UK to discuss EU withdrawal referendum

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

...as far as the EU, british citizens have never wanted to be part of it...

And yet, time and again, Britain elects pro-EU governments. Kinda strange for a staunchly anti-EU electorate, don't ya think?

ChRoMe

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure. But there is a substantial non-Irish population in Dublin for example – why is it that there are no distinct Polish, Pakistani and Nigerian areas, for example?

The size of Dublin being one of the reasons, another is the UK has had immigration for a lot longer than Ireland.

getz

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, time and again, Britain elects pro-EU governments. Kinda strange for a staunchly anti-EU electorate, don't ya think?

all three main parties are sponsored by big companies, they want to stay in the EU,the average UK citizens only other choice would be to vote for the racist parties,and that would be not be a option for most of us, both ruling parties have said that they will give the people a chance to have a say,but both parties have backed off when in power,i am sure you know this,the goverment will never go to the people on this issue because they know what the result will be,

djpbarry

ChRoMe wrote: »

The size of Dublin being one of the reasons...

How do you mean?

ChRoMe wrote: »

...another is the UK has had immigration for a lot longer than Ireland.

The UK has had higher levels of immigration for longer, yes – I’ve already acknowledged this. But the emergence of mono-cultural/mono-ethnic communities in the UK was apparent decades ago. There is virtually no sign of such communities forming in Dublin – why?

I should also point out that the social problems associated with such communities (and their extent) is often blown way out of proportion by those with a certain agenda.

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

...both ruling parties have said that they will give the people a chance to have a say,but both parties have backed off when in power...

Of course they have, because they know that leaving the EU would be bad for the UK and bad for the EU.

getz wrote: »

...the goverment will never go to the people on this issue because they know...

...that the average voter will not make an informed decision.

View

walrusgumble wrote: »

The European Fundamental Charter was a complete waste of time. It is a novelty item that the EU , who had hoped it would get closer to Federalism.

A Charter of Fundamental Rights is a waste of time? It seems odd that governments even bother drafting them if so.

And the link to Federalism seems a bit obscure - are you not allowed to have Fundamental Rights unless you are in a Federation? Perhaps that explains why there are a lot of countries which use Federalism...

walrusgumble wrote: »

The UK are more than held accountable under the European Convention on Human Rights, which although separate is very similar to the charter, and the EU intends to cede to the ECtHR.

Similar does not mean identical. If the CoFR provides for a right to X (whatever that is) whereas the ECHR does not, the opt-out by the UK means that UK citizens miss out on the right to X. And any UK citizen who misses out as a result might not be too happy about it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

I would not go parading around about the charter if you were of the left wing flavour, as the charter in two recent cases in 2007 have shown a preference on business (its original purpose) over fundamental rights of others.

The Charter was only given binding legal force equal to the EU Treaties in December 2009 - two years after the cases you refer to from 2007. Hence, the Charter could not have been the decisive legal text in those cases. Other text(s), such as the EU Treaties, which had binding legal force were more important if you check the relevant cases.

View

getz wrote: »

all three main parties are sponsored by big companies, they want to stay in the EU,the average UK citizens only other choice would be to vote for the racist parties,

UK citizens are free to form new political parties should they want to - voting for the same old parties is not mandatory.

getz

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course they have, because they know that leaving the EU would be bad for the UK and bad for the EU.
...that the average voter will not make an informed decision.

so you know it all,and the average british citizen is to thick to understand how the EU works ?yep i look around europe and see how well everyone is,the way its going ,it will not be long before it will fall apart on its own.

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

so you know it all,and the average british citizen is to thick to understand how the EU works ?

Too thick? Certainly not. Too lazy to bother researching how the EU works? Certainly.

If so many people in Britain want the UK out of the EU, then why didn't UKIP sweep to victory in the last election? They didn't win a single seat!

walrusgumble

View wrote: »

A Charter of Fundamental Rights is a waste of time? It seems odd that governments even bother drafting them if so.

And the link to Federalism seems a bit obscure - are you not allowed to have Fundamental Rights unless you are in a Federation? Perhaps that explains why there are a lot of countries which use Federalism...



Similar does not mean identical. If the CoFR provides for a right to X (whatever that is) whereas the ECHR does not, the opt-out by the UK means that UK citizens miss out on the right to X. And any UK citizen who misses out as a result might not be too happy about it.

The Charter was only given binding legal force equal to the EU Treaties in December 2009 - two years after the cases you refer to from 2007. Hence, the Charter could not have been the decisive legal text in those cases. Other text(s), such as the EU Treaties, which had binding legal force were more important if you check the relevant cases.

How do you equate, your not allowed to have a bill of fundamental rights without being federal? I never said that nor intended it. it was put in to meet that day, but its not essential, as you point out.

it is a complete waste of time because they have not really done much about it. They dared not put it into the text of the treaty itself, for fear that the treaty, like the Constitutional Treaty will be rejected. They say that ECHR (separate entity) is part of their system as well, yet there is doubt/confusion about their application in the EU. That is what was meant by a waste of time. There was no need for it as it could simply and fully incorporate the ECHR. Maybe things will now change, but the EU have, in the past, and even post 2007 and 2009 only giving lip service to fundamental rights - a big criticism by pro eu experts.

ECHR also now has binding force, yet, it never stopped the courts, when it suited, to adopt it see Carpetner v uk 201. The cases that I referred to, the Charter was heavily relied upon by the applicants and the courts did not refuse to consider the charter. they did, and said that while the rights existed, they act dis-proportionally

Countries using federalism, in their own states, which is their business, you could hardly expect a place like Germany to run like a place like Ireland?. when i said federalism, i refer to the idea of a United Europe ala the US, which certain entities like Belgium want.

Point out the rights contained in the Charter, that are not contained in the ECHR and its protocols

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

If so many people in Britain want the UK out of the EU, then why didn't UKIP sweep to victory in the last election? They didn't win a single seat!

They finished second for the UK as a whole in the last European elections in 2009, coming behind the Conservatives but ahead of Labour.

For the Euro parliament, the UK is divided into several European constituents (or, rather, England is. Scotland, Wales and NI were, of course, left untouched). For my constituency, the North West, I voted for UKIP and they came third behind the Tories and Labour.

However, for the whole of the UK, UKIP came second.

The Tories got 4,198,394 votes (27.7%), UKIP got 2,498,226 votes (16.5%) and Labour got just 2,381,760 votes (15.7%). As a result of this, there are 13 UKIP MEPs sitting in the Euro parliament - the same number of MEPs as Labour (the Tories have 25 seats).

The results just go to show how unpopular the EU is to British people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

They finished second for the UK as a whole in the last European elections in 2009...

But they performed abysmally in the general election, when it really counts. What gives?

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

They finished second for the UK as a whole in the last European elections in 2009, coming behind the Conservatives but ahead of Labour.

For the Euro parliament, the UK is divided into several European constituents (or, rather, England is. Scotland, Wales and NI were, of course, left untouched). For my constituency, the North West, I voted for UKIP and they came third behind the Tories and Labour.

However, for the whole of the UK, UKIP came second.

The Tories got 4,198,394 votes (27.7%), UKIP got 2,498,226 votes (16.5%) and Labour got just 2,381,760 votes (15.7%). As a result of this, there are 13 UKIP MEPs sitting in the Euro parliament - the same number of MEPs as Labour (the Tories have 25 seats).

The results just go to show how unpopular the EU is to British people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)

Didn't you make a post earlier saying that European decisions were made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels that were unelected or something of that sort?

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Didn't you make a post earlier saying that European decisions were made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels that were unelected or something of that sort?

The EU Commissioners are all unelected.

EU Commisioners are responsible for proposing legislation (including four-fifths of British laws), implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.

Despite having such power not one of them is elected by EU "citizens."

The elected ones - the MEPs - actually have very little power.

oscarBravo

Batsy wrote: »

EU Commisioners are responsible for proposing legislation (including four-fifths of British laws)...

I'd ask for a source for that assertion, but I know it would be a waste of time.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

The EU Commissioners are all unelected.

EU Commisioners are responsible for proposing legislation (including four-fifths of British laws), implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union.

Despite having such power not one of them is elected by EU "citizens."

The elected ones - the MEPs - actually have very little power.

I take your point, but they are nominated by each MS which is presumably an elected government. So, by default, they are essentially a candidate of the most popular party at the time of nomination.

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

But they performed abysmally in the general election, when it really counts. What gives?

What does it matter?

In the European Election only the Tories got more votes than UKIP. What does that tell you? Thanks to the popularity of UKIP in the 2009 European elections Britain now has 13 UKIP MEPs in the European Parliament fighting for Britain and telling the EU to get stuffed.

The British people, rightly, would prefer their UKIP MEPs to actually sit in the EU parliament itself - where their voices can be heard at every sitting - rather than the British parliament where they can be largely ignored by the EU.

The fact that UKIP finished second in the Euro Elections for Britain shows the unpopularity of the EU in Britain.

Batsy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd ask for a source for that assertion, but I know it would be a waste of time.

Daniel Hannan believes that 83% of British laws come from Brussels.

UKIP don't believe it's that high - they believe around 75% of British laws comes from Brussels.

Both based their figures on the fact that in January 2007, former German president Roman Herzog said that 84 per cent of Germany's national laws were made in Brussels. He called it an “inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the member states towards the EU”.

The 84 per cent figure was based on research by the German Ministry of Justice, which compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted from the EU in the same period.

UKIP took the 84 per cent figure drawn from this research, and adjusted it down to 75 per cent for the UK in light of the fact Britain did not join the single currency.

Batsy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. That would be Malta.

Malta is the ONLY EU nation more crowded than England, but I don't include that because it is a micro state and, as a result, this makes it much easier for it to be overcrowded.

England is overcrowded and cannot afford to take in more people. I think we should start sending all our immigrants to Ireland. Your country is empty at the moment and needs filling up.

Considering your strong pro-immigration views I don't think you'll be too displeased at that.

Batsy

meglome wrote: »

Do you really think they want to be forced back to the UK?

Nobody's forcing British expats back to the UK, are they? But if any want to come back to Britain then they have every right to come back.

A lot of British drug dealers holed up in Spain and Holland, I suppose they are contributing in their own way.

I don't care what other countries' immigrants are up to. I only care about what immigrants to Britain get up to.

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet there are fewer foreigners in the UK compared to several other European countries.

But England is the most overcrowded country in Europe. There may be "less foreigners" in England than other European countries but, due to overcrowding and the resultant strain that that overcrowding is putting on public services, those foreigners are more noticeable and have more of a detrimental affect on English society than they do in, say, empty Ireland and empty France.

So what? I bet Brits generally have an unfavourable view of taxes – should taxation be abolished on that basis?

Yep.

Anyway, you were trying to make the point that immigration and the EU topped British voters’ list of concerns? That article doesn’t support your argument?

Immigration and the EU are British voters' main concerns. And why wouldn't they be? They are both things which affect the every day lives of British voters, often for the worse.

How many Poles are there in Britain?

Around a million.

Britain, or England specifically, is still overwhelmingly white, especially outside the big cities. And I can’t help notice that the discussion has taken on a racial dimension.

This discussion centres around the FACT that the majority of British people want immigration into Britiain cut. I'm one of those majority.

You want better pubs? I don’t know – I quite like English pubs. Maybe not the ones in Lancashire frequented by white supremacist types, but generally.

"White supremacists" - and everybody else, too - are going to find it more and more difficult to go to pubs every time one is demolished to make way for a mosque, as happened to The Lodge Bank Tavern in my neighbourhood.

Try the curry – it’s awesome.

I prefer fish and chips.

slimjimmc

Batsy wrote: »

I prefer fish and chips.

Ah yes, the great British tradition...enjoy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8419026.stm

The story of the humble chip goes back to the 17th Century to either Belgium or France, depending who you believe.

Around the same time, fried fish was introduced into Britain by Jewish refugees from Portugal and Spain.

Others claim the first combined fish 'n' chip shop was actually opened by a Jewish immigrant, Joseph Malin, within the sound of Bow Bells in East London around 1860.

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

But they performed abysmally in the general election, when it really counts. What gives?

People believe that the European parliament doesn't have that much power and it is often used as a protest vote. Hence the BNP and Greens having MEPs from the UK. When it counts though, people realise that UKIP is not a serious party.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

But England is the most overcrowded country in Europe. There may be "less foreigners" in England than other European countries but, due to overcrowding and the resultant strain that that overcrowding is putting on public services, those foreigners are more noticeable and have more of a detrimental affect on English society than they do in, say, empty Ireland and empty France.

A the Netherlands is more heavily populated than England. The stats your mates at the Mail are using to make the NL less populated conveniently includes vast tracts of seawater.

Also Paris is more over-populated than London.

The use of overpopulation as an excuse for keeping foreigners out is a very poor one, but it is on a par with all the others you will try.

oscarBravo

Batsy wrote: »

The 84 per cent figure was based on research by the German Ministry of Justice, which compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted from the EU in the same period.

UKIP took the 84 per cent figure drawn from this research, and adjusted it down to 75 per cent for the UK in light of the fact Britain did not join the single currency.

Yeah, that's about what I expected. You might be surprised to find that, during the Lisbon campaigns, some posters here did some fact-checking on those numbers (in an Irish context, and we are in the single currency) and found that the figure was closer to 25%.

And that's leaving aside the fact that both Britain and Ireland jointly draft the European legislation along with the other 25 member states, so it's not being imposed by some foreigners against Britain's will.

Batsy wrote: »

Malta is the ONLY EU nation more crowded than England, but I don't include that because...

...it doesn't suit your narrative.

Considering your strong pro-immigration views...

Got a source for that assertion, since you're on a roll?

Batsy wrote: »

But England is the most overcrowded country in Europe.

Apart from the countries that are more overcrowded but that you've decided not to include.

Batsy

slimjimmc wrote: »

Ah yes, the great British tradition...enjoy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8419026.stm

The first fish and chip shop in the world was opened in Mossely, near Oldham, Lancashire, around 1863. A gentleman named Mr Lees sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in the market and later he transferred the business to a permanent shop across the road which had the following inscription in the window, “This is the first fish and chip shop in the world”.

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

When it counts though, people realise that UKIP is not a serious party.

Why aren't they? Are they doing it all for a laugh?

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

A the Netherlands is more heavily populated than England.

No, it isn't. England is the most overcrowded country in Europe.

Also Paris is more over-populated than London.

So? Immigrants live all over England, not just London.

The use of overpopulation as an excuse for keeping foreigners out is a very poor one.

No, it isn't. The fact that a country is already overcrowded is a very GOOD reason to support a cut in immigration.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

Why aren't they? Are they doing it all for a laugh?

It was a protest vote as i mentioned above - a way of showing discontent towards the major parties; always knowing that they would return to Labour or the Conservatives when serious politics was at stake.

Batsy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's about what I expected. You might be surprised to find that, during the Lisbon campaigns, some posters here did some fact-checking on those numbers (in an Irish context, and we are in the single currency) and found that the figure was closer to 25%.

I'm more prepared to believe UKIP's figures, based on a German study, that the figures of a group of Eurosheep on here.

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

It was a protest vote as i mentioned above - a way of showing discontent towards the major parties

People voted in their droves for UKIP at the 2009 Euro elections because they don't like the EU and want out of it. It wasn't a "protest vote" against the major parties.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

No, it isn't. England is the most overcrowded country in Europe.




So? Immigrants live all over England, not just London.



No, it isn't. The fact that a country is already overcrowded is a very GOOD reason to support a cut in immigration.

Netherlands = 397/km2
England = 395/km2

Close, but Netherlands is slightly ahead.

Interestingly from the 2009 census:
Ethnic group| population| percentage
White: British| 42,893,400| 82.8%
White: Irish| 558,100| 1.1%
White: Other| 1,861,800| 3.6%
Asian or Asian British: Indian| 1,414,100| 2.7%
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani| 990,700| 1.9%
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi| 384,300| 0.7%
Asian or Asian British: Other South Asian| 377,700| 0.7%
Black or Black British: Caribbean| 609,400| 1.2%
Black or Black British: African| 787,500| 1.5%
Black or Black British: Other| 124,500| 0.2%
Mixed| 956,700| 1.9%
Chinese or Other: Chinese| 439,500| 0.8%
Chinese or Other: Other| 412,100| 0.8%
Total| 51,809,700| 100%

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

No, it isn't. England is the most overcrowded country in Europe.

No England still has a far way to go - the Netherlands has a population density of 484 people per square metre as opposed to Englands' 400

So? Immigrants live all over England, not just London.

Of course but most new arrivals come to London or the South East.

No, it isn't. The fact that a country is already overcrowded is a very GOOD reason to support a cut in immigration.

If it really was an issue people wouldn't come anymore.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Netherlands = 397/km2
England = 395/km2

Close, but Netherlands is slightly ahead.

England is the most overcrowded country in Europe and the THIRD most overcrowded major country in the WORLD.

We can't afford to take any more people in. I believe empty Ireland should take more.

England is most crowded country in Europe

England has become the most crowded major nation in Europe, official figures have revealed.


By Urmee Khan
16 Sep 2008
The Telegraph

The number of people living in England has overtaken the population density of Holland, which has traditionally been the most densely-populated major nation on the continent.

The count, which has been attributed to higher levels of immigration, shows England now has 395 people per square kilometre.

The figures were obtained in a parliamentary answer from the Office of National Statistics.

In 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England.

Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.

The population density in England is already almost double the level in Germany and quadruple that in France.

The only country in the European Union with greater crowding is the tiny island of Malta, which only has 400,000 people, most of whom live around the port of Valletta.

England has taken its position as the most crowded country in Europe at a point when the risk of economic recession has led to growing concerns over diminishing numbers of jobs and pressure on public services.

London aside, the biggest regional rises in population will be in the east of England and in the South West, which in recent years has attracted the greatest number of migrants who provide labour for agriculture, construction and service industries.

Last night MPs campaigning for "balanced migration" said the figures were a milestone in the immigration debate.

Frank Field, the Labour former minister, and Nicholas Soames, the Conservative MP said: "This is a milestone in the immigration debate as immigration accounts for 70 per cent of our population growth.

"The Government's points-based system places no limit on the number of people who are allowed to settle in the UK. If ever there was a case for balanced migration, it is now."

The campaigners estimate that current immigration into Britain is around 300,000 a year, although not all will stay permanently, they calculate that a balanced migration policy would result in a British population of around 65 - 80 million by 2050.

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency, the organisation set up by the Home Office to tighten immigration by admitting only those with skills, said: "Our tough new points system plus our plans for newcomers to earn their citizenship will reduce overall numbers of economic migrants coming to Britain, and the numbers awarded permanent settlement."

Beyond Europe, England's population density is among the highest in the world for major countries. England ranks third in density after Bangladesh (1,045 per sq km) and South Korea (498 per sq km).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

greendom

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Netherlands = 397/km2
England = 395/km2

Close, but Netherlands is slightly ahead.

And this is when you include the 18.4% of the Netherlands that is water. If you just include land the density jumps to 484 per square km.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

England is the most overcrowded country in Europe and the THIRD most overcrowded major country in the WORLD.

We can't afford to take any more people in. I believe empty Ireland should take more.

England is most crowded country in Europe

England has become the most crowded major nation in Europe, official figures have revealed.

Nonsense

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

People voted in their droves for UKIP at the 2009 Euro elections because they don't like the EU and want out of it. It wasn't a "protest vote" against the major parties.

So how do you explain the collapse of its vote in the general election ?

Batsy

Population density (people per sq km) within the UK:

England: 395
Wales: 140
Northern Ireland: 122
Scotland: 65.9

Population density of the UK as a whole: 255.6

Population density of the Republic of Ireland: 65.2


As you can see, England is suffocatingly and claustrophobically overcrowded.

Commonsense dictates (and bear in mind that I do realise that the pro-uncontrolled immigration people are actually devoid of any commonsense) that things can continue the way they are. Immigration needs to be cut. Enough is now enough and I feel that the time is now right for the Republic of Ireland - the emptiest nation in the British Isles - do to do the right thing and allow the immigrants to flood into it to help ease the burden on England.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

Population density (people per sq km) within the UK:

England: 395
Wales: 140
Northern Ireland: 122
Scotland: 65.9

Population density of the UK as a whole: 255.6

Population density of the Republic of Ireland: 65.2


As you can see, England is suffocatingly and claustrophobically overcrowded.

Commonsense dictates (and bear in mind that I do realise that the pro-uncontrolled immigration people are actually devoid of any commonsense) that things can continue the way they are. Immigration needs to be cut. Enough is now enough and I feel that the time is now right for the Republic of Ireland - the emptiest nation in the British Isles - do to do the right thing and allow the immigrants to flood into it to help ease the burden on England.

Come back when England's population density comes close to matching that of Bangladesh (1074 per square km). Then I'll agree it's a problem. For know its not an problem. It's an excuse to justify your beliefs.

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

So how do you explain the collapse of its vote in the general election ?

UKIP got more votes in the General election than they did in the Euro elections (although they only finished fourth).

But, if you hate the EU, then it makes more sense to vote for UKIP in the Euro elections - where they will actually have a seat in the EURO PARLIAMENT and can put their views across to the EU every time they meet - than in the General Election where they'll only have a seat in the Commons and only see other British politicians.

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

Come back when England's population density comes close to matching that of Bangladesh (1074 per square km). Then I'll agree it's a problem. For know its not an problem. It's an excuse to justify your beliefs.

No. I'll be against immigration NOW when England is the third most overcrowded major country in the world.

Also, I'll bet Bangladesh's overcrowding is more a result of its native birth rates than immigration, whereas England is getting more overcrowded thanks mainly to immigration.

slimjimmc

Batsy wrote: »

The first fish and chip shop in the world was opened in Mossely, near Oldham, Lancashire, around 1863. A gentleman named Mr Lees sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in the market and later he transferred the business to a permanent shop across the road which had the following inscription in the window, “This is the first fish and chip shop in the world”.

I know, it said as much in the link. But the article merely states that some believe he was the first and is a subject of dispute as there's no actual proof but what's not disputed is the foreign origins of chips and of fried fish.

greendom

Anyway immigration in the UK is a good thing. It's a positive life-force for an ageing population.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

UKIP got more votes in the General election than they did in the Euro elections (although they only finished fourth).

But, if you hate the EU, then it makes more sense to vote for UKIP in the Euro elections - where they will actually have a seat in the EURO PARLIAMENT and can put their views across to the EU every time they meet - than in the General Election where they'll only have a seat in the Commons and only see other British politicians.

But its only in the HoC where they'll be able to influence policy or get their voice heard in the UK media.

Edit: And in last year's election UKIP got 3.1%. That means 96.9% didn't vote for them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of euro-sceptism.

oscarBravo

Batsy wrote: »

I'm more prepared to believe UKIP's figures, based on a German study, that the figures of a group of Eurosheep on here.

That would be that confirmation bias I mentioned earlier. You're not interested in whether or not a figure has any basis in fact; only in whether or not it supports your narrative. If you agree with it, it's true; if you disagree, it's false.

greendom wrote: »

But its only in the HoC where they'll be able to influence policy or get their voice heard in the UK media.

And, more importantly, take steps to remove the UK from the EU. This is something that MPs can do, and MEPs can't.

On that basis, the fact that people will elect UKIP candidates to roles where they can make noise but can't actually effect an exit from the EU, rather than to roles where they could actually do so, is somewhat telling.

Podge_irl

Batsy wrote: »

People voted in their droves for UKIP at the 2009 Euro elections because they don't like the EU and want out of it. It wasn't a "protest vote" against the major parties.

Since when is 16.5% counted as "in droves".

It's only 1 in 6 people who voted.

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

The British people, rightly, would prefer their UKIP MEPs to actually sit in the EU parliament itself - where their voices can be heard at every sitting - rather than the British parliament where they can be largely ignored by the EU.

Tell you what. Why don’t you get on to your local UKIP representative and ask them where they feel they would be more effective – Brussels or Westminster.

Batsy wrote: »

Daniel Hannan believes that 83% of British laws come from Brussels.

And Creationists believe the world is only 10,000 years old. Who gives a toss?

Batsy wrote: »

Immigration and the EU are British voters' main concerns.

But they’re not voting for the UKIP in the general election?

Batsy wrote: »

"White supremacists" - and everybody else, too - are going to find it more and more difficult to go to pubs every time one is demolished to make way for a mosque, as happened to The Lodge Bank Tavern in my neighbourhood.

You mean this Lodge Bank Tavern? It’s not looking very mosque-like.

Batsy wrote: »

The first fish and chip shop in the world was opened in Mossely, near Oldham, Lancashire, around 1863. A gentleman named Mr Lees sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in the market and later he transferred the business to a permanent shop across the road which had the following inscription in the window, “This is the first fish and chip shop in the world”.

I’m pretty sure there’s a plaque somewhere in London’s East End claiming exactly the same thing. I was of the understanding that the first fish & chips shop in the UK was founded in London by a Jewish guy (from Hungary, I think). One way or another, fish & chips was certainly not a British invention.

Batsy wrote: »

England is the most overcrowded country in Europe and the THIRD most overcrowded major country in the WORLD.

So we’ve gone from most crowded country in the known universe to third most crowded major country in the world. Of course, if you remove all these qualifiers, the UK (no point considering England in isolation in a discussion on immigration) drops to around about 50th in the world in the population density stakes.

Master and commander

Batsy wrote: »

..................I feel that the time is now right for the Republic of Ireland - the emptiest nation in the British Isles - do to do the right thing and allow the immigrants to flood into it to help ease the burden on England.

Are you for real? This has to be a troll you are on.

Are you seriously saying that we should just open the floodgates just becasue the british authorities haven't the spine to stop immigration into their own country. Have we not had enough of blacks, muslims and polish already sorry "foreign nationals" is the PC term.

I am in Waterford and the place is overrun by blacks. Both the UK and Ireland together have a duty to limit immigration and welfare tourism.

Now, presumably there would be an arrangement where say Irish or other English speaking whites could go to the UK, as our culture is essentially the same. I mean irish people integrate when they travel to the UK - they don't ghettoise and set up mosques and sh!t. The culture diff between Ireland and Britain is no bigger than culture diffs found in the Uk as a whole already.

Nodin

Master and commander wrote: »

Are you for real? This has to be a troll you are on.

Are you seriously saying that we should just open the floodgates just becasue the british authorities haven't the spine to stop immigration into their own country. Have we not had enough of blacks, muslims and polish already sorry "foreign nationals" is the PC term.

I am in Waterford and the place is overrun by blacks. ...............

"overrun"?

marienbad

Master and commander wrote: »

Are you for real? This has to be a troll you are on.

Are you seriously saying that we should just open the floodgates just becasue the british authorities haven't the spine to stop immigration into their own country. Have we not had enough of blacks, muslims and polish already sorry "foreign nationals" is the PC term.

I am in Waterford and the place is overrun by blacks. Both the UK and Ireland together have a duty to limit immigration and welfare tourism.

Now, presumably there would be an arrangement where say Irish or other English speaking whites could go to the UK, as our culture is essentially the same. I mean irish people integrate when they travel to the UK - they don't ghettoise and set up mosques and sh!t. The culture diff between Ireland and Britain is no bigger than culture diffs found in the Uk as a whole already.

I can only assume you are taking the piss with this post ! might help if you put in a smilie