Originally Posted by chikrodah

2. Provide us with evidentiary proof of your allegations re the members of other parties, or don't make them. Just because DN labels these people as such, based on his own values and beliefs, does not make these accusations facts.

As someone with 9 years military service, I actually agree with you regarding the destruction of our armed forces. I've managed to make Alaistair Darling look stupid on prime time TV by making that very point. However, I wasn't aware we were at war with the Iranian Navy. Thank you for letting us know the latest turn of events.

3. I've never claimed to represent the British nation. Why should I?

4. What exactly is UKIP supposed to have lost? Which leader is/was the incompetent alcoholic? Which electoral result are you talking about? UKIP is a small party whose own grass roots cannot agree to work together in some parts of the country, whose branches are riddled with those who believe pet obsessions are better than long-term goals, who believe in the cult of the celebrity rather than teamwork. It's not surprising that it has few councillors; it's difficult enough for Tories, Labour and Lib Dems to get seats in wards that traditionally vote for another party and that's with all the publicity and money at their disposal. UKIP is actually doing reasonably well for this stage in its development.

5. What Polish jokes have I ever used against you? What lies (other than having a different point of view to your own)? Provide your evidence and while you are at it, provide your evidence for my wanting to become a Commissioner (?!?) or for the EU being aware enough that you exist to want to persecute you in the first place.

6. Why am I even bothering to have this conversation? You and the others who have this weird belief that those who don't slavishly agree with you are traitors, purveyors of disinformatzia, DVD operatives usw. will never manage to hold a decent debate on any subject. You can't put forward rational arguments based on facts, you can't debate on an intellectual level, you can't read a bureaucratic document without wilfully misinterpreting its clauses. You want to foment revolution rather than work legally. You want to use guerilla tactics when they are inappropriate and counter-productive. You want to use spin, not fact; you want to panic, not educate. If I said "Say hello to Old Major for me, Napoleon", would you even know what I meant?

Originally Posted by davidnoakes

You make a good point:

"Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed."

Quite right. People like Hitler and Stalin just got away with it.

The important thing is to recognise the new threat in time, not when its too late, like last time.

The EU has six constitituional treaties that build a dictatorship, and the laws of a police state.

That's the message we need to get out.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

The thing is chidrokah, that irrespective of who is right or wrong about acceptable and decent debate, you and Aardvark seem de-motivated to say the least.

I have some sympathy for Aardvark - it looks like the stresses of fighting these personal battles late in life have taken their toll on him when he should maybe be supporting UKIP but putting his feet up out of the front line.

I'm not sure whether you're standing or not, but again, you don't particularly show any passion to oppose the EU as a matter of priority.

What for example do you think are the most important issues to the key of UKIP's success in the future and your unique selling point as a party ?
How do you think you CAN win ?

Will you be personally standing yourself ?

Originally Posted by Millennium3

DN. Back at post 45 I asked you:

C has given me a link to Article 188n which I cannot open as I have a Mac without the necessary software:

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/do...CLE%20188N.mht

If there is something in this Article that you believe prevents us from leaving could you say what it is.

Since then it has emerged that there are two Articles relating to a nation withdrawing one which appears to relate to agreement after QMV takes effect:

'Practically, that means 15 out of the current 27 member states need to vote in favour of withdrawal. The EP would then have an opportunity to use the audience participation style voting system to register its opinion.'

Which seems to be in conflict with:

'irrespective of any agreement in Council or EP, irrespective of completed withdrawal negotiations, the Treaty (and our membership) ceases to have effect 2 years after our notification of intention to withdraw.'

My interest is simple and practical. If a majority in the House of Commons wanted to leave the EU could this be done legally now, after the LT has been ratified and after QMV takes effect.