Andrew Constantine

Martin

I respect the sincerity behind your above post and it deserves a proper reply

Something we disgaree on is that I insist that England should have its own Parliament, now that the other home nations have their Parliaments or National Assemblies. It is not just about the signs/symbols of nationhood, although that also is vital for me. But while England does not have her own Parliament, Engalnd will be disadvantaged by the three main parties trying to bribe the electorate (at our expense) in the other home nations.

In reply to your main point, I note that it is a rare and fortunate event when idealism and party political advantage go together. But even when I was a member of UKIP (and used to post on this forum as such) I argued strongly that the cause of England (not the UK) quitting the EU was not only the right thing for reasons of principle, but was also the most assured way of our quitting the EU.

A former well respected UKIP member said to me recently "You know what the most important thing the English Democrats have going for them is...it is the logo of the Cross of St George (i.e. the English Flag)".

So I believe that if some of the home nations of the UK are to leave the EU, it will be combining nationalism and the desire for democracy. Nationalism can a very powerful force for most people: it can motivate ordinary people to do extraordinary things. The anti-EU forces in the UK need to harness nationalism; UKIP gets damn all from its members and the voters in NI, Scotland and Wales. Its power base is in England, so identify yourselves with England.

Fault my logic if you can.

Andrew Constantine

Andrew Constantine

When the EU commission says that the principle of subsidiarity allows it to delegate some competance back to the nation states (not many such examples spring to mind!), then it is still retaining sovereignty over the issue.

The EU is an undemocratic supranational state, run for the benefit of its officials and a few member states which either set the agenda (e.g. France) or receive a shed load of money (e.g. Poland).

There is no compromise for the UK. If we want our parliamentary democracy to be real, then we have to withdraw from the EU and take back competance on that long list of key policy areas that we have given away (e.g. trade, environment, fishing, agriculture, taxation areas such as VAT, the social chapter etc).

What is the point of people voting for UKIP if your MEPs go native and try to improve the EU from within? What difference is there in these circumstances between a UKIP MEP and a Tory MEP? The latter is a Unionist who wants to improve the EU from within; looks like the former is too.

Andrew Constantine

Andrew Constantine

Bluemerle

Some of the great politicians of the 20th centrury were small and uncharismatic figures e.g. Atlee or Trueman.

The major problem I see is the long succession of British politicians who when they make it to the top in the UK decide to become "statesmen". They get the hands on the levers of power and instead of making things better for us think that they can be major international figures showing leadership of the EU, NATO or on big issues such as Africa or climate change.

I look forward to our having an English government of ordinary citizens that wants out of the EU, and does nor care too much about the UN, or NATO or any big issues but simply tries to mend our nation. It might well be very successful.

The vanity statesmen like Blair leave us with problems like Iraq. Bring on the citizen politicians.

Andrew Constantine

Martin Harvey

Andrew Constantine wrote;

'UKIP gets damn all from its members and the voters in NI, Scotland and Wales. Its power base is in England, so identify yourselves with England.'

Andrew, you do make a very good case, but UKIP does have some support in NI, Scotland and Wales, and even I have had personal experience of that support. We must always remember that the vote for the Welsh Assembly was rigged, and my information is that the Welsh people do not wish to be separated from England. Although UKIP does have its major strengths in England, I personally believe in the 'United Kingdom', and whatever and whenever happens regarding the return of our Independent government at Westminster, UKIP should honour the loyal support and help given by the aforementioned three, by remaining open for their 'repatriation'. I am certain that the EU would eventually neglect all three, and anyway just as with 'English' Regions, it is all part of the EU plan of 'Divide and Conquer'.

Martin Harvey.

tito

I would be quite offended if a party decided my support in Wales was invalid.

As for a charismatic leader: I feel Del Young would make a good candidate, and we've always got Dai Llewellyn!

The allegations seem to be quite important, but yet again the internal opposition are not willing to resolve issue democratically.

If Knapman thinks it is a serious issue why didn't he put it forward on his NEC re-election attempt.

brian lee

Martin Harvey wroteI suppose Martin was referring to Ken Bennett and myself.

However, in Essex in the last local elections, UKIP ran 21 candidates and the EDP ran 6. Out of the 27, the EDP came first with the candidate supported by Ken Bennett and myself with over 30% of the vote. Second was Robin Tilbrook, EDP with 18%. Third was my friend Ron Hurrell, UKIP with 17%. Fourth was Ray Brown, EDP with 16%. Fifteenth was Martin Harvey, UKIP with 7.35%. Last was Charlie Cole, the UKIP Regional Organiser appointed by Tom Wise MEP, salary paid for by the EU, with 3.37%.

In December 2006 Martin postedMartin is being loyal to the many UKIP activists but UKIP is not being loyal to them.

Anyway, according to the policy made by the non-elected Bannerman, UKIP doesn't want an English Parliament.

eublues

As I understand it, UKIP MEPs have always voted in the European Parliament according to what is seen as pragmatically advantageous to the British people and/or likely to be damaging to the EU.

That is, they have never taken a absolutist, non-cooperation position.

I am therefore unclear why this Bucharest thing is a departure from existing practice.

brian lee

In answer to eublues, yes the UKIP MEPs original policy was to vote against everything unless a policy would benefit the British people.

They also joined with politicians from European parties that did not share UKIP's policy of complete withdrawal. They also joined committees.

The only policy for UKIP MEPs once they decided to go was of complete non-co-operation.

GLW suggested their policy should have been to take the mickey completely by voting for the motions in a preselected order, such as:
For, Abstain, Against on one day and Against, Abstain, For on the next day. In his opinion that was the only way to show utter contept for the EU Parliament. But once they joined committees they were hooked. - They had give the EU legitimacy.

eublues

I can't see that Knapman has a credible case.

His talk of needing to be in the UK to fight the EU is unconvincing - particularly from him.

TonyG

Maybe he had to be in the UK to supervise his Polish builders?

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm