By: AlanR
- 2nd May 2014 at 09:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can only assume that all those who are anti UKIP/Farage are happy with the terms of our membership of the European Community ?
My personal experience is, talking to people from various walks of life, is that they will vote UKIP in the upcoming
European elections, but wouldn't vote for them at local government level. Make of that what you will.
By: TwinOtter23
- 2nd May 2014 at 09:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Assume away – but having been ‘door-stepped’ by my UKIP candidate, their arrogant attitude in presuming they’re the only ones with any answers does the wider coverage for any European related issues no good what so ever!
I have worked with European sister companies / associates for too many years to not see the benefits that close co-operation brings!!
By: charliehunt
- 2nd May 2014 at 12:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Equally not at all. UKIP has effectively two policies, one with which I agree and one with which I have limited sympathy. As I have opined before a protest vote is a wasted vote and a vote for a party with such limited political aspiration is also a wasted vote.
The actual net costs of membership being the difference between government payments and receipts is £10.3 billion this year reducing to £8.7 billion next year. many organisations from all parts of the spectrum will add estimates for greater or lesser costs and greater or lesser benefits from withdrawal, but that's all they are. Estimates.
By: MattCooke
- 2nd May 2014 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I shan't be voting ukip because
A) I despise nearly everything they stand for, while not every member / supporter is racist / xenophobic / homophobic etc , several ARE, and the party is attracting a lot of it, which deeply concerns me.
B) I'm far too much of a 'tree hugging lefty loon' to go anywhere near the right wing
C) I don't think we should leave the EU
ukip never mentions all the British citizens that chose to live and work in and around Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
By: J Boyle
- 2nd May 2014 at 13:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember...everyone (even the misguided) have a right to their opinions.
You may not agree with their political stance...but a lot of good men (and women) died to give them the right of beliefs and expression.
Just remember that when you disagree with someone...before the name calling starts.
By: jbritchford
- 2nd May 2014 at 13:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
UKIP prescribe to the view that if we leave the EU we will still be able to enjoy all of the benefits but be free of all the costs. A bit like the SNP in that respect, imho
By: charliehunt
- 2nd May 2014 at 13:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ukip never mentions all the British citizens that chose to live and work in and around Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
Since the UK would apply to rejoin the EFTA EEA natioins they would negotiate the same terms and conditions as those member states do.
"Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway
Although these countries are not members of the EU, their nationals can work in the EU on the same footing as EU nationals, since they belong to the European Economic Area.
Workers from some EU countries may face temporary restrictions on working in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. Currently these are: Bulgaria and Romania.
Switzerland
Under the EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons, Swiss nationals are free to live and work in the EU and likewise EU nationals in Switzerland."
By: AlanR
- 2nd May 2014 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ukip never mentions all the British citizens that chose to live and work in and around Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
By: John Green
- 2nd May 2014 at 16:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 104
"Close co-operation" is one thing but, control from Brussels is entirely something different.
New
Posts: 2,748
By: snafu
- 2nd May 2014 at 16:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ukip never mentions all the British citizens that chose to live and work in and around Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
What is general avoided is mention that a fair proportion of their donor's actually live in Europe by choice.
If they were so pro-Britain, anti Europe, you'd think they would, wouldn't you...?
By: TwinOtter23
- 2nd May 2014 at 16:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WADR it’s not just about movement of people but also goods, as I I’ll try to illustrate from personal experience with importing 3 Saab aircraft that were originally manufactured outside of the EU in Sweden.
1982 – Saab Safir imported from Norway; flown on NATO documentation by two serving Norwegian Air Force officers; the paperwork was very detailed, but thankfully it was dealt with by the personnel in Norway – albeit I was still arguing with UK authorities in the guard room at RAF Waddington 30 minutes before the Safir touched down.
1994 – Saab Draken imported from Denmark; flown on NATO documentation, but only after carnet paperwork was raised and appropriate fees were paid / deposit lodged at the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce to cover the necessary import documentation.
2006 (Sweden now a member of the EU) – Saab Viggen imported from Sweden; flown on Swedish AF documentation after a short End-User certificate was drafted on museum letter head.
By: Derekf
- 2nd May 2014 at 17:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Comparisons with Norway or Switzerland or Iceland are not particularly helpful. The UK economy is considerably larger than any of those and needs access to far larger markets. Unless of course UKIP's plan is to make the UK economy the same size as Lichtenstein's...
Anyone who has done business within the EU will know the clear advantages of the "level playing field" that membership brings. Why do UKIP want to put that at risk?
Nobody is ruled by Brussels; Full facts.org gives this:-
1: Acts put in place by UK Parliament with EU influence – accounts for 10-14%
2: Regulations influenced by or related to the EU – accounts for 9-14%
3. EU regulations and regulations influenced by or related to the EU – accounts for 53%
Hardly the 70% that Farage lied about and hardly being "ruled by Brussels"
By: John Green
- 2nd May 2014 at 17:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 116
"Level playing field?" To quote Mr. MacEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"
In one respect at least: The development, manufacture and certification of light aircraft, the EU is most certainly not a "level playing field".
I would have thought that the percentages you quote, show very emphatically that our legislation arrives in the mail from Brussels.
Why, about forty years ago, was it thought necessary to impose on the British a system of weights and measure invented by M'sieur Napoleon Buonaparte and supported by sanctions under criminal law ? Insist on using our native and longstanding system and you'll go to prison. That is the way they do things in Brussels.
Interference from Brussels with our well proven, empirically derived system of education gave us teachers who could not teach but had a degree in one or other of the social sciences. The result ? At least two generations, many of whom possess worthless degrees and are effectively innumerate and illiterate.
Interference from Brussels with our well proven, working NHS gave us nurses who all had degrees but, who were incapable of changing a bedpan or, thought it wasn't their job to deal with bed sores, change dressings and check a patients comfort and well being hence, we now have the Care Quality Commission to interest themselves in such matters.
By: charliehunt
- 2nd May 2014 at 18:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not as question of comparison, it is a question of rejoining the trading group of which we were once a member, and of which we would be by far the largest economy, not that that is a relevant factor.
New
Posts: 2,748
By: snafu
- 2nd May 2014 at 18:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John, to lazily reuse your own quote from...
...Mr. MacEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"
Really. You just can't.
Why, about forty years ago, was it thought necessary to impose on the British a system of weights and measure invented by M'sieur Napoleon Buonaparte and supported by sanctions under criminal law ? Insist on using our native and longstanding system and you'll go to prison. That is the way they do things in Brussels.
Nothing to do with Napoleon, as any attentive school kid or history student could happily enlighten you:.
The concepts behind the metric system were developed in the 16th and 17th centuries when Simon Stevin published details of his decimal notation and John Wilkins published a proposal for a decimal system of measurement based on natural units.
The first practical realisation of the metric system came during the French Revolution, when the existing system of measure, which had fallen into disrepute, was replaced by a decimal system based on the kilogram and the metre. The work of reforming the existing system of weights and measures had the support of whoever was in power, including Louis XVI.
The metric system was, in the words of philosopher and mathematician Condorcet, "for all people for all time".
In the era of humanism, the basic units were taken from the natural world: the unit of length, the metre, was based on the dimensions of the Earth, and the unit of mass, the kilogram, was based on the mass of water having a volume of one litre or one thousandth of a cubic metre. Reference copies for both units were manufactured and placed in the custody of the French Academy of Sciences.
As for the 'impose on the British' metrification bit it was done because the Imperial system was confusing the young - can I guess that you were taught weights and measures before the change over?
I don't know the intricacies of feet and inches, lbs, ounces and tons, pints and gallons, but a millimetre is a tenth of a centimetre which is one hundredth of a metre (everyone ignores decimetres...) which is a thousandth of a kilometre, etc, with weights and volume being just as simple - it is all logical.
Can you honestly say that the younger Imperial system (it dates from 1824, when the various different weights and measurements were at last unified; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weights_and_Measures_Act) is logical? I mean, 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, 5280 feet to the mile, 14 lbs to the stone, 2240 lbs to the ton - it is seriously all over the place and definitely not logical. Take the gallon:
In 1824, the various different gallons in use in the British Empire were replaced by the imperial gallon, a unit close in volume to the ale gallon. It was originally defined as the volume of 10 pounds (4.5 kg) of distilled water weighed in air with brass weights with the barometer standing at 30 inches of mercury (102 kPa) at a temperature of 62 °F (17 °C). In 1963, the gallon was redefined as the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water of density 0.998859 g/mL weighed in air of density 0.001217 g/mL against weights of density 8.136 g/mL, which works out to 4.546096 L or 277.4198 cu in. The Weights and Measures Act of 1985 switched to a gallon of exactly 4.54609 L (approximately 277.4194 cu in).
Do you remember the kids TV show Blue Peter? It is still going, you know... I can remember the uproar when they changed from giving both Imperial measurements and metric at the same time to...not giving Imperial. The media went bonkers, yet children were not being taught anything but metric and even OAP viewers (interested in the recipes; remember the days when Blue Peter did cookery rather than just wicked stuff?) said that it was silly to show both and metric was easier to understand.
There is still confusion - miles per hour or kilometres per hour, anyone? How about kilometres rather than miles on signposts?
By: Derekf
- 2nd May 2014 at 20:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "level playing field" is apparent to anyone working in industry within EU. Homogenized H&S, taxation, trade and employment laws make for easier business.
There is also the fallacy that once we are free off the EU then all of the "red tape" will disappear. Well, it won't. Those that have to deal with the MAA in the UK aerospace industry will know that we are fully capable of generating our own rules and regulations without any help from the EU.
The vast majority of the regulations brought about by the EU are designed to make things fairer and safer for us all. Is that so bad?
Metric is another red herring. As part of my job I have to swap between imperial (or more accurately US measurements) and metric. It really isn't a problem and dealing in imperial measurements certainly isn't illegal for us or most of the rest of the aviation business that still uses them. There is a place for both but to place the blame for metric at the door of the EU is wide of the mark.
It strikes me that difference is that those that want out of the EU are still living in the past or have a desire to live in the past whereas those who wish to remain in the EU and make it better for everyone are looking to the future.
Posts: 7,742
By: TwinOtter23 - 1st May 2014 at 23:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're quite right critter it should have been, which just goes to show that it was my 'eggasperation' with Charlie's post #85 that started it off!!
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 2nd May 2014 at 09:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can only assume that all those who are anti UKIP/Farage are happy with the terms of our membership of the European Community ?
My personal experience is, talking to people from various walks of life, is that they will vote UKIP in the upcoming
European elections, but wouldn't vote for them at local government level. Make of that what you will.
Posts: 7,742
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd May 2014 at 09:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Assume away – but having been ‘door-stepped’ by my UKIP candidate, their arrogant attitude in presuming they’re the only ones with any answers does the wider coverage for any European related issues no good what so ever!
I have worked with European sister companies / associates for too many years to not see the benefits that close co-operation brings!!
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 2nd May 2014 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, not at all.
I had a UKIP leaflet through my door yesterday; it claimed that being in the EU 'cost' Britain £156billon per year...
...this sounds ludicrously high.....must check that claim!
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 2nd May 2014 at 12:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Equally not at all. UKIP has effectively two policies, one with which I agree and one with which I have limited sympathy. As I have opined before a protest vote is a wasted vote and a vote for a party with such limited political aspiration is also a wasted vote.
The actual net costs of membership being the difference between government payments and receipts is £10.3 billion this year reducing to £8.7 billion next year. many organisations from all parts of the spectrum will add estimates for greater or lesser costs and greater or lesser benefits from withdrawal, but that's all they are. Estimates.
Posts: 199
By: MattCooke - 2nd May 2014 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I shan't be voting ukip because
A) I despise nearly everything they stand for, while not every member / supporter is racist / xenophobic / homophobic etc , several ARE, and the party is attracting a lot of it, which deeply concerns me.
B) I'm far too much of a 'tree hugging lefty loon' to go anywhere near the right wing
C) I don't think we should leave the EU
ukip never mentions all the British citizens that chose to live and work in and around Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't leaving the EU screw them over...?
Also, if people want a protest vote, go green.
Posts: 9,825
By: J Boyle - 2nd May 2014 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember...everyone (even the misguided) have a right to their opinions.
You may not agree with their political stance...but a lot of good men (and women) died to give them the right of beliefs and expression.
Just remember that when you disagree with someone...before the name calling starts.
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 2nd May 2014 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UKIP prescribe to the view that if we leave the EU we will still be able to enjoy all of the benefits but be free of all the costs. A bit like the SNP in that respect, imho
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 2nd May 2014 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since the UK would apply to rejoin the EFTA EEA natioins they would negotiate the same terms and conditions as those member states do.
"Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway
Although these countries are not members of the EU, their nationals can work in the EU on the same footing as EU nationals, since they belong to the European Economic Area.
Workers from some EU countries may face temporary restrictions on working in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. Currently these are: Bulgaria and Romania.
Switzerland
Under the EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons, Swiss nationals are free to live and work in the EU and likewise EU nationals in Switzerland."
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 2nd May 2014 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see why it should.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 2nd May 2014 at 15:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See above. It would if we did not apply for affiliation or membership of the alternative trading groups.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 2nd May 2014 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 104
"Close co-operation" is one thing but, control from Brussels is entirely something different.
Posts: 2,748
By: snafu - 2nd May 2014 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is general avoided is mention that a fair proportion of their donor's actually live in Europe by choice.
If they were so pro-Britain, anti Europe, you'd think they would, wouldn't you...?
Posts: 7,742
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd May 2014 at 16:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WADR it’s not just about movement of people but also goods, as I I’ll try to illustrate from personal experience with importing 3 Saab aircraft that were originally manufactured outside of the EU in Sweden.
1982 – Saab Safir imported from Norway; flown on NATO documentation by two serving Norwegian Air Force officers; the paperwork was very detailed, but thankfully it was dealt with by the personnel in Norway – albeit I was still arguing with UK authorities in the guard room at RAF Waddington 30 minutes before the Safir touched down.
1994 – Saab Draken imported from Denmark; flown on NATO documentation, but only after carnet paperwork was raised and appropriate fees were paid / deposit lodged at the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce to cover the necessary import documentation.
2006 (Sweden now a member of the EU) – Saab Viggen imported from Sweden; flown on Swedish AF documentation after a short End-User certificate was drafted on museum letter head.
Posts: 702
By: Derekf - 2nd May 2014 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Comparisons with Norway or Switzerland or Iceland are not particularly helpful. The UK economy is considerably larger than any of those and needs access to far larger markets. Unless of course UKIP's plan is to make the UK economy the same size as Lichtenstein's...
Anyone who has done business within the EU will know the clear advantages of the "level playing field" that membership brings. Why do UKIP want to put that at risk?
Nobody is ruled by Brussels; Full facts.org gives this:-
Hardly the 70% that Farage lied about and hardly being "ruled by Brussels"
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 2nd May 2014 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 109
"All the benefits". What benefits?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 2nd May 2014 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 116
"Level playing field?" To quote Mr. MacEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"
In one respect at least: The development, manufacture and certification of light aircraft, the EU is most certainly not a "level playing field".
I would have thought that the percentages you quote, show very emphatically that our legislation arrives in the mail from Brussels.
Why, about forty years ago, was it thought necessary to impose on the British a system of weights and measure invented by M'sieur Napoleon Buonaparte and supported by sanctions under criminal law ? Insist on using our native and longstanding system and you'll go to prison. That is the way they do things in Brussels.
Interference from Brussels with our well proven, empirically derived system of education gave us teachers who could not teach but had a degree in one or other of the social sciences. The result ? At least two generations, many of whom possess worthless degrees and are effectively innumerate and illiterate.
Interference from Brussels with our well proven, working NHS gave us nurses who all had degrees but, who were incapable of changing a bedpan or, thought it wasn't their job to deal with bed sores, change dressings and check a patients comfort and well being hence, we now have the Care Quality Commission to interest themselves in such matters.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 2nd May 2014 at 18:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not as question of comparison, it is a question of rejoining the trading group of which we were once a member, and of which we would be by far the largest economy, not that that is a relevant factor.
Posts: 2,748
By: snafu - 2nd May 2014 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John, to lazily reuse your own quote from...
Really. You just can't.
Nothing to do with Napoleon, as any attentive school kid or history student could happily enlighten you:.
As for the 'impose on the British' metrification bit it was done because the Imperial system was confusing the young - can I guess that you were taught weights and measures before the change over?
I don't know the intricacies of feet and inches, lbs, ounces and tons, pints and gallons, but a millimetre is a tenth of a centimetre which is one hundredth of a metre (everyone ignores decimetres...) which is a thousandth of a kilometre, etc, with weights and volume being just as simple - it is all logical.
Can you honestly say that the younger Imperial system (it dates from 1824, when the various different weights and measurements were at last unified; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weights_and_Measures_Act) is logical? I mean, 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, 5280 feet to the mile, 14 lbs to the stone, 2240 lbs to the ton - it is seriously all over the place and definitely not logical. Take the gallon:
Does that make any sense to you, really?
Do you remember the kids TV show Blue Peter? It is still going, you know... I can remember the uproar when they changed from giving both Imperial measurements and metric at the same time to...not giving Imperial. The media went bonkers, yet children were not being taught anything but metric and even OAP viewers (interested in the recipes; remember the days when Blue Peter did cookery rather than just wicked stuff?) said that it was silly to show both and metric was easier to understand.
There is still confusion - miles per hour or kilometres per hour, anyone? How about kilometres rather than miles on signposts?
Posts: 702
By: Derekf - 2nd May 2014 at 20:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "level playing field" is apparent to anyone working in industry within EU. Homogenized H&S, taxation, trade and employment laws make for easier business.
There is also the fallacy that once we are free off the EU then all of the "red tape" will disappear. Well, it won't. Those that have to deal with the MAA in the UK aerospace industry will know that we are fully capable of generating our own rules and regulations without any help from the EU.
The vast majority of the regulations brought about by the EU are designed to make things fairer and safer for us all. Is that so bad?
Metric is another red herring. As part of my job I have to swap between imperial (or more accurately US measurements) and metric. It really isn't a problem and dealing in imperial measurements certainly isn't illegal for us or most of the rest of the aviation business that still uses them. There is a place for both but to place the blame for metric at the door of the EU is wide of the mark.
It strikes me that difference is that those that want out of the EU are still living in the past or have a desire to live in the past whereas those who wish to remain in the EU and make it better for everyone are looking to the future.