then he would call the referendum next year. It won't happen, of course.
He wants to wait until after the election to get as much of the UKIP vote as he can - at least, thats my take on it.
If Cameron was sincere about this he would call the referendum before the general election, it is just a con to get the people who want out of the EU to vote Tory!!!!
C3.
weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 14:52
Madness in action. He will lose of course but no before it does a great deal of damage to the economy and undermines our own say in the EU. All to keep the british tea party happy.
The trouble is that David Cameron is 21 years too late. It is just a cheap gimmick to stifle the rising popularity of UKIP, he knows full well that he cannot win the next General Election unless he does silly little promises like this which he can renege later if he ever did win. He'll need another Thatcher moment on the Falklands as well, that is brewing nicely again for him I see. I voted Referendum Party in 1992, that was our last real chance to halt the flow of bureaucracy and further integration into Europe. He also wants to stifle any chance of a independence vote by splitting the Yes campaign over Europe. It is a nice cheap trick, but still cheap.
And now we are here, it will hurt us more to get out of the EU.
So I just want to give everyone a big I told you so!
weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 17:16
I must say I am at a loss with the anti-EU mob. Ive tried desperately to understand their reasons for wanting to leave the EU and most of it comes down to paperwork, which having dealt with the highland council scares me not a jot. Why exactly should the UK leave the EU? How is it of any benefit, short or long term, to exit?
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 17:24
Agree with your first paragraph, Rheg, but part company over your statement that it will hurt us more to come out of the EU. Much of this fear I've seen expressed, is centred on problems trading with Europe and the loss of revenue. How does that work? I can't see anyone in Europe wanting to break trading ties with us, because we buy far more from them than they import from us. Besides, they're not the only countries in the world that we can trade with.
For a starter, we'd be better off by £50 Million a day that we currently pay for the privilege of being a member state. That's a heck of a lot of money to be reinvested in our own country, isn't it? And what have we have seen in return for this huge donation? I don't know how Scotland has fared, but I can see rugger all that England has benefited from.
Of course, Britain has not only been ripped-off by the Tories. All parties have sold us down the Rhine, imo. You may think that Conservative policy is driven by big business, but anyone who heard Mandelson on the radio this morning would recall that the last Labour government were utterly entranced by and beholden to the financial sector ....... and look where that got us. Not to mention Mandelson's own dubious connections. Then there's millionaire tax-dodger David Miliband and his consultancy work for offshore business.
It's not surprising that so many folks are turning to UKIP. Who else will listen to the people? I don't know if many of you have watched and listened to Farage's speeches in Brussels, but he is certainly a very brave man to tell it like it is. I rate him!
I must say I am at a loss with the anti-EU mob. Ive tried desperately to understand their reasons for wanting to leave the EU and most of it comes down to paperwork, which having dealt with the highland council scares me not a jot. Why exactly should the UK leave the EU? How is it of any benefit, short or long term, to exit?
A lot of people admit the benefits of membership, but still see our sovereignty as more important.
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 17:46
I honestly can't see many, Ducati. Can you perhaps suggest a few, please? Perhaps, there's a difference for Scots?
If ever there was a reason to vote tory then this is it. I'll have to think about that.
Well, here's a plan. Scotland can vote yes and get slung out in 2014. rUK can have a reffirectum in 2017 and get slung out. Then Scotland and rUK can get together and form their own club....... err hang on.....
weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 19:19
I honestly can't see many, Ducati. Can you perhaps suggest a few, please? Perhaps, there's a difference for Scots?
Is this another case of Global warming-type opinion based on gut feeling?
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 19:36
I don't usually ask personal questions Weezer, but I can't help wondering if you have ever been employed in any capacity as a politician? I must say, I'd be hard-pressed to vote for you, sadly! I'm curious, because like that particular breed, you seldom address the issue under discussion, or attempt to provide an answer to any question posed therein. Or perhaps I've misunderstood your purpose? I'll try again, if you please. What benefits do you, (or anyone else,) believe we have gained from being part of the undemocratic, unelected EU?
Sgitheanach
23-Jan-13, 19:45
The whole Eu thing is just Germany gaining control without using its army this time
M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 19:58
You may be interested to watch this link of the best speeches in Brussels made by Farage. In one, he speaks of the role of Germany, under Mrs Merkel. Some may not agree with Nigel's words, but he is a compelling speaker and he's well worth the listening time, Sgit.
Best Nigel Farage speeches - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGNoZfvRoA)
Since the EEC/EU there has never been an incident of a member state warring against another. That must be a positive thing and worth the loss of a little sovereignty? History has shown that we can't live together in peace for very long as separate sovereign states.
billmoseley
23-Jan-13, 20:04
The whole Eu thing is just Germany gaining control without using its army this time i used to think along these lines but not so much now i also thought many times we would be better off outside the EU. Now i'm not so sure. it worries me that more and more of our powers and laws are handed over to europe but as for trade among us i think it's a great thing. Britain today is nothing like it was 40 years ago so many of the population is from europe so it would be so hard to disengage from the EU now
You can't eat a flag but you can scoff a bratwurst.
What gets me in all this is that Cameron wants 7 years in office to deliver a referendum on the EU, Salmond is getting a referendum on independence after 7 years in office but Donald Dewar only took 3 months to get a referendum on a Scottish parliament!:eek:
weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 20:29
I don't usually ask personal questions Weezer, but I can't help wondering if you have ever been employed in any capacity as a politician? I must say, I'd be hard-pressed to vote for you, sadly! I'm curious, because like that particular breed, you seldom address the issue under discussion, or attempt to provide an answer to any question posed therein. Or perhaps I've misunderstood your purpose? I'll try again, if you please. What benefits do you, (or anyone else,) believe we have gained from being part of the undemocratic, unelected EU?
After you, please, you made the assertion. You cant think of any, no even one benefit, from EU membership?
Do you, or any anti- EU lot in her, posess any knowledge of it at all? To call it unelected and undemocratic is, frankly, nonsense. unbelievable nonsense. And with such willful ignorance its no wonder your against it!
Go read, please. read how its elected, hows its run, how its treaties are ratified (this part will utterly astonish you) and how it benefits not only member states but advances all members interest together. Just go read. Start with a book called the European dream, written by an american, and carry on from there.
The EU referendum is a ploy to divert attention from the failure of Tory economic policy and an attempt to get re-elected on a tide of anti-European sentiment.
The EU referendum is a ploy to divert attention from the failure of Tory economic policy and an attempt to get re-elected on a tide of anti-European sentiment.
Once again Flynn, spot on!
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 00:05
i used to think along these lines but not so much now i also thought many times we would be better off outside the EU. Now i'm not so sure. it worries me that more and more of our powers and laws are handed over to europe but as for trade among us i think it's a great thing. Britain today is nothing like it was 40 years ago so many of the population is from europe so it would be so hard to disengage from the EU now
But I don't understand your concerns about trade, Bill. For starters, most of our trade is outside of the EU, with USA, Middle East, the Commonwealth and the Far East. We buy MORE from EU countries, than they buy from us. And why would they want to change this? The EU is desperate for our business, as well as a piece of the City of London. Incidentally, the tax they want to levy will cost us dearly in lost investors. The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU is 'constitutionally obliged to negotiate free and fair trade with non-EU countries' anyway. So, there's nothing insurmountable there, imo.
There's always the option for us to be a member of the EEA, which has worked very well for the affluent Norway. Or, better still, EFTA, which includes trading with the EU, but at no loss to our sovereignty. Where's your Bulldog spirit, Bill? :)
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 00:20
After you, please, you made the assertion. You cant think of any, no even one benefit, from EU membership?
More of the same from you then Weezer. I asserted nothing, of course. I asked just one question, 'What benefits do you, (or anyone else,) believe we have gained from being part of the undemocratic, unelected EU?' Again, you refuse to answer and we must draw our own conclusions on why this might be. I always take the position that if I can't, or choose not to answer a question, then I don't respond. It really doesn't get any easier, does it? One thing I never do, is to childishly attack the poster, instead of the post. I don't do wilful ignorance. MS moving on! :)
Even The Spectator is saying Cameron's a liar: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/01/david-cameron-tells-porkies-about-britains-national-debt/
For starters, most of our trade is outside of the EU, with USA, Middle East, the Commonwealth and the Far East.
More than 50% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK.
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 10:18
Thanks Reg. I was referring to trade with other non-EU countries and I was also surprised that you do as much business, (if not more), outside the EU with the rest of the world. Interesting. I still wonder, how much more benefit would come to Britain, if the £50 Million a day that is pumped into the failing EU project, was invested in our own manufacturing and business enterprises. Even the huge sum that was donated to the bail-out of countries on the edge of collapse could surely have made a vast difference. Isn't it basic maths?
I notice the French are griping about us holding a referendum. Is anyone surprised? For over a decade they have been assisting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, (who they don't want,) to find free passage to Britain. Bad news day for them, then ........... perhaps? Maybe? Well, possibly?
If Cameron was serious about studying the best interests of our people, then he would move quickly to block the arrival of potentially millions of Bulgarians and Romanians from coming here. Not to mention the Turks, who are waiting in the wings. By 2017 it'll all be too late, anyway and he must know that. Not that I think the referendum will happen. I'd believe Cameron as much as I ever did the loathesome, capitalist Blair.
Thanks Reg. I was referring to trade with other non-EU countries and I was also surprised that you do as much business, (if not more), outside the EU with the rest of the world. Interesting. I still wonder, how much more benefit would come to Britain, if the £50 Million a day that is pumped into the failing EU project, was invested in our own manufacturing and business enterprises. Even the huge sum that was donated to the bail-out of countries on the edge of collapse could surely have made a vast difference. Isn't it basic maths?
I notice the French are griping about us holding a referendum. Is anyone surprised? For over a decade they have been assisting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, (who they don't want,) to find free passage to Britain. Bad news day for them, then ........... perhaps? Maybe? Well, possibly?
If Cameron was serious about studying the best interests of our people, then he would move quickly to block the arrival of potentially millions of Bulgarians and Romanians from coming here. Not to mention the Turks, who are waiting in the wings. By 2017 it'll all be too late, anyway and he must know that. Not that I think the referendum will happen. I'd believe Cameron as much as I ever did the loathesome, capitalist Blair.
You are Nigel Farage, AICMFP.
weezer 316
24-Jan-13, 14:38
More of the same from you then Weezer. I asserted nothing, of course. I asked just one question, 'What benefits do you, (or anyone else,) believe we have gained from being part of the undemocratic, unelected EU?' Again, you refuse to answer and we must draw our own conclusions on why this might be. I always take the position that if I can't, or choose not to answer a question, then I don't respond. It really doesn't get any easier, does it? One thing I never do, is to childishly attack the poster, instead of the post. I don't do wilful ignorance. MS moving on! :)
oh but you did, post 11 - "I can see rugger all that England has benefited from". Dnow why did you say you didnt?
Now can you not name 1 single measly mingy little benefit of being in the EU? Please try. Guess if you have to. Then ill come back to your democracy points.
OK, so if we go independent in 2014, will we have enough time to vote in a EU vote in 2016/7 before full separation is implemented? If so, will that result (just Scottish results) have any legal standing with an independent Scotland's relationship with the EU?
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 21:28
Barosso has already stated that if Scotland decide to become Independent in 2014, they would have to apply for membership and negotiate conditions with other members, Rheg. If this proves the case, then it would be totally unfair to the remaining countries in Britain for Scotland to have any say, let alone a vote, in the proposed referendum in 2017.
But if the results show that Scotland rejects EU but Salmond goes to apply for membership then he will be on a bad footing, no?
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 21:48
I'm an AngloScot Rheg, but I guess I wouldn't be too happy if Salmond reversed the will of the people. If you vote for Independence, then he's the man you will have chosen to decide this for you.
If you vote for Independence, then he's the man you will have chosen to decide this for you.
That isn't very democratic on such a massive issue, is it?
M Swanson
24-Jan-13, 21:57
LOL. No, I wouldn't think so Rheg, Mind you, what do I know? I was one of the idiots who voted yes to joining the EEC, for free trading purposes, in the 70's. Like so many, we were taken in hook, line and sinker. And have been ever since, imo. Leaders are elected by the people to represent the wishes of the people, but how often does that happen? I just hope Scotland achieve the best possible deal they can for themselves. At least you'll get a vote.
I doubt there will be a referendum on Scotland in Europe until after the 2016 elections - there is no commitment to do so from the current Scottish Government If there is a yes vote in the referendum then we will vote for the first government of an Independent Scotland in 2016 . You will have the chance to vote for the party which is closest to your view on Europe... in, out, shake it all about, EFTA, isolation or referendum and possible all the various shades in between any referendum will be part of the manifestos of the various parties in advance of the 2016 elections.
The SNP are likely to have in their manifesto membership of the EU so if they win a majority in 2016 and there is no guarantee that they will - then I wouldnt expect a referendum unless the EU throw us out of Europe on independence and we have to re apply for membership and there is no clear evidence that the EU will ask us to leave. It wont happen before that because we will still be a member until the day of Independence as part of the UK.
. If you vote for Independence, then he's the man you will have chosen to decide this for you.
No he isnt!!!! Crikey - how many times!!!!!! A YES vote in the referendum is a vote for the type of country we want to be - Independent or part of a union with the rest of the UK. The man or woman remember - there ARE women in politics in Scotland - we choose to lead the country into Independence will be decided at the Elections in 2016. Those elections will decide the first Government of an Independent Scotland and an Independent Scotland's First Minister.
That isn't very democratic on such a massive issue, is it?
You will have the chance to vote for the party which best reflects your view Rheg. You will excercise your democratic right and a government will be formed based on the majority vote. Thats as democratic as it gets Rheg. One man or woman will not decide policy - the political parties will offer their manifestos and the electorate will decide. Thats you, me and the rest of those voting in Scotland in 2016. Not Alex Salmond or Johan Lamont or Ruth Davidson or any other party leader - they offer their policies and WE decide!
No he isnt!!!! Crikey - how many times!!!!!! A YES vote in the referendum is a vote for the type of country we want to be - Independent or part of a union with the rest of the UK. The man or woman remember - there ARE women in politics in Scotland - we choose to lead the country into Independence will be decided at the Elections in 2016. Those elections will decide the first Government of an Independent Scotland and an Independent Scotland's First Minister.
But do you not think the two are very closely interlinked?
Of course they are interlinked in that the decision in the referendum will decide the manifestos of the parties standing for election in 2016. If its a yes vote then we will have manifestos which focus on how to start to build an Independent Scotland. If its a No vote then we will have more of what we have already.
But do you not think the two are very closely interlinked?
I know some independenceists :confused are desperate to separate the vote from the SNP. However, if not for the SNP then there would not be a vote so............
Oooooh a new word - independenceists hmmmm - a bit cumbersome maybe but with a bit of practice it might catch on :D
Absolutely without the SNP there would not be a vote but actually without the electorate voting in an SNP government on a manifesto which included the commitment to a referendum there wouldn't be a vote. I know some ...ermmmmmm.... unionistas? United kingdomists? Great Britonions? who are desperate to make the vote for Independence a vote for Alex Salmond but you know he might drop dead tomorrow and there would still be a referendum.....:Razz
Oooooh a new word - independenceists hmmmm - a bit cumbersome maybe but with a bit of practice it might catch on :D
Absolutely without the SNP there would not be a vote but actually without the electorate voting in an SNP government on a manifesto which included the commitment to a referendum there wouldn't be a vote. I know some ...ermmmmmm.... unionistas? United kingdomists? Great Britonions? who are desperate to make the vote for Independence a vote for Alex Salmond but you know he might drop dead tomorrow and there would still be a referendum.....:Razz
If he does I promise to vote for him
Oh dear me - you wont be able to - he would be dead - you cant enter dead people as candidates like you cant enter mannequins - honestly ... who would have thought it?
I know some independenceists :confused are desperate to separate the vote from the SNP. However, if not for the SNP then there would not be a vote so............
And without UKIP ,there would be no referendum on Europe......so your point is?
I find it rather amusing that we had the UK Government demanding we hold the referendum on Scottish Independence very quickly, as the uncertainty resulting from hanging about for two/three years not knowing what was happening would be bad for the Scottish (and thus the UK) economy, and it is/was completely unacceptable for us to not itemise ahead of time details on what an Independent Scotland would look like before negotiations with all interested parties had even started, far less finished .
Now we have that same UK Government demanding devo-max in the EU..and if they get it, there will be a referendum on whether to accept it or not (resulting in removing the UK from the EU...or not)..so there is even more uncertainty...and more than two/three years of it....and that same UK Parliament won't tell us what criteria/terms they want to negotiate/renegotiate as their price for staying in.
Double standards?
macadamia
26-Jan-13, 18:08
Not double standards. Politics. Like nature, red in tooth and claw. The UK government wishes to keep the waters as muddy as possible in the lead up to the Scottish Independence vote so that the referendum voters are unable to discern a clear statement of intent. Their default drive will lead them to the conclusion "better the devil you know", as the "Yes" camp try to second-guess what the UK government is going to throw into the ring next.
When I say this is "Politics", this is precisely the way in which the Scottish government will also try to turn any positive points it discerns to its own advantage. Both sides will become more hysterical and shouty as the time to R-day draws nearer.
Sadly, the whole process will become demeaning and degrading to most reasonable people. There will be a lot of insults and bad feeling, and whatever the result, people will feel cheated. If Scotland becomes independent, then a new enemy will have to be found (as in "Tories" and "Westminster"): and if the vote goes to the Unionists, then there is going to be a large number of disillusioned and dis-spirited people.
And without UKIP ,there would be no referendum on Europe......so your point is?
The point if, you want one, is that both the SNP and (if you like) UKIP are going to cost us, the UK taxpayer, a vast futune having pointless votes. By that I mean we already know what the result/s will be.
The point if, you want one, is that both the SNP and (if you like) UKIP are going to cost us, the UK taxpayer, a vast futune having pointless votes. By that I mean we already know what the result/s will be. Thats not right Ducati. The SNP were democratically elected with all those voting SNP knowing that they would hold a referendum. They formed a majority government DESPITE having that commitment in their manifesto for all to see.
UKIP have absolutely NO MPs although a dozen or so MEPs. So you arent comparing like with like.
And you dont know what the outcome of either referendum will be. Not until the results are declared. You may have opinion polls, some of which are good and some of which are not, but they are only accurate on the day that they are carried out so utterly useless when there is 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years to go!
M Swanson
26-Jan-13, 19:44
I don't find either referendums easy to call Ducati, but friends and family in Scotland believe that there's little, to no chance of Independence winning the day. I wouldn't know. I'm not confident about the EU referendum either ....... that's if it ever happens, of course. As all three major parties are, imo, in favour of staying in the EU, they will pull every trick in the book to maintain the status quo.
Thats not right Ducati. The SNP were democratically elected with all those voting SNP knowing that they would hold a referendum. They formed a majority government DESPITE having that commitment in their manifesto for all to see.
UKIP have absolutely NO MPs although a dozen or so MEPs. So you arent comparing like with like.
And you dont know what the outcome of either referendum will be. Not until the results are declared. You may have opinion polls, some of which are good and some of which are not, but they are only accurate on the day that they are carried out so utterly useless when there is 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years to go!
I was responding to OQ's assertion that there would only be a ref on EU 'cos of UKIP. She/he is as barmy as they are. But I know the outcome of both votes and I aint physic. :Razz
The first opinion poll after Cameron's EU Ref speech shows little change, Labour are still in front by 10% down by 2%. Cameron has shown all his cards for little gain.
I was responding to OQ's assertion that there would only be a ref on EU 'cos of UKIP. She/he is as barmy as they are. But I know the outcome of both votes and I aint physic. :Razz
So care to explain to me why I am wrong in my opinion that the promised referendum is not simply a method to sideline UKIP..and that without UKIP's increase in vote splitting the Tory vote in many constituencies, the referendum would never have been promised? Got anything at all which would show that a referendum and a rejigging of the EU was anywhere set out in any Tory manifesto prior to the 2010 election?
Strikes me that the Tories re UKIP are doing what NuLabour under Tony Blair did re the SNP...in that they think, as Blair did, that giving a wee bit now would satisfy the punter and remove the prospect of future/ongoing problems.....and we know how well that worked for setting the SNP's gas at a peep....don't we?
So care to explain to me why I am wrong in my opinion that the promised referendum is not simply a method to sideline UKIP..and that without UKIP's increase in vote splitting the Tory vote in many constituencies, the referendum would never have been promised? Got anything at all which would show that a referendum and a rejigging of the EU was anywhere set out in any Tory manifesto prior to the 2010 election?
Strikes me that the Tories re UKIP are doing what NuLabour under Tony Blair did re the SNP...in that they think, as Blair did, that giving a wee bit now would satisfy the punter and remove the prospect of future/ongoing problems.....and we know how well that worked for setting the SNP's gas at a peep....don't we?
Whether it was in their manifesto or not is immaterial. The government have no electoral mandate for any of their policies. They seem to be operating under the illusion they won the last election, when the truth is the Tories have not won an election since 1992.
weezer 316
27-Jan-13, 23:15
I find it rather amusing that we had the UK Government demanding we hold the referendum on Scottish Independence very quickly, as the uncertainty resulting from hanging about for two/three years not knowing what was happening would be bad for the Scottish (and thus the UK) economy, and it is/was completely unacceptable for us to not itemise ahead of time details on what an Independent Scotland would look like before negotiations with all interested parties had even started, far less finished .
Now we have that same UK Government demanding devo-max in the EU..and if they get it, there will be a referendum on whether to accept it or not (resulting in removing the UK from the EU...or not)..so there is even more uncertainty...and more than two/three years of it....and that same UK Parliament won't tell us what criteria/terms they want to negotiate/renegotiate as their price for staying in.
Double standards?
No. The SNP's headline point, their very existence even, is defined by a referendum on independence. Thats what they campaigned for, and even promised one in the last parliament that they didnt deliver.
The tories campaigned on no such thing. you should look at it like an early, huge, piece of their manifesto for the next election. They know at present they have no mandate to hold that referendum where are the SNP do.
Whether it was in their manifesto or not is immaterial. The government have no electoral mandate for any of their policies. They seem to be operating under the illusion they won the last election, when the truth is the Tories have not won an election since 1992.
Actually that is the point. (Which has been made ad nauseam if you bothered to listen) No party's manifesto was endorsed by the voters so all bets are off.
The point if, you want one, is that both the SNP and (if you like) UKIP are going to cost us, the UK taxpayer, a vast futune having pointless votes. By that I mean we already know what the result/s will be.
Do you already know the result/s..........and do you also do clairvoyance for payment? Is your real name Nostradamus?
Because there is a possibility that a vote for independence might cost you personally a relatively few pounds, you are happy to vote in 2014 only for what benefits you, and not consider what may well, when all the information is in the public arena,which it is not atm,from either POV, benefit the population of Scotland as a whole?
Out of interest, why do you object to referenda costing us, the UK Taxpayer, the price of real democracy in the UK, when I haven't noticed many posts from you objecting to the UK taxpayer subsidising the profits of businesses by handing out our money in working tax credits and child tax credits so businesses can pay crap wages.....though if you can link me to posts which you have made being irate about that abuse of the welfare system, and I have missed them, I will happily apologise (I don't read every thread on the org.)
Actually that is the point. (Which has been made ad nauseam if you bothered to listen) No party's manifesto was endorsed by the voters so all bets are off.
The manifesto of the SNP was..because it included, in words which even the most illiterate could have understood, the pledge to - Bring forward legislation for an independence referendum.
Whether it was in their manifesto or not is immaterial. The government have no electoral mandate for any of their policies. They seem to be operating under the illusion they won the last election, when the truth is the Tories have not won an election since 1992.
I don't disagree with that......but, being a pensioner, I have become used, over the years, to manifestos being promises to be broken on attaining power, and policy ending up as a result of Government brainfarts imposed by pressure groups who have the loudest voices.
We are not a democracy and it is futile to pretend we are.
Actually that is the point. (Which has been made ad nauseam if you bothered to listen) No party's manifesto was endorsed by the voters so all bets are off.
Until we do an Australia and make voting compulsory for all, no party's manifesto will ever be endorsed by the voters....just endorsed by those who bother to get off their arses and trot along to to put their cross in a box. Have you not realised yet that our politicians rely, for their lucrative jobs, on the fact that a very large proportion of the UK population don't give a toss......unless the policies which have been in the manifesto and might just possibly be applied applied affects them? Why else do you think the majority of our politicians fought against the PR vote when that was a real option?
The point if, you want one, is that both the SNP and (if you like) UKIP are going to cost us, the UK taxpayer, a vast futune having pointless votes. By that I mean we already know what the result/s will be.
I am at a loss to understand why the media give UKIP so much airtime. UKIP are a tiny single-issue party with no elected MPs.
M Swanson
28-Jan-13, 12:16
I used to think that too, Flynn. Until I visited UKIP's website and discovered that wasn't true. Mind you, how anyone can think that being a member of the EU doesn't impact on our law; our education, our taxation payments, our democracy, our justice system, our culture, our Social Security, our 'Elf and Safety, our politics, and all our other 'ours,' is beyond me. I would encourage everyone to check it out. :cool:
I used to think that too, Flynn. Until I visited UKIP's website and discovered that wasn't true. Mind you, how anyone can think that being a member of the EU doesn't impact on our law; our education, our taxation payments, our democracy, our justice system, our culture, our Social Security, our 'Elf and Safety, our politics, and all our other 'ours,' is beyond me. I would encourage everyone to check it out. :cool:
I said MPs, not MEPs. MPs affect us directly.
macadamia
28-Jan-13, 12:52
Flynn, going back a couple, the reason the media have taken a shine to UKIP is dear old Nige - a red blooded smoking drinker and flying ace who at least has an opinion, unlike the leaders of the (snigger) mainstream parties, who are all made out of ticky tacky and they all sound just the same. At least Nige has GOT a pair! (Even if some - repeat SOME) of what he pushes is arrant bell hooks!)
Flynn, going back a couple, the reason the media have taken a shine to UKIP is dear old Nige - a red blooded smoking drinker and flying ace who at least has an opinion, unlike the leaders of the (snigger) mainstream parties, who are all made out of ticky tacky and they all sound just the same. At least Nige has GOT a pair! (Even if some - repeat SOME) of what he pushes is arrant bell hooks!)
If they are going to give so much airtime to a party with no elected MPs, but with MEPs and a rather repugnant leader, then they should give equal airtime to all such parties.
I said MPs, not MEPs. MPs affect us directly.Europe doesn't affect us? MEP's don't represent our interests?
If they are going to give so much airtime to a party with no elected MPs, but with MEPs and a rather repugnant leader, then they should give equal airtime to all such parties.All the parties get their fair share, more than enough airtime if you ask me. Just at the minute UKIP has some soundbites that fill the gaps for the media.
I actually quite like Nige, for entertainment purposes, he's a bit of an empty vessel but at least there is a glimmer of character. If the other three parties could muster a leader anything nearly like him they could be in with a shout, but instead we get a schoolboy, a ditzy backroom dull civil servant and an insipid old Etonian. And not a 'pair' between the three of 'em.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.