What should be the priority for UKIP right now?

cassie · 03-06-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Cassie: You are going around in circles. I am not aware, personally, of any sense in which my national identity has been diminished. The things that are important to me still exist; peace, tolerance and generosity of spirit. They are equally important to most other people who comprise the UK. I want them to continue for generations yet unborn, by the maintenance of our own institutions and an independent United Kingdom.

The creation of the UK was, to no small extent, the result of wars and the need to have a central foreign policy. Scotland (1707). Were we concerned about possible European alliances posing a military threat to our northern borders? Yes. Do you feel that
the Irish Act of Union (1800), and the abolition of the Irish Parliament, was unrelated to our concern about Irish military alliances with Continental powers? Unified, and enjoying the full security of being an Island, was to be the reward for all. This security increased further after Trafalgar in 1805. We hadn't created Heaven on earth, but we had avoided the worst excesses of Hell.

You want a separate English Parliament and Executive, but on a dark night, that could be mistaken for independence. If, in fact, you are talking about an EP with limited powers, de-facto that already exists. If you want identical, 'privileges' to the Wales and Scotland, we could have them. Should this governemnt, or a subsequent one, want free prescriptions, education grants, etc, etc, there is no legislative impediment why that shouldn't be realised.

It is absurd to argue that the 'poor old English' are not having a fair crack of the whip.
Mineral extraction, oil, coal, gas, etc, are subject to the ownership and discretion of the Crown. In reality, that means the English dominated Parliament at Westminster. If your, Constitution Summit, fails and we go our separate ways, are those things going to be equally divided? Water could be another problem; the reservoirs of central Wales supply Birmingham and much of the Midlands.

Making a list of grievances against the Welsh, Scots and Irish, is not wise. It merely provokes them to do the same. People, in the main, are satisfied with agreements which are broadly fair: a feeling of justice, is healthier than an egalitarian equality won by fighting over the final crumb. It doesn't worry me in the slightest, if Scots get free educational grants, or the Welsh free prescriptions: all quite peripheral to the important things in life. Don't meddle with the Constitution, that is dangerous and should be your
major objection to the EU. For more than 250 years, mainland Britain has not known civil war, violent revolution or occupation. No other major world power can make a similar boast. The USA, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain: the list is endless. Do you see why sound constitutions and good political judgement is important?

No, Geoffrey! YOU are going around in circles. It could help if you were to read what I actually write, and address that rather than your inventions.

________________________________

Geoffrey Collier · 03-06-2008, 06:32 PM

Cassie: You said that you want a separate Parliament not a separate England. In a subsequent posting you were quite resigned to the fact that England could/may become independent.

You still haven't explained why we can't spend our portion of health/education/social Budgets identically to the Scots, etc, if that is what the English want. Where injustices exist, law can be used to remedy some of those injustices. Law, however, is a blunt instrument and should be used sparingly. We suppose to be a pragmatic people, committed to the impiricist, not rationalist, school of philosophical thought. This urban pursuit of social justice (usually economic) is quite troubling.

Although, I am sure that it is not your intention, your line of political thought is more helpful to Brussels than to the good of the UK.

Niall Warry · 03-06-2008, 08:17 PM

The priority for UKIP now is to help get the UK out of the EU. This can best be achieved by applying pressure on existing MPs in Westminster, and continuing to educate the UK electorate about the evils of the EU. Anything else at the moment is just pure wishful thinking. Once we are out of the EU UKIP can try to become an alternative to the LibLabCon but I don't personally see this happening. More likely, once we are out of the EU( which we will be eventually with or without UKIPs help),there will be a realignment of the LibLabCon part of which will hopefully be attractive to the like of UKIPers. For UKIP to be putting any effort now into anything apart from a short term stragegy and tactics to leave the EU is just a complete waste of time and money.

Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.*

But are NIgel and his cabal listening??

cassie · 03-06-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Cassie: You said that you want a separate Parliament not a separate England. In a subsequent posting you were quite resigned to the fact that England could/may become independent.

You still haven't explained why we can't spend our portion of health/education/social Budgets identically to the Scots, etc, if that is what the English want.

Perhaps you'd kick off by telling us where our [England only] portions are to be found ring-fenced?

In case you hadn't noticed, Oh Mighty Constitutional Expert, MPs elected to represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are able to interfere with how our portion is spent. These MPs are constitutionally unable to interfere in the discharge of similar functions in their constituencies or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland as whole entities. These MPs include Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Des Browne, David Cairns Douglas Alexander, Kevin Brennan, Jim Fitzpatrick, Tom Harris ~ whilst Des Browne, David Cairns, Paul Murphy and Huw Irranca-Davies are able to represent Scotland and Wales in ways and to an extent that England as a nation is not represented.

I'm not really interested in addressing your other generalisations which indicate to me an inability to focus on tangible considerations, plus a failure of comprehension.

Where on earth did you get the notion that I am proposing anything which is not lawful, because your comments about "Where injustices exist, law can be used to remedy some of those injustices. Law, however, is a blunt instrument and should be used sparingly." imply other, unlawful measures. If that is not what you meant, they are redundant and, as such, not relevant.

_____________________________

Earthling · 03-06-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.N.Warry

The priority for UKIP now is to help get the UK out of the EU. This can best be achieved by applying pressure on existing MPs in Westminster, and continuing to educate the UK electorate about the evils of the EU. Anything else at the moment is just pure wishful thinking. Once we are out of the EU UKIP can try to become an alternative to the LibLabCon but I don't personally see this happening. More likely, once we are out of the EU( which we will be eventually with or without UKIPs help),there will be a realignment of the LibLabCon part of which will hopefully be attractive to the like of UKIPers. For UKIP to be putting any effort now into anything apart from a short term stragegy and tactics to leave the EU is just a complete waste of time and money.

Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.*

But are NIgel and his cabal listening??

I agree to an extent, but I don't see anything wrong in investing money into other policy areas. Sure, if we can get the leading parties to take us out of the EU then that is great. But where is the harm in making us an electable party and appealing to the wider voting public?

To be honest I would love it if we can reach Lib-Dem levels of support someday, or even getting 10% of the vote. The media could not ignore us and we would be in a sound influential position.

cassie · 04-06-2008, 09:33 AM

_______________________________________

SPECIAL NOTE FOR GEOFFREY:

Last evening on TV, I heard a report about the Yorkshire fisherman, in which a trawler owner from Scarborough complained that his fuel costs had doubled in a few months but his income was limited by quotas. He claimed that he had to throw back almost double the quantity of fish than he was permitted to land!

Austin Mitchell, MP for Grimsby, then appeared on camera saying that something needed to be done to help "English fishermen"! Imagine that . . . a Labour MP using the term English!!!! He said that the Scottish Parliament had contrived to find extra funds to help Scottish fisherman who had more generous quotas anyway! He also said that both the French and the Spanish governments already subsidised THEIR fishermen!

It is clear that no one, but no one takes similar responsibility for England and the English. THIS is but another example of why we need a separate parliament for England Geoffrey, rather than your confounded, let's roll over on our bellies for your "everyone other than the English" pragmatism! No it's not merely a grievance! It's an injustice which no proud and wise patriot should want to tolerate.

________________________________________

Bob FM · 04-06-2008, 09:58 AM

Well said, ironic isn't it. It is illegal under EU rules to subsidise companies to distort competition, it seems even the Scots, part of the UK European Membership seem to mange it. Mind you I guess it will be Britain PLC who will pick up the fine, not Scotland. By the way Cassie you are wasting your time with GC, he is a bitter and twisted NEC, wannabee.

Geoffrey Collier · 04-06-2008, 10:40 AM

Cassie: The very constitution under which our parliamentary system exists is an English one. Scotland, Wales and Ireland (subsequently NI) were admitted/absorbed into our parliament at Westminster. The parameters of their legal and conventional powers are decided at Westminster. You have not been able to identify any law or issue, in respect of the UK, which falls outside the competence of the Engish dominated parliament at Westminster. Give me an example of were that 'interference', about which you complain,
has imposed upon the English, laws which were not desired by a substantial number of English people. That is a totally different thing from saying that Westminster has not imposed laws upon us which we do not/did not want. When did this small group 117/645 ever impose their will?

Your reasoning is similar to many, who following WW2, blamed our lack of preparedness on the pacifist. When you inquire how did these people manage to succeed; what was their secret weapon /modus operandi, considering that a National Government existed which had 554 of the available 615 Westminster seats? What policy did the government want to pursue, which they could not pursue, despite their majority?
Like your argumernt, it is one which does not stand scrutiny.

The history of Wales, Scotland and Ireland is littered with Westminster legislation being imposed upon them despite fierce local opposition. Land ownership prohibitions, religious
impediments to voting and candidate selection, etc. Within the last decade, a Labour governmnet changed fundamentally the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland. In exchange for dissolving their own parliament in Edinburgh, representation was guaranteed in both the HoC and HoL at Westminster. The expulsion of hereditary peers from the HoL, made no allowanace for this constitutional obligation. The Conservatives didn't object, Heath complained that the reforms of the HoL didn't go far enough; it should have been abolished. I phoned the Executive Director of the Scotsman and brought it to his personal attention. What were you doing on that day Cassie, as you are so concerned about justice?

The electorate in Scotland, Wales, etc, vote on the basis of citizenship and residential
qualifications. Your 'ringed' English Parliament/Assembly would be based on the same criteria. All those resident Scots, Welsh, Irish (both north and south of the border) in England would produce a parliament, with those same defects as the one in Westminster about which you are complaining. You haven't identified which changes in legislation you would like, but are not able to bring them into fruition due to the present arrangement. Law, democracy, referenda, etc. are all blunt and limited instruments in the governance of mankind. Don't let it trouble you Cassie, there are much better causes to support.

Geoffrey Collier · 04-06-2008, 11:18 AM

Cassie and BobFM: Only just noticed your postings due to being interruted by a telephone call. It is a scandal that we agree to any interference from Brussels. I voted against remaining in the 'Common Market' in 1975, while a member of the Anti-Common Market League. A member of UKIP for fourteen years and involved in many various modes of action: I have been consistent in my opposition to the EU. How does that chronology compare with your involvements in the cause? I don't know; your records may be far better. The destruction of the Fishing Industry was the first price that we had to pay in order to sign the Treaty of Rome. Following the admission of Spain into the EU; their admission date, pre-dated the agreed date of accesss to British waters. This was deemed illegal under EU law, and we had to compensate Spanish fisherman. Why would I possibly disagree with changing injustices like the one identified by Cassie. My solution, however, is removing ourselves from the EU and its Parliament. Cassie seems to see our salvation in an English Parliament. What on earth could they do in this matter? Their remit would not cover foreign treaty negotiations. State your opinions and be tolerant of those of others. Abuse which lacks both wit or wisdom, adds little to any debate. Bof FM posts his ambition to enter Westminster as a UKIP MP. I hope that he acquires better debating skills before that, 'triumph at the polls'. As an ex-policeman youself, Bob FM, I think that we should arrange tutorials in Statecraft for you, from Twizzel.

YI MEMBER · 04-06-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.N.Warry

The priority for UKIP now is to help get the UK out of the EU. This can best be achieved by applying pressure on existing MPs in Westminster, and continuing to educate the UK electorate about the evils of the EU. Anything else at the moment is just pure wishful thinking. Once we are out of the EU UKIP can try to become an alternative to the LibLabCon but I don't personally see this happening. More likely, once we are out of the EU( which we will be eventually with or without UKIPs help),there will be a realignment of the LibLabCon part of which will hopefully be attractive to the like of UKIPers. For UKIP to be putting any effort now into anything apart from a short term stragegy and tactics to leave the EU is just a complete waste of time and money.

Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.*

But are NIgel and his cabal listening??

The only way to put pressure on Westminster is to take some of their votes, and do you seriously think people will vote if we declare UKIP to have no interest in actually taking power? You are shooting yourself in the foot here, I know that people in this party all have varying aims but whatever your aim, the only way to achieve it is to get more votes, and the only way to do that is to start appealing to a wider range of people.

04-06-2008, 09:58 AM	#37 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	Well Said Cassie Well said, ironic isn't it. It is illegal under EU rules to subsidise companies to distort competition, it seems even the Scots, part of the UK European Membership seem to mange it. Mind you I guess it will be Britain PLC who will pick up the fine, not Scotland. By the way Cassie you are wasting your time with GC, he is a bitter and twisted NEC, wannabee.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-06-2008, 06:32 PM	#32 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Cassie: You said that you want a separate Parliament not a separate England. In a subsequent posting you were quite resigned to the fact that England could/may become independent. You still haven't explained why we can't spend our portion of health/education/social Budgets identically to the Scots, etc, if that is what the English want. Where injustices exist, law can be used to remedy some of those injustices. Law, however, is a blunt instrument and should be used sparingly. We suppose to be a pragmatic people, committed to the impiricist, not rationalist, school of philosophical thought. This urban pursuit of social justice (usually economic) is quite troubling. Although, I am sure that it is not your intention, your line of political thought is more helpful to Brussels than to the good of the UK.

03-06-2008, 08:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
Niall Warry Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Somerset Posts: 1,675	The priority for UKIP now is to help get the UK out of the EU. This can best be achieved by applying pressure on existing MPs in Westminster, and continuing to educate the UK electorate about the evils of the EU. Anything else at the moment is just pure wishful thinking. Once we are out of the EU UKIP can try to become an alternative to the LibLabCon but I don't personally see this happening. More likely, once we are out of the EU( which we will be eventually with or without UKIPs help),there will be a realignment of the LibLabCon part of which will hopefully be attractive to the like of UKIPers. For UKIP to be putting any effort now into anything apart from a short term stragegy and tactics to leave the EU is just a complete waste of time and money. Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.* But are NIgel and his cabal listening??

04-06-2008, 09:33 AM	#36 (permalink)
cassie Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,324	_______________________________________ SPECIAL NOTE FOR GEOFFREY: Last evening on TV, I heard a report about the Yorkshire fisherman, in which a trawler owner from Scarborough complained that his fuel costs had doubled in a few months but his income was limited by quotas. He claimed that he had to throw back almost double the quantity of fish than he was permitted to land! Austin Mitchell, MP for Grimsby, then appeared on camera saying that something needed to be done to help "English fishermen"! Imagine that . . . a Labour MP using the term English!!!! He said that the Scottish Parliament had contrived to find extra funds to help Scottish fisherman who had more generous quotas anyway! He also said that both the French and the Spanish governments already subsidised THEIR fishermen! It is clear that no one, but no one takes similar responsibility for England and the English. THIS is but another example of why we need a separate parliament for England Geoffrey, rather than your confounded, let's roll over on our bellies for your "everyone other than the English" pragmatism! No it's not merely a grievance! It's an injustice which no proud and wise patriot should want to tolerate. ________________________________________

04-06-2008, 10:40 AM	#38 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Cassie: The very constitution under which our parliamentary system exists is an English one. Scotland, Wales and Ireland (subsequently NI) were admitted/absorbed into our parliament at Westminster. The parameters of their legal and conventional powers are decided at Westminster. You have not been able to identify any law or issue, in respect of the UK, which falls outside the competence of the Engish dominated parliament at Westminster. Give me an example of were that 'interference', about which you complain, has imposed upon the English, laws which were not desired by a substantial number of English people. That is a totally different thing from saying that Westminster has not imposed laws upon us which we do not/did not want. When did this small group 117/645 ever impose their will? Your reasoning is similar to many, who following WW2, blamed our lack of preparedness on the pacifist. When you inquire how did these people manage to succeed; what was their secret weapon /modus operandi, considering that a National Government existed which had 554 of the available 615 Westminster seats? What policy did the government want to pursue, which they could not pursue, despite their majority? Like your argumernt, it is one which does not stand scrutiny. The history of Wales, Scotland and Ireland is littered with Westminster legislation being imposed upon them despite fierce local opposition. Land ownership prohibitions, religious impediments to voting and candidate selection, etc. Within the last decade, a Labour governmnet changed fundamentally the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland. In exchange for dissolving their own parliament in Edinburgh, representation was guaranteed in both the HoC and HoL at Westminster. The expulsion of hereditary peers from the HoL, made no allowanace for this constitutional obligation. The Conservatives didn't object, Heath complained that the reforms of the HoL didn't go far enough; it should have been abolished. I phoned the Executive Director of the Scotsman and brought it to his personal attention. What were you doing on that day Cassie, as you are so concerned about justice? The electorate in Scotland, Wales, etc, vote on the basis of citizenship and residential qualifications. Your 'ringed' English Parliament/Assembly would be based on the same criteria. All those resident Scots, Welsh, Irish (both north and south of the border) in England would produce a parliament, with those same defects as the one in Westminster about which you are complaining. You haven't identified which changes in legislation you would like, but are not able to bring them into fruition due to the present arrangement. Law, democracy, referenda, etc. are all blunt and limited instruments in the governance of mankind. Don't let it trouble you Cassie, there are much better causes to support.

04-06-2008, 11:18 AM	#39 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Cassie and BobFM: Only just noticed your postings due to being interruted by a telephone call. It is a scandal that we agree to any interference from Brussels. I voted against remaining in the 'Common Market' in 1975, while a member of the Anti-Common Market League. A member of UKIP for fourteen years and involved in many various modes of action: I have been consistent in my opposition to the EU. How does that chronology compare with your involvements in the cause? I don't know; your records may be far better. The destruction of the Fishing Industry was the first price that we had to pay in order to sign the Treaty of Rome. Following the admission of Spain into the EU; their admission date, pre-dated the agreed date of accesss to British waters. This was deemed illegal under EU law, and we had to compensate Spanish fisherman. Why would I possibly disagree with changing injustices like the one identified by Cassie. My solution, however, is removing ourselves from the EU and its Parliament. Cassie seems to see our salvation in an English Parliament. What on earth could they do in this matter? Their remit would not cover foreign treaty negotiations. State your opinions and be tolerant of those of others. Abuse which lacks both wit or wisdom, adds little to any debate. Bof FM posts his ambition to enter Westminster as a UKIP MP. I hope that he acquires better debating skills before that, 'triumph at the polls'. As an ex-policeman youself, Bob FM, I think that we should arrange tutorials in Statecraft for you, from Twizzel.