Millennium3

I can think of some very good reasons to refrain from fighting every seat and carefully targeting our efforts. If this is accepted then there would be every reason to accomodate BDI. If it is genuine then some advantage may accrue. If not - provided we fight our best supported seats - little would be lost.

But a decision will have to wait until the dust settles on recent and forthcoming changes.

Alex McKee

<backseat moderating>Surely these BDI issues should be started in British Politics, not UKIP General Issues?</backseat moderating>

rjt

I tjink upon refelction that an MP opposed to EU memebrship should not be opposed by anti-EU partys.

But these BDI signatories must be decalred as soon as practiable so they can be judged on their actions.

John Page

As Alan Alda's character says in The West Wing, "If you can't take a man's money and drink with him, and then vote against him, you shouldn't be in this game."

Oh look, here's a piece of paper, Withdrawal in Our Time.

Tom Collier

Well, rjt, the BDI plans to release its list of members 5 days before a GE. presumably this is to get round the selection process. Are BDIers going to fib at selection interviews Mrs R? Given that a GE is almost always on a Thursday, we are talking about Saturday morning before an election. So that is the earliest warning rjt, unless the BDI is minded to change or moderate its secrecy (which would be asking alot if its camapign is based on secrecy, rumour, speculation and then an explosion of publicity).

Mrs Riley has promised a fight to the death unless we change our minds about having a party that doesn`t prevent people from putting up (although it might divert resources). If we do change the constitution, Lynn is promising not to rubbish us (or however the BDI choose to deal with us).

On existing Euro sceptics I tend to think that we need to keep the pressure on, though maybe we could be proactive. Kate Hoey et al might even allow us to join their campaign, if they campaigned on a ticket of getting off their backsides regarding their EU oppostion. Perhaps Lynn could give us some thoughts on this.

I`m leaning towards the John and Hatlepool stance. I don`t want to be rude to Lynn but I find the idea of suing reneging BDIers in contract (see other thread) quite risable. Are secret oaths going to now be found to be binding on MPs regarding their voting? What would be the remedy? Damages? Given to who? And how do you compensate someone for "loss of country"? Or would it be based on wasted campaign time and election help? Or would you get an injunction to insist on voting the way you promised next time a vote is offered.

Colin McNamee

mac1
Posted elsewhere under other Topics.

So what's new ? Nothing, just giving Lynn Riley space & ether time.

Tom Collier

Well, I suppose it is better we have it out now and decide where we stand than at a GE. My mind has never been completely closed to cooperation but not standing is a big request even on a voluntary basis and to have it as party policy is unacceptable to me. Could not standing be an option at a selection meeting?

It looks as if Lynn is going to have to go away and sharpen her daggers for our fight to the death but I am curious about the idea. I mean how will the BDIers respond to a question on their stance, if indeed it takes off.

for me secrecy + hype + inflated expectations re eurosceptics = Tories = staying in the EU.

Hartlepool

TC, I know you got it dead right there.

LR, declares herself as "conservative-ish" because she had no chance of denying it.

She brings on her call to support "unnamed BDI Candidates"

She wants UKIP,in this case,to "sign up" to BDI and swear not to stand against " unnamed BDI Candidates" on pain of .......?

She and BDI give nothing in this, but,those who do "sign up" with her and swear not to stand against "unnamed BDI Candidates" are self neutralising themselves by doing so.

Nice try Lady but no thanks,its a laughable idea that you present and you can take it elsewhere as far as some of us are concerned.