Christmas comes early for UKIP

Nigel Farage appears utterly delighted with the EU commission's Christmas present to him .... dropping a £1.7bn bill on the UK.

BBC link

David Cameron, of course, is not so delighted, this appearing a few weeks before a highly contentious by-election (Rochester and Stroud) after ex-Tory MP Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and resigned his seat, forcing a by-election. And a by-election, by the way, Farage is now saying he is "confident" they will win.

The worry, for Cameron, is that if UKIP do win, it may trigger either more defections, or possibly even a leadership challenge (though I find that latter very unlikely 7 months before a general election).

But whatever happens, it's a gift for Farage, with no downside. And it'll be the gift that keeps on giving. Cameron can't win this one. If he pays, he hands UKIP a wonderful stick to beat him with, and if he refuses to pay, the on-going dispute with the EU and the resultant news coverage will hand Farage a wonderful anti-EU stick to beat him with.

Happy Christmas, Nigel.

It's a pity some of the detail has been drowned out by the media knee jerk. It's actually a routine budget adjustment, apparently, and needs to be agreed by the European countries anyway.

Our government will have been very well aware of it coming, but perhaps not the quantum involved - which is eyebrow raising to say the least. And it's not just the UK that's unhappy - just look at Italy and Holland!

Yeah it's the way it's been presented and timing that's the issue - I'd say someone in the EU parliament wanted to stitch Cameron up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

It's a pity some of the detail has been drowned out by the media knee jerk. It's actually a routine budget adjustment, apparently, and needs to be agreed by the European countries anyway.

Our government will have been very well aware of it coming, but perhaps not the quantum involved - which is eyebrow raising to say the least. And it's not just the UK that's unhappy - just look at Italy and Holland!

---

And Greece, even. Because they're not deep enough in financial s.... erm, trouble, already. Presumably, they'll yse some of the EU bailout funds to pay the £70m the EU wants back.

£1.7b is very far from routine!!!!! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Yeah it's the way it's been presented and timing that's the issue - I'd say someone in the EU parliament wanted to stitch Cameron up.

---

You might well think that. It either stinks, or is one hell of a coincidence.

But if I was being very cynical, I might suggest that the EU commission wants to maximuse UKIP votes, and minimise Tory ones, in the General Election, with the intent of killing off any chance of a Tory victory and the EU exit referendum we've been promised if they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cam1986

£1.7b is very far from routine!!!!! lol

---

Budget adjustments are routine. The statistical basis has changed, with UK agreement, and this represents about 20 years of accumulated underpayments, by that agreed new method.

What truly stinks is being given that size bill, and a Dec 1st due date.

I know it's over simplifying, but it would be interesting to see people's reaction to this and compare it their own "tax the rich" views within the country now that the shoe's on the other foot.

Given that Germany are lined up for a whacking great rebate, I think that might be oversimplifying a touch.

It is interesting though. Cameron's stuck between a rock and a hard place, and this could be the biggest test he'll face in the entire time he's PM.

I haven't followed this on the news at all, and quite frankly I'm struggling to understand it all.

Could someone please put this whole thing into "simple terms"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoonigan

I haven't followed this on the news at all, and quite frankly I'm struggling to understand it all.

Could someone please put this whole thing into "simple terms"?

---

As I understand it, its really that the EU has a budget process that works out how much each member state should contribute to the running of the EU. That's done on the basis of the relative wealth and prosperity of each country.

Relatively recently the EU countries, UK included, agreed that the basis year to be used for calculating their relative wealth and prosperity should be 1995.

Every now and again the timetable of the EU financial management system sets up a budget review to check what each country should be contributing by having a look again at the relative wealth and prosperity. This timetable is well known by each country and so the budget revision is not in itself an unexpected thing.

What's happened here is that a routine review has taken into account the black economy as well as the visible economy when assessing things and has taken the agreed 1995 base line as the start point.

It is on that basis that the amendments to charges have been calculated, and they inevitably involve an amount of retrospective amendment because of the use of the base line.

Hope that helps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

What's happened here is that a routine review has taken into account the black economy as well as the visible economy when assessing things and has taken the agreed 1995 base line as the start point.

It is on that basis that the amendments to charges have been calculated, and they inevitably involve an amount of retrospective amendment because of the use of the base line.

Hope that helps!

---

All true. Yet basically underlines the socialist underpinnings of the big-government EU. Tax success, reward failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Budget adjustments are routine. The statistical basis has changed, with UK agreement, and this represents about 20 years of accumulated underpayments, by that agreed new method.

What truly stinks is being given that size bill, and a Dec 1st due date.

---

Still, £1.7b is far from routine! Def not the norm and a total shock to the country!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

All true. Yet basically underlines the socialist underpinnings of the big-government EU. Tax success, reward failure.

---

Otherwise known as making the rich pay more than the poor - there is no success/failure measure in here.

I don't understand why they're using 20 year old economic performance as a base line for calculating the money we contribute today - it seems completely bizarre. Surely the last fiscal year's figures would be a much better stick by which to gauge how much everyone contributes?

I must admit I was an idealistic pro-Euro supporter some 10 years ago, but has time as moved on I'm becoming more and more jaded to the reality of what we actually have. I still support the idea of some kind of union in principal, but the lack of financial auditing and remote democratic process completely disengaged with the populations of the member states is making me think we'd be better off out of the whole thing in its present form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk

I don't understand why they're using 20 year old economic performance as a base line for calculating the money we contribute today - it seems completely bizarre. Surely the last fiscal year's figures would be a much better stick by which to gauge how much everyone contributes?

---

The baseline is just that - the starting point that set the initial contribution. Changes since then are taken into account, hence the reviews, and the last fiscal years figures are what the final amounts are based on. This amount has been reduced for us in the past. This new demand is just a correction for the way the figures are calculated that makes sure the calculation is the same across Europe.

The sub-text to this though is that they've included estimates off things like prostitution and drug dealing, and saying that means a country should pay more money. It sounds ludicrous that a country should owe more because it's not very good at getting crime under control.

I'm curious what UKIP's game is with this annoucement as well, making a statement that Cameron can't actually do anything to stop this seems to be acknowledging that he's in a bad position and can't get out of it directly. Best guess would be pushing for some form of UKIP/Tory coallition come the next election, particularly if UKIP look to be close to overtipping a Labour majority in certain seats and the Tory's agree not to contest them.

looks like the EU is campaigning for UKIP for the next election :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio

The sub-text to this though is that they've included estimates off things like prostitution and drug dealing, and saying that means a country should pay more money. It sounds ludicrous that a country should owe more because it's not very good at getting crime under control.

---

Well, as the courts found some years ago, even if earnings are derived from an illegal activity (in that case it was living off the proceeds of prostitution) they are taxable. In other words, money is money, income is income and wealth is wealth no matter how it is generated and the state has a right to tax it on behalf of the people. It follows that it should be treated as such when you do the big sums of what the economic activity of a country is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk

I don't understand why they're using 20 year old economic performance as a base line for calculating the money we contribute today - it seems completely bizarre. Surely the last fiscal year's figures would be a much better stick by which to gauge how much everyone contributes?

---

As far as I understand the 1995 base line is used because that is what the EU states wanted - in particular the UK government because they thought it reduce the amount to be paid. And anyway, as long as the same base line is used for everyone and is what everyone agreed, it can't really be quibbled with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

And anyway, as long as the same base line is used for everyone and is what everyone agreed, it can't really be quibbled with.

---

There was a conservative on the news this morning who said other states had ignored similar demands from the EU. Including Germany in 2003 who were handed a bill and didn't pay.
It does appear to be terrible timing for Cameron, i doubt Farrage and Wreckless will mind this bombshell one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy3536

There was a conservative on the news this morning who said other states had ignored similar demands from the EU. Including Germany in 2003 who were handed a bill and didn't pay.
It does appear to be terrible timing for Cameron, i doubt Farrage and Wreckless will mind this bombshell one bit.

---

Again, too much noise and not enough fact. These sort of demands aren't exactly enforceable and have been ignored, sidestepped or delayed in the past - it underlines that this is a long established system which everyone in government will have known all. It says more about the Treasury than it does about the EU.

As for Cameron - his red faced press conference when he was trying to out-angry Farage clearly showed that he is fully willing and able to play to the UKIP/Tory gallery for party political reasons. Rather, he should act as a statesman on the international stage doing the right thing for his country, like calmly assess the situation and explain the approach he is going to take with it.

God, I hate Nigel Farage, just when I see him on TV I can tell he's hiding / avoiding / or I just get the feeling he's really devious.

Although this bill of 1.7 Billion is only a suggestion, so it can be reduced. Plus, going off Wikipedia article the UKspending on defence was $57.9 Billion it doesn't seem *that much*

I too think that the press have reacted incorrectly here and giving Farage an opportunity of recent times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrComputerSaint

God, I hate Nigel Farage, just when I see him on TV I can tell he's hiding / avoiding / or I just get the feeling he's really devious.

Although this bill of 1.7 Billion is only a suggestion, so it can be reduced. Plus, going off Wikipedia article the UKspending on defence was $57.9 Billion it doesn't seem *that much*

.

---

Add it on top of the £8.6 billion we're already paying? What do WE in the UK get? Not much. Southern Europe get roads, the mafia get big road contracts, Guadeloupe gets a music festival, UK gets very little.

This worries me, not because of how much money we supposedly owe, but because it gives UKIP a way to get their foot a couple more inches into the door jam. They've already gone further towards being seen as viable candidates than I'd like. Flying the anti-Europe flag is just another way to garner more support from people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxville

people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen :(

---

Just a trashy ad hominem attack on those who are anti-EU. \'people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines\'

If I said \'self-righteous trendy naive fools with a low IQ induced by headbanging who havn\'t paid any attention to political events beyond BBC brainwashing\', that would be rude, but of a similar level of political debate. So please stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxville

This worries me, not because of how much money we supposedly owe, but because it gives UKIP a way to get their foot a couple more inches into the door jam. They've already gone further towards being seen as viable candidates than I'd like. Flying the anti-Europe flag is just another way to garner more support from people that don't really understand the level of idiocy they're legitimising by even considering voting for them.

Throw in a generation of people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines, blaming immigrants for them not having jobs instead of their own poor work ethic and seem to be under the impression (based on the radio interviews I've heard today at any rate) that the EU is the reason we consistently undercut our own public services and all I see is an accident waiting to happen :(

---

I\'m sceptical of pretty much anything printed in the Daily Mail, and I\'m also sceptical of the EU\'s competency, neoliberalism\'s efficacy for the common folk, and the long term health of the national and global economy with both of those imposed on any country. Care to generalise me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Just a trashy ad hominem attack .....

---

Or, perhaps, an assertoric judgement presented with a veneer of apodicticity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Or, perhaps, an assertoric judgement presented with a veneer of apodicticity.

---

True, but I did have to read some Aristotle before I had a clue what you were on about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Otherwise known as making the rich pay more than the poor - there is no success/failure measure in here.

---

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

---

That's up to the UK to decide. The EU doesn't tell member states how to raise their contributions.

Quote:

---

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

---

I don't think the EU was set up to protect the poor. That's something the UK govt. should be able to do on it's own without assistance from the EU.

Quote:

---

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

---

So you would turn down an offer that's better for your own country, simply because another country would also benefit even more? That's cutting your nose off to spite your face. For starters, I don't think Germany is getting a better deal from the EU, but even if it were, so what? If there's a net benefit to the UK for being part of it then we shouldn't be so concerned about the other countries unless it's significantly affecting our benefit.

But that's a wider question of EU membership or not. This particular news story is about making sure the EU countries all measure their GDP in the same way, something we weren't doing before. Only then can you assess which countries are richer/poorer, and thus negotiate contributions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

---

Crude it may be, but it still comes back to the Christian principle of giving according to your means in order to benefit the collective. That the collective in this case is really just a cabal of self interest masquerading as enlightened governance is just a fact of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

But it's so crude to apply such terms to whole countries, who do you think is going to be hit worst by this massive bill? The rich in the UK or the poor in the UK?

If you simply reduce government spending with no other measures (like raising the personal allowance) it is always going to hit the poor hardest. The EU aren't going to protect the poor in the UK.

Even if we are looking at whole countries, Germany is surely the richest in Europe and they get a better deal than us, even if we totally ignore these latest recalculations.

---

Agreed, but on the last sentence, there's another way of looking at this.

If all members of the EU are supposed to be treated by the same rules, and 'fairness' would suggest that they are, then those rules ought to be applied consistently, regardless of the wealth or poverty of the country. Other EU rules are supposed to deal with how EU funds are distributed, but we have rules on the expected contributions based on the state of the economy, and every country should be subject to an identical statistical basis for determining that. We all should be including the same things in the calculation, and assessing them in the same way.

But we haven't been.

And that's the issue.

It's like income tax, in this country. If your income tax included not just your wages from your primary job, but the income from the market stall you run on Saturday, but your next-door neighbour paid as you do on his main job, but wasn't taxed on his Saturday market stall income, you'd be .... irrirated. As hell. You'd expect that either he gets a back-dated tax bill to cover previous years he hadn't paid, or you got a refund of tax you'd overpaid. I'm sure nearly everyone would prefer the refund. But whatever else, you'd expect you both to be treated the same. So would I. How else is it 'fair'?

And that's essentially what this bill is. After a statistical reassessment, this is an attempt to measure all member state's economies in the same way, and to determine contributions or rebates consistently, and fairly.

And it just so happens that the UK gets a big bill. But why? Because, due to past inconsistencies, we've underpaid, by the rules we agreed to, in the past. If this recalculation had showed we'd overpaid in the past, I'll bet my left gonad that there'd be a huge clamour to get our overpayment back, and we'd be thoroughly annoyed if countries that had underpaid bitched about paying what they should have. Like Germany is.

If we were due money back, UKIP would be having a field day with it, and so would politicians from just about every other party from Lab/Tory, to Monster Raving Loony.

As many regulars will know, I'm no fan of the EU. At the very least, I'm grossly offended by our political elite signing us up to an EU we, the people, have never authorised. At an absolute minimum, I want a national debate, and a referendum. Either our membership has the mandate from the people, or it has NO democratic legitimacy. And, in such a debate, I believe a clear case can be made for exit, but while clear, whether it's better than the clear case for staying in remains to be seen. There are pro's and con's both ways, just like Scottish independence, and quite where the balance lies is far from a no-brainer.

But if we are in, and right now we are, the rules need to be fair and consistent to all, and we ought to abide by them. Even if others don't. And, by the way, the fact that some others regularly don't abide by the rules is one smallish point in the 'exit' column, come the referendum debate.

IMHO, the UK will end up paying this. Cameron has some justification in being angry about being ambushed with it, and about being given a bill and a due date in about 5 minutes, so can object to the timetable, but it's hard to see a coherent logic behind not paying our 'fair' share. We did, after all, sign up (apparently, though we, the people, weren't told) to the statistical review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

That's up to the UK to decide. The EU doesn't tell member states how to raise their contributions.

---

The money has been raised already, the UK isn't going to come up with a new tax between now and December 1st. What changes is that the UK government has less to spend. It is a fact that the poor benefit more from government spending than the rich and therefore the poor have the most to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I don't think the EU was set up to protect the poor.

---

Actually it was. Not the sole objective of course, but certainly one of the central aims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

So you would turn down an offer that's better for your own country, simply because another country would also benefit even more?

---

What offer am I turning down?
I'd turn down paying £1.7bn quite happily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

The money has been raised already, the UK isn't going to come up with a new tax between now and December 1st.

---

Then why assume that they will cut spending either? As always, variation in the income vs spending is covered by borrowing more or less. Whose to say that there won't be some arrangement that'll enable us to defer payment in real terms via lending.

Quote:

---

What changes is that the UK government has less to spend. It is a fact that the poor benefit more from government spending than the rich and therefore the poor have the most to lose.

---

The govt. chooses how it raises it money and what proportion it gets from tax vs spending, not the EU.

Quote:

---

What offer am I turning down?
I'd turn down paying £1.7bn quite happily.

---

Even if that meant throwing away a net gain of say £10bn somewhere else? That wouldn't make sense.

@Saracen

The trouble with the concept of fairness is that no-one can define what it means.

Some people think it means treating everyone equally, others think it means making allowances for every difference. Realistically we go for some form of compromise where major differences are accounted for but smaller differences are ignored. Of course this still leaves a lot of scope for disagreement on which differences should count and how much they should count by.

I haven't even touched upon the "fairness" of this latest development. I've pointed out that it will likely hurt the poor more and that many regard the existing contributions as unfair. The EU even admits this in the form of the UK rebate.

Borrowing more is the very last thing the government wants to be doing right now. The UK cannot afford more debt.

The government cannot choose how it raises the money if the payment is suddenly sprung upon it. To be able to choose you have to be able to plan ahead.

If there was a convincing argument that there would be a £10bn gain then that would be fair enough. However that would very hard to do.

Has it really been 'sprung' upon us? Either someone at the EU needs a kicking or someone at No 11 needs a kicking.

Meanwhile. Drove round Northern Crete on hols in Sept. Very nice it was too. Every other lovely new road was proudly EU funded. Come back to UK to congested potholed gridlock hell. What goes around isn't coming around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

@Saracen

The trouble with the concept of fairness is that no-one can define what it means.

Some people think it means treating everyone equally, others think it means making allowances for every difference. Realistically we go for some form of compromise where major differences are accounted for but smaller differences are ignored. Of course this still leaves a lot of scope for disagreement on which differences should count and how much they should count by.

I haven't even touched upon the "fairness" of this latest development. I've pointed out that it will likely hurt the poor more and that many regard the existing contributions as unfair. The EU even admits this in the form of the UK rebate.

---

Agreed, but surely any sensible basis for assessment of economic performance means you include the same things in every country, and crunch the numbers in the same way.

The "fairness" should come in how you determine what to do with pots of money the EU has to dish out, so, grants, structural funding, etc.

Bear in mind, the EU largely takes with one hand and gives out with the other. Even the big net contributors, like the UK, get quite a large proportion of contributions made back in funding of various types.

So, everybody's economy should be assessed by including the same things, excluding the same things, and running the numbers in an identical fashion. You can then be "fair" in how you divvy up the pie. And surely, THAT is where fairness gets decided, not in biasing calculations by using a different basis for stats. If you want to use stats for comparative purposes, you have to use the same basis everywhere.

That's exactly what I meant when I said Germany get a better deal than us. Despite being a rich country and contributing a lot they get an awful lot more back than we do.

The UK and the Netherlands are already the two countries who are worst off, this latest development, even thought it may be fair in terms of contributions is just pouring salt on the wound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

That's exactly what I meant when I said Germany get a better deal than us. Despite being a rich country and contributing a lot they get an awful lot more back than we do.

---

In what way? I'd argue it's probably the opposite as we get a very generous rebate. Germany, France and Italy likely pay quite a lot more than we do.

Quote:

---

The UK and the Netherlands are already the two countries who are worst off, this latest development, even thought it may be fair in terms of contributions is just pouring salt on the wound.

---

Are we talking about the same EU here? The UK is one of the richer countries in the EU, it's nowhere near the bottom two. I think we're on track to be basically the second richest soon, if we're not already.

Worst off in terms of funding received / contributions made.

Yes we probably are on track to become the second richest the way France is going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Worst off in terms of funding received / contributions made.

Yes we probably are on track to become the second richest the way France is going.

---

We are, consistently, one of the larger net contributors, yes. And that's despite getting the highly contentious rebate. Or rather, we are in absolute terms. But tyen, we're also one of the largest, population-wise, with (IIRC) Germany the largest (80m-ish) and with us at about 63m, we're a hair smaller than France. But the Dutch could make a compelling argument for being the most hard done by, if you look at net contribution/rebate, per capita .... as a Dutch friend regularly reminds me. ;)

The Dutch also got hit hardest by this 'recalculation', in per capita terms. Though not by a lot.

The point I was making, though, is that those with the biggest bill to pay are those that, due to calculation inconsistencies, have got away with underpaying by the most.

It seems to me there's two comoletely different issues :-

1) Does the UK get value for money from the EU, being a huge net contributor? I'm inclined to think not, but it's an argument beyond the scope of this thread.

2) Is this 'recalculation', and the bill it gives us, "fair"?

And on 2), if it's come about by finally reconciling the different ways EU member states do their stats, then yeah, it's fair. We all ought to be measuring our economies on the ssme, consistent basis. And weren't.

I do wonder, though .... we've been in the Common Market/EEC/EU for north of 40 flaming years. Has it REALLY taken Brussels that long to notice they don't measure economies the same way accross the 'union', and do something about it? If so, it's utter, rank incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Just a trashy ad hominem attack on those who are anti-EU. 'people with no attention span and a largely mediocre education that have grown up believing Daily Mail headlines'

If I said 'self-righteous trendy naive fools with a low IQ induced by headbanging who havn't paid any attention to political events beyond BBC brainwashing', that would be rude, but of a similar level of political debate. So please stop it.

---

Actually the interviews I heard were on Planet Rock not the BBC, however clearly I misunderstood the well thought out and unassailable logic presented by those being interviewed, perhaps it's all the headbanging I do on the A38 on my way home :P

It appears my can of cats is open and the pigeons are everywhere... It was not my intention to make sweeping generalisations about people that are anit-EU, however I do feel that the description I gave sums up 99% of all UKIP and BNP supporters I have ever heard string together a sentence and I will defend that generalisation to the hilt based on personal experience.

They don't understand why they're against the EU, they just are because "what do we pay them for?" and you know what, nobody ever explained what exactly we pay money into it for at my school either so if someone has some salient points to make about it I will happily listen.

What I won't do is sit and force a smile while more and more voters gravitate towards political parties that will do more harm than good with any modicum of power that they end up with because they agree with one item on the agenda and don't bother reading the rest. Which is exactly what I see happening amongst my peers. It worries me that a vote can be bought with a few pictures of Spitfires and British Bulldogs, a bit of Europe bashing and the promise that all those Johnny foreigners that have been stealing your jobs will be shipped home. These are people I wouldn't trust with a loaded potato gun let alone a nation and I dislike seeing them with more ammuntion than they already have regardless of where it comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxville

Actually the interviews I heard were on Planet Rock not the BBC, however clearly I misunderstood the well thought out and unassailable logic presented by those being interviewed, perhaps it's all the headbanging I do on the A38 on my way home :P

It appears my can of cats is open and the pigeons are everywhere... It was not my intention to make sweeping generalisations about people that are anit-EU, however I do feel that the description I gave sums up 99% of all UKIP and BNP supporters I have ever heard string together a sentence and I will defend that generalisation to the hilt based on personal experience.

They don't understand why they're against the EU, they just are because "what do we pay them for?" and you know what, nobody ever explained what exactly we pay money into it for at my school either so if someone has some salient points to make about it I will happily listen.

What I won't do is sit and force a smile while more and more voters gravitate towards political parties that will do more harm than good with any modicum of power that they end up with because they agree with one item on the agenda and don't bother reading the rest. Which is exactly what I see happening amongst my peers. It worries me that a vote can be bought with a few pictures of Spitfires and British Bulldogs, a bit of Europe bashing and the promise that all those Johnny foreigners that have been stealing your jobs will be shipped home. These are people I wouldn't trust with a loaded potato gun let alone a nation and I dislike seeing them with more ammuntion than they already have regardless of where it comes from.

---

Most people that vote for UKIP arn't doing so as they really think it's a wise choice for UKIP to have power. They are doing so as they don't like the EU, just as someone doesn't like the EU, and holds a different opinion to you. Doesn't make them racist BNP supporters now does it!
People don't like the EU as it's a massive waste of money and those that hold the power are completly unacountable to the people of Europe.
If we had a referendum in the EU (like we were promised a number of times) then UKIPs political force would dissapear. Whichever way the vote went.
If the vote was to stay in europe UKIPs whole reason for being would be undermined, and if the vote was to leave then most sensible voters would go back normal polotics.
But as very large numbers of the population are anti EU (not all racists believe it or not!), and are being ignored and have been for years then UKIP will continue to do well.
If the conservatives want to win the general election then they just need to push the EU referendum forward to before the general election. I still don't think there will be a referendum on the EU despite the promises.
Even if we do get a vote it'll no doubt be like Ireland and referendums will keep coming untill there's the vote that polotitions want, or like Portugal & any other coutry that were given the vote and voted no they'll just be ignored.
The EU is just about the most corrupt and undemocratic political organisation going. How anyone can think that is a good idea is beyond me.

Knox, people voting for UKIP do so for a variety of reasons. There may be one core issue, there may be several, or it might be a variety of factors. Putting it all down to either bigoted anti-immigration or irrational anti-EU views misses the point. There are many reasons for wanting out of the EU, and by no means all if them are even economic.

And yet another group are starting to vote UKIP precusely because they aren't the other two main parties.

However you cut it, all sorts of disparate groups vote UKIP for different reasons. In the past, UKIP support came primarily from those with Tory inclinations. THAT is no longer true. For instance, there is a substantial body of opinion in the Midlands and North, in traditionally Labour heartland, that DO blame Labour for dropping us in our current mess (whatever fatuoys drivel Labour politicuans keep coming up with to deflect blame), and that don't see the current Labour team, or party, as credible. Mostly, they couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory, and UKIP are finally presenting a vaguely electorally credible alternative that isn't either Labour or Tory.

There's yet another group that historically don't vote. Their logic is simple. Only one of the two main parties can end up running the system, because our 'democracy' is loaded so as to rig it that way. And they don't see any major difference between Labour and Tories. All that changes is the names of the elitist lying scumbags running the country, and whether you vote or not, and whatever the vote, the conjuring trick that us our democracy used to ensure you got one bunch of liars or another.

Election results are telling us, again and again, that there just might be a credible alternative that, even if it can't win and end up as government, CAN drive change, and by virtue of threatening the two-party status quo, can get those elitist lying scumbags to actually LISTEN to the people for a change.

I very likely will vote UKIP next May. Why? A number of reasons. One is I want a referendum on the EU. I want a full, frank, reasonably rational adult debate, not the peurile and patronising drivel that all three current main parties dish out in the secure knowledge that we, the people, get a vote. And then, I want the people to decide, in or out.

Right now, we are subject to EU laws, EU rules, and paying a substantial amount of money to be in an EU that we, the people, have NEVER been asked if we wanted to be in. I've had one company telling me I can't work the hours I want to work because an EU bureaucracy the people of this country have never voted for decided I can't.

Wanting a referendum doesn't even mean you want to leave the EU. It does mwan you want the people to make that call, not the egotistical lying scumbags that, whether Labour or Tory, run the country.

Labour promised a referendum, then reneged on it. The Tories did too, but managed to find a way to weasel out, blaming it on LibDem coalition partners.

Yet now, we have legislation suppisedly ensuring we get one before more 'major' powers are transferred, yet closer examination shows existing EU treaties, mainly Lisbon, provide for a LOT of future 'integration' to be done by administrative orders, not requiring referenda-triggering treaty change. Our current 'guarantee' is, in large part, yet another conjuring trick, that at the very least merely kicks the can that is letting US decide further down the road.

But, since UKIP won the Euro elections, taking first place, and has taken one Tory seat, looks like taking another in about three weeks, and gave Labour a REALLY big scare by very nearly nicking a Labour seat out from under a stonking great majority in a safe seat.

Take that Labour near loss. The Labour/UKIP marhin was what, 400-ish votes. And the Tories got 2500 votes. So, imagine re-running that same election now. Or next May. Any real Tory fans thi king strategically will realise that the main battle next May is still Tory/Labour. So, if you support Tories, do you vote Tory in that seat and see Labour win, helping yo put Miliband in power? Or, perhaps, do you vote UKIP, not because you want UKIP but because one less Labour seat makes Tory government at Westminster more likely. If 500 of those 2500 Tiry votes had gone UKIP, Labour would have lost.

Which brings me to one of the non-EU reasons I might vote UKIP - to get my local candidates, Tory and Labour, tp pay more flaming attention to their constityents, to shake up the fat and lazy, cozy conspiracy where Tory and Labour hand the reigns of power back and forth every few years, and where both kargely ignore voters, certainly other than when they come cap in hand, smiling and kissing babies, every five years. I want to give the smug, patronising little turds a flaming good scare. That alone, in this highly marginal seat, is a good reason to vote UKIP - to break up the two-party compkacency and get a local MP to start listening to the people he or she is supposed to represent.

The dismissive way you've twice now dismissed UKIP voters m7sses a couple of major points. First, UKIP's success SO FAR has both Laboyr and Tory leaderships scrabbling around trying to work out what to do about it. Well, good. That alone is a victory for people over politicians.

Second, UKIP are taking voters from Tory, from Labour and from non-voters. Who would have believed ANY political party could pull that off, could seduce large numbers from historically both Labour and Tory heartlands, and the terminally disenchanted. It should tell you that, never mind policies, UKIP are hitting a chord with lots of people utterly fed up with the status quo.

Think about that Euro election result. When was the last time any UK national election was won by anybody other than Labour or Tory? IIRC, it was 1904. 110 years.

And the last opinion poll (granted, just one poll) put Tory and Labour neck and neck on 30%, and UKIP on 19%. UKIP have also been getting a substantial increase in donated funding, such that they now look capable of seriously funding and fighting their top 100 target seats, instead of the top 20 they had been planning. And there's still several months to go.

UKIP certainly have the Tory leadership reacting to them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cameron's hard-line stance on this £1.7bn EU charge wasn't largely about UKIP supporters, and trying to tempt some back. Ditto Labour. Do they DARE pay it, or support paying it? Right before not only a very controversial by-election, but a few months before a General Election?

Both parties can predict how well-received paying it will be with the people, in large part because the politicians have avoided giving us a say in joining or not. Both parties are running scared of UKIP, because they KNOW, from recent by-election results, that UKIP are very capable of takings seats of noth of them. That alone is one hoid reason to vote UKIP - to get Tory and Labour leadership to pay attention to us instead of just paying us lip-service. Threaten an MPs seat, his/her job, their passport to their position of power and privilege, especially for ministers, and you couldn't get their more rapt and undivided attention if you had their gonads in a vice and were closing the jaws. And if you have MPs and minister's attention, they'll ensure you have the party leadership's full attention too.

There are many reasons for voting UKIP, not least that you consider it the least worst option. And a very significant proportion of the population appear more than willing to do jyst that. They aren't all ignorant and uneducated idiots that don't know any better.

Maybe it's as simple as wanting a referendum, and having had several decades of not getting one by voting any other way. Or maybe it's one of a lot of other reasons.