Clegg vs Farage

[Wes Tender]

Call there bluff unbelievable. So we want to have full rights for trading but nothing else so what's the point of being in a club if everyone does there own thing. get real let's have a real plan from those who want us out on how they achieve this and timescale and how they will entice investors to a country outside its main market.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

As I said, there will those who will insist that we can't belong to a club without following their rules and here you are, with your usual poor grammar.

 

But it was quite OK for the Club to change the rules without the membership factions being allowed to ask their backers whether they wished those rules to be changed, wasn't it?

 

The only way to bargain with the EU is from a position of strength that will come from a majority vote of our electorate to leave. The EU will then be faced with either losing one of their key members, or accepting that we can roll back the basis of our membership to solely a trading arrangement, not a political, financial or legal one. The time agenda will be dictated by events, commencing with the major parties' poor showing in the European Elections in May. That will concentrate their minds wonderfully for the General Election next year. In the event of a massive UKIP vote in the European Elections, there would be great pressure on the main parties to promise a referendum sooner rather than later to get the issue out of the way once and for all. Europe has been a festering sore for the past 30 years.

 

How would we entice investors to a country outside its main market? Well, if Europe is their main market, they'll probably invest in Eastern Europe, where the unit labour costs are much lower. A bit like Ford, threatening to pull out of Britain if we left the EU, which we haven't yet, and then closing down their Southampton plant to move it to Turkey. External investment will come here because we offer subsidies to them, as we have in the past and they will expect that trade will still continue into Europe, in the same way that European manufacturers will still expect to continue to sell their products here. What exactly don't you understand about that?

[CB Saint]

Clegg vs farage? Its a bit like the league two playoff final. Not many people care about who wins.

[hypochondriac]

Clegg vs farage? Its a bit like the league two playoff final. Not many people care about who wins.

 

It's that dismissive attitude that has allowed ukip to get so popular.

[pap]

Clegg vs farage? Its a bit like the league two playoff final. Not many people care about who wins.

 

I reckon the public interest could make a liar of you here, CB Saint.

[Batman]

I reckon the public interest could make a liar of you here, CB Saint.

 

I reckon a fair few people will like to see farage v the deputy prime minister.

 

And see what he has

[Goatboy]

As I said, there will those who will insist that we can't belong to a club without following their rules and here you are, with your usual poor grammar.

 

But it was quite OK for the Club to change the rules without the membership factions being allowed to ask their backers whether they wished those rules to be changed, wasn't it?

 

The only way to bargain with the EU is from a position of strength that will come from a majority vote of our electorate to leave. The EU will then be faced with either losing one of their key members, or accepting that we can roll back the basis of our membership to solely a trading arrangement, not a political, financial or legal one. The time agenda will be dictated by events, commencing with the major parties' poor showing in the European Elections in May. That will concentrate their minds wonderfully for the General Election next year. In the event of a massive UKIP vote in the European Elections, there would be great pressure on the main parties to promise a referendum sooner rather than later to get the issue out of the way once and for all. Europe has been a festering sore for the past 30 years.

 

How would we entice investors to a country outside its main market? Well, if Europe is their main market, they'll probably invest in Eastern Europe, where the unit labour costs are much lower. A bit like Ford, threatening to pull out of Britain if we left the EU, which we haven't yet, and then closing down their Southampton plant to move it to Turkey. External investment will come here because we offer subsidies to them, as we have in the past and they will expect that trade will still continue into Europe, in the same way that European manufacturers will still expect to continue to sell their products here. What exactly don't you understand about that?

 

good post.

[solentstars]

As I said, there will those who will insist that we can't belong to a club without following their rules and here you are, with your usual poor grammar.

 

But it was quite OK for the Club to change the rules without the membership factions being allowed to ask their backers whether they wished those rules to be changed, wasn't it?

 

The only way to bargain with the EU is from a position of strength that will come from a majority vote of our electorate to leave. The EU will then be faced with either losing one of their key members, or accepting that we can roll back the basis of our membership to solely a trading arrangement, not a political, financial or legal one. The time agenda will be dictated by events, commencing with the major parties' poor showing in the European Elections in May. That will concentrate their minds wonderfully for the General Election next year. In the event of a massive UKIP vote in the European Elections, there would be great pressure on the main parties to promise a referendum sooner rather than later to get the issue out of the way once and for all. Europe has been a festering sore for the past 30 years.

 

How would we entice investors to a country outside its main market? Well, if Europe is their main market, they'll probably invest in Eastern Europe, where the unit labour costs are much lower. A bit like Ford, threatening to pull out of Britain if we left the EU, which we haven't yet, and then closing down their Southampton plant to move it to Turkey. External investment will come here because we offer subsidies to them, as we have in the past and they will expect that trade will still continue into Europe, in the same way that European manufacturers will still expect to continue to sell their products here. What exactly don't you understand about that?

 

that's all its and buts unfortunately people in power have got to deal with the real world and real situations.has for ukip the biggest danger is to split the mainly conservative vote .let's face it before farage became leader again they were a busted flush. Sorry I'm still waiting for a real solutions rather than easy rhetoric and slogans.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Batman]

that's all its and buts unfortunately people in power have got to deal with the real world and real situations.has for ukip the biggest danger is to split the mainly conservative vote .let's face it before farage became leader again they were a busted flush. Sorry I'm still waiting for a real solutions rather than easy rhetoric and slogans.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

They don't need real solutions

We are constantly debating immigration and the EU now.

 

Won't be long before labour offer a referendum on the EU.

 

It's what they want (UKIP) had they not risen like they have we would not be having the debate

 

farage is now going to go head to head with the deputy PM

 

As for solutions, libdems didn't need any to get influence in government

[Wes Tender]

that's all its and buts unfortunately people in power have got to deal with the real world and real situations.has for ukip the biggest danger is to split the mainly conservative vote .let's face it before farage became leader again they were a busted flush. Sorry I'm still waiting for a real solutions rather than easy rhetoric and slogans.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

Of course it's all ifs and buts. Every potentially changing situation is. The situation over Europe is one that has been simmering under the surface for 30 years or more as I say, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Look at how long ago it was that the Referendum Party was formed by Sir James Goldsmith, 17 years. Goldsmith was wealthy enough if he wanted, to have held a Referendum at his own expense, but because he decided to go the way of forming his own Party in order to massage his ego, the poor results it achieved meant that the other party's could mutter vague platitudes and sweep the issue under the carpet. UKIP are a totally different proposition and as the mood of the electorate has become more antagonised by the way that the EU has developed without their consent, they are due to give the other parties a bloody nose.

 

It is unclear whether the Conservatives will be the party to suffer the most. If they do fare the worst in the European Elections, they are in a position to do some horse trading tactically with UKIP, or to try and steal their thunder by being more bullish in their stance towards insisting on changes to the basis of our membership of the EU before the General Election.

 

Personally I'm not overly concerned about how our trading position will be affected if we were to leave the EU. The market place has changed considerably since we first joined the Common Market and despite our membership of the European trading block, we do considerable trade with the rest of World, especially China, India and increasingly with other growing economies such as Brazil. And if our leaving meant that we placed more reliance on manufacturing a greater percentage of goods here, then that would be a big plus.

[CB Saint]

I reckon the public interest could make a liar of you here, CB Saint.

 

How can my opinion be a lie??

[pap]

How can my opinion be a lie??

 

Sorry. Got the impression you were speaking for everybody.

[Barry Sanchez]

Whether we stay in or out really as it stands does not bother me, we need to be given the vote on it so then all arguments can be had on the subject, its a basic denial of what the electorate want, I posted a thread similar to this 6 months ago and got called all sorts for daring to want it, how times have changed, you can now be a democrat without fear of being called a racist, progression on the Saintweb I suppose.

[solentstars]

Of course it's all ifs and buts. Every potentially changing situation is. The situation over Europe is one that has been simmering under the surface for 30 years or more as I say, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Look at how long ago it was that the Referendum Party was formed by Sir James Goldsmith, 17 years. Goldsmith was wealthy enough if he wanted, to have held a Referendum at his own expense, but because he decided to go the way of forming his own Party in order to massage his ego, the poor results it achieved meant that the other party's could mutter vague platitudes and sweep the issue under the carpet. UKIP are a totally different proposition and as the mood of the electorate has become more antagonised by the way that the EU has developed without their consent, they are due to give the other parties a bloody nose.

 

It is unclear whether the Conservatives will be the party to suffer the most. If they do fare the worst in the European Elections, they are in a position to do some horse trading tactically with UKIP, or to try and steal their thunder by being more bullish in their stance towards insisting on changes to the basis of our membership of the EU before the General Election.

 

Personally I'm not overly concerned about how our trading position will be affected if we were to leave the EU. The market place has changed considerably since we first joined the Common Market and despite our membership of the European trading block, we do considerable trade with the rest of World, especially China, India and increasingly with other growing economies such as Brazil. And if our leaving meant that we placed more reliance on manufacturing a greater percentage of goods here, then that would be a big plus.

 

Decent reply but I still believe the rise of ukip had more to do with unlimited migration from eastern Europe under Blair when the economy was booming and we had skill shortages plus also the fact that we are a ageing population and need younger migrants to pay our pensions obligations for the current generations.I also believe has the economic conditions improve a lot of the protest vote in ukip will return to the party's they use to support and will benefit the consertives most.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[dellboypete]

It's that dismissive attitude that has allowed ukip to get so popular.

 

Or the lib/dems to get so unpopular more like. Bunch of tossers imho.

[Wes Tender]

Decent reply but I still believe the rise of ukip had more to do with unlimited migration from eastern Europe under Blair when the economy was booming and we had skill shortages plus also the fact that we are a ageing population and need younger migrants to pay our pensions obligations for the current generations.I also believe has the economic conditions improve a lot of the protest vote in ukip will return to the party's they use to support and will benefit the consertives most.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

I agree that the immigration issue has been the main factor that has benefited UKIP's rise to prominence as the main Euro-sceptic party. But there have been several other issues that have also helped their cause, such as the increasing cost of membership to the few nett contributors like us when the list of nett beneficiaries has increased substantially, that our laws are subservient to the European Court of Law, the levels of bureaucracy, the loss of sovereignty, worries about basket case economies like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. It seems to me that there is a growing list that resonates with the electorate as being sufficent reasons to be unhappy with the EU and UKIP are making the right noises to attract this groundswell of dissenting voters.

 

I'm not so sure that the protest vote will just dissipate with the return of improving economic conditions. UKIP is effectively a one policy party and only when the referendum on our membership has been held will the issue be resolved. If we vote to leave, there would be no further need for UKIP and their membership will gradually return to the other parties. If we vote to remain in, or to renegotiate the terms, UKIP would be still have some part to play for a while, but their prominence would diminish.

 

The European Elections are just a short time away, far too soon for an improving economy to have any effect. Although there is some time before the General Election, the results of the European Election will almost certainly have already set in motion a chain of events that will be unstoppable in the ensuing year, regardless of the improving economy.

[solentstars]

I agree that the immigration issue has been the main factor that has benefited UKIP's rise to prominence as the main Euro-sceptic party. But there have been several other issues that have also helped their cause, such as the increasing cost of membership to the few nett contributors like us when the list of nett beneficiaries has increased substantially, that our laws are subservient to the European Court of Law, the levels of bureaucracy, the loss of sovereignty, worries about basket case economies like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. It seems to me that there is a growing list that resonates with the electorate as being sufficent reasons to be unhappy with the EU and UKIP are making the right noises to attract this groundswell of dissenting voters.

 

I'm not so sure that the protest vote will just dissipate with the return of improving economic conditions. UKIP is effectively a one policy party and only when the referendum on our membership has been held will the issue be resolved. If we vote to leave, there would be no further need for UKIP and their membership will gradually return to the other parties. If we vote to remain in, or to renegotiate the terms, UKIP would be still have some part to play for a while, but their prominence would diminish.

 

The European Elections are just a short time away, far too soon for an improving economy to have any effect. Although there is some time before the General Election, the results of the European Election will almost certainly have already set in motion a chain of events that will be unstoppable in the ensuing year, regardless of the improving economy.

 

Don't think euro election s really matter has the turnout is usually poor and its normally only the diehards go to vote has most of us don't really know what the meps do.I am old enough to have voted in the 1975 whether we wanted to stay in the EEC when 67% voted to stay.even if there was another vote I expect that it will still not sort the issue out has certain groups will still not respect the result.I believe its better to work with like minded country's like Germany Holland etc and reform from the inside rather than watching from the sidelines than seeing other countries make rules which will effect us and we would be unable to influence.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Saintandy666]

I'm not sure that Clegg is especially confident. This move could just as easily be a last throw of the dice, both for him and his party. Government has not been kind to the Lib Dems. The Tories have been excellent in diverting rivers of sh!t their way, mostly because the Lib Dems said such lovely things before the election. Returns at elections have diminished to the point where the Lib Dems are increasingly becoming the fourth party, behind UKIP. Is it confidence that underpins this decision, or desperation?

 

Onto Saintandy666's points. What is Clegg's base now? We've discussed the wider impact the Lib Dems haven't had in elections, but I'm not a party member; I don't know how well he is regarded in a party that historically, hasn't shown any compunction in throwing its leaders under the metaphorical bus. Indeed, I think one of the reasons that Clegg hasn't been chucked already is the bizarre set of circumstances the party is in. e.g. Being in government and all that.

 

These debates are still a new concept in the UK. Difficult to know what the long term impact is. Is Clegg sharing power now because of his performance in those 2010 debates? Difficult to say, but one thing I think you can say is that he'll enter this debate on much dodgier ground, sporting a much dodgier reputation and will be up against someone who has obsessed over EU policy for over a decade, and is pretty cool at ripping it apart.

 

Big ask for Clegg, I reckon.

 

The Lib Dems have a core of about 10-15% who will vote for them no matter what. In the EU election because of proportional representation by larger region this may mean significant wipe out, but we shall see. However, at the general election, the strategy is basically fighting 56 by-elections and they are very organised and have been doing well in council elections where they have seats etc. Don't be surprised to see them keep up to 35-40 seats at the general election. Ironically, the system that has been so unfair to the Lib Dems over the years may mean they keep more seats than their drop might suggest although this might just mean for once their seat share matches their vote share for once.

 

And I stand by my point, both will get to appeal to their polar opposite bases. I doubt anyone will be convinced either way unless they are already significantly leaning that way. It could turn out well for both of them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I agree that the immigration issue has been the main factor that has benefited UKIP's rise to prominence as the main Euro-sceptic party. But there have been several other issues that have also helped their cause, such as the increasing cost of membership to the few nett contributors like us when the list of nett beneficiaries has increased substantially, that our laws are subservient to the European Court of Law, the levels of bureaucracy, the loss of sovereignty, worries about basket case economies like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. It seems to me that there is a growing list that resonates with the electorate as being sufficent reasons to be unhappy with the EU and UKIP are making the right noises to attract this groundswell of dissenting voters.

 

I'm not so sure that the protest vote will just dissipate with the return of improving economic conditions. UKIP is effectively a one policy party and only when the referendum on our membership has been held will the issue be resolved. If we vote to leave, there would be no further need for UKIP and their membership will gradually return to the other parties. If we vote to remain in, or to renegotiate the terms, UKIP would be still have some part to play for a while, but their prominence would diminish.

 

The European Elections are just a short time away, far too soon for an improving economy to have any effect. Although there is some time before the General Election, the results of the European Election will almost certainly have already set in motion a chain of events that will be unstoppable in the ensuing year, regardless of the improving economy.

 

What UKIP have done is change the terms of the debate. Bill Cash and others used to argue about "section x, sub section y of treaty w" it didn't really resonate with people. What Nigel's done is simplify the argument and concentrate on the effect, rather than the cause. He's linked low skill Eastern European immigration to the EU, he's linked unskilled British youths on the dole to EU immigration. The BBC and other establishment figures have tried to push Europe down the agenda, they've tried to say that it doesn't rank highly amongst voters issues. What Nigel has done is bust that myth wide open, "Europe" itself may not feature highly, but immigration does and it's now linked to Europe. If immigration went away as an issue, there's plenty of other issues that are caused by our membership that Nigel can link. Amazon/Google ect paying taxes elsewhere, VAT rates, increased cost of dredging rivers, the list will be endless because as EU Commissioner Viviane Reding said recently, 70% of UK law comes from the EU.

 

The Establishment have lied to us, made people vote again, denied us a voice for a generation, fiddled the books (when was the last time the auditors signed off the EU budget) and basically treated us like citizens of a third world despot to keep the gravy train running . Armed with all that, even a half wit could take Cleggy to the cleaners, let alone an intelligent witty bloke like Farage.

[Wes Tender]

Don't think euro election s really matter has the turnout is usually poor and its normally only the diehards go to vote has most of us don't really know what the meps do.I am old enough to have voted in the 1975 whether we wanted to stay in the EEC when 67% voted to stay.even if there was another vote I expect that it will still not sort the issue out has certain groups will still not respect the result.I believe its better to work with like minded country's like Germany Holland etc and reform from the inside rather than watching from the sidelines than seeing other countries make rules which will effect us and we would be unable to influence.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

I'm old enough not only to have voted in that election, but to actually bother about campaigning on the doorstep for a Yes vote. Even then, I became a Euro-Sceptic a few years later when the Common Agricultural policy meant that subsidies paid to the farmers in France, Spain and Italy produced massive surpluses, the so-called wine lakes, butter mountains, etc, whilst simultaneously destroying our orchards and our fishing industry amongst others.

 

You reckon that if we had a referendum now, the voters wouldn't respect the result? There was good reason to accept that the referendum of 1975 needed updating, as there was a complete sea-change that ensued via additional treaties and that was 39 years ago. If there was a vote currently to stay in, then it would have to be accepted until such times as there were significant changes to the situation such as other wide ranging treaties or significant further loss of sovereignty.

 

It doesn't matter whether the turnout of voters is low, as the results still elect MEPs regardless. If the main parties cannot get out their vote, then they will be very much up against it, as UKIP will certainly have many voters determined to give the main parties a good kicking because of their anger at being denied a say in whether we went deeper into the EU via those Treaties subsequent to our joining and the broken promises on Europe of the last couple of General Elections. I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP ended up having the biggest British contingent of MEPs. As Saintandy admits, proportional representation in the European Elections is not likely to benefit the Lib-Dems.

 

It is often trotted out as you have done, that it is better to align ourselves with others like Germany and Holland and bring presure for change from the inside. But when the EU is the size it is, it is also easy to be hopelessly outnumbered, banging your head against a brick wall and having had our veto removed on many issues. A resounding referendum vote in the UK might however put pressure on the electorates of countries like Germany, Holland, Denmark, to hold referenda too, with the longer term aim of forming a trading parnership of Northern European/Scandinavian countries.

[pap]

Guardian article sharing the view that this is not a good move for Clegg, or indeed, the wider pro-EU case.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/10/nick-clegg-v-nigel-farage-ukip-leader-lib-dem

[moonraker]

I have never known a company to not want to trade with another and tariffs? Lets talk about that if and when, Denmark still trade as does Switzerland, Norway and many others, a free trade agreement and not being dictated to from Brussels is cetainly attainable.

 

European test failed DENMARK are in the European union.