Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Banjax on 01 March 2010, 11:03:47
-
;)
-
Huh? :-?
-
Yes! How dare that 'person' insult Belgium!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How to make friends eh?! ::) ::) ::)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/26/nigel-farange-ukip-rampage-rudeness
-
Yes! How dare that 'person' insult Belgium!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How to make friends eh?! ::) ::) ::)
I presume you're talking about Nigel Farage's peech last week.
I think we need to put this in perspective:
June 1978. House of Commons. Labour Chancellor Denis Healey describes being attacked by Geoffrey Howe (at the time the Conservative shadow Chancellor) as "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
Result: Much mirth. No censure of Healey. No outrage.
February 2010. European Parliament. Nigel Farage says Herman Van Rompuy has "the charisma of a damp rag".
Result: Censure. Much outrage at this un-British rudeness.
So, logically, being compared to a dead sheep is OK, but being compared to a damp rag is not. Clearly, for the media, it all comes down to who is making the comment.
UKIP have very little funds, and few friends in the liberal media. Had Farage merely pointed out in a very low key civil manner the obvious fact that Van Rumpuy has not been elected by the people and that his post of president is not therefore democratically valid, his speech would not have received any coverage. He gave it full guns and got plenty of column inches and many people have taken on board the undemocratic nature of this charade which is known as the EU.
I would like to point out that anyone who supported Scottish and Welsh devolution (bringing democracy nearer to the people) must, unless they are a hypocrite, be against more powers being transferred to Brussels.
Well done, Nigel. :y
-
Personally insulting other countries and leaders is not good politics no matter who enacts it!
If that is all Farage can manage then he is as deficient as he portrays. ::) ::)
-
Personally insulting other countries and leaders is not good politics no matter who enacts it!
If that is all Farage can manage then he is as deficient as he portrays. ::) ::)
If it alerts people to the danger that Van Rompuy represents, I am happy for civilty and deferential respect to be suspended. Actually, I seem to recall that Churchill could be "rude" at times.
;)
-
Yes! How dare that 'person' insult Belgium!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How to make friends eh?! ::) ::) ::)
I presume you're talking about Nigel Farage's peech last week.
I think we need to put this in perspective:
June 1978. House of Commons. Labour Chancellor Denis Healey describes being attacked by Geoffrey Howe (at the time the Conservative shadow Chancellor) as "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
Result: Much mirth. No censure of Healey. No outrage.
February 2010. European Parliament. Nigel Farage says Herman Van Rompuy has "the charisma of a damp rag".
Result: Censure. Much outrage at this un-British rudeness.
So, logically, being compared to a dead sheep is OK, but being compared to a damp rag is not. Clearly, for the media, it all comes down to who is making the comment.
UKIP have very little funds, and few friends in the liberal media. Had Farage merely pointed out in a very low key civil manner the obvious fact that Van Rumpuy has not been elected by the people and that his post of president is not therefore democratically valid, his speech would not have received any coverage. He gave it full guns and got plenty of column inches and many people have taken on board the undemocratic nature of this charade which is known as the EU.
I would like to point out that anyone who supported Scottish and Welsh devolution (bringing democracy nearer to the people) must, unless they are a hypocrite, be against more powers being transferred to Brussels.
Well done, Nigel. :y
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
-
Little Englander Nigel Farage and UKIP...... are good for entertainment value only.
The idea that he .......and his ragtag bunch of inept misfits........could have any credible policy ideas....is simply laughable.
.....Nickbat may disagree... ::) ;)
-
I love the man. Think he should be PM. :y ;D
-
I love the man. Think he should be PM. :y ;D
......You could do a better job than "nasty nige".... ;)
-
I love the man. Think he should be PM. :y ;D
......You could do a better job than "nasty nige".... ;)
At being nasty to sprouts, yes. But I'm far too indifferent to be PM. ;D
-
Yes! How dare that 'person' insult Belgium!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How to make friends eh?! ::) ::) ::)
I presume you're talking about Nigel Farage's peech last week.
I think we need to put this in perspective:
June 1978. House of Commons. Labour Chancellor Denis Healey describes being attacked by Geoffrey Howe (at the time the Conservative shadow Chancellor) as "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
Result: Much mirth. No censure of Healey. No outrage.
February 2010. European Parliament. Nigel Farage says Herman Van Rompuy has "the charisma of a damp rag".
Result: Censure. Much outrage at this un-British rudeness.
So, logically, being compared to a dead sheep is OK, but being compared to a damp rag is not. Clearly, for the media, it all comes down to who is making the comment.
UKIP have very little funds, and few friends in the liberal media. Had Farage merely pointed out in a very low key civil manner the obvious fact that Van Rumpuy has not been elected by the people and that his post of president is not therefore democratically valid, his speech would not have received any coverage. He gave it full guns and got plenty of column inches and many people have taken on board the undemocratic nature of this charade which is known as the EU.
I would like to point out that anyone who supported Scottish and Welsh devolution (bringing democracy nearer to the people) must, unless they are a hypocrite, be against more powers being transferred to Brussels.
Well done, Nigel. :y
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
1. Very gracious of you, but I suspect that freedom will disappear within the next decade. ;)
2. The term British used in a pejorative way, I notice! Pot..kettle..black comes to mind. ::)
-
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
1. Very gracious of you, but I suspect that freedom will disappear within the next decade. ;)
2. The term British used in a pejorative way, I notice! Pot..kettle..black comes to mind. ::)
I really can't see how you arrived at that conclusion. All I was trying to do was distinguish between the immigrant and the native workers in reference to my previous sentence. I'm proud to be both English and British. And, for that matter, Jewish. I would never use any of those terms in a pejorative manner!
Also, I don't see the relevance of the "pot, kettle, black" comment. Please explain. :(
I really am surprised to see you resorting to such left-wing distraction techniques. :) :) :)
-
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
1. Very gracious of you, but I suspect that freedom will disappear within the next decade. ;)
2. The term British used in a pejorative way, I notice! Pot..kettle..black comes to mind. ::)
I really can't see how you arrived at that conclusion. All I was trying to do was distinguish between the immigrant and the native workers in reference to my previous sentence. I'm proud to be both English and British. And, for that matter, Jewish. I would never use any of those terms in a pejorative manner!
Also, I don't see the relevance of the "pot, kettle, black" comment. Please explain. :(
I really am surprised to see you resorting to such left-wing distraction techniques. :) :) :)
You used the term small-minded British boors, and I took that to be a distinct, and inferior, variety of small-minded boor. Hence my pot..kettle...black remark was addressing the undertanding that you were of the opinion that Farage would not make comments about Belgium, but you could make remarks about the British people. I was mistaken and I take it back with an apology. :-[
I really do fear the power of the EU and, since you seem to be less than keen on left-wing techniques (judging by your last remark), you may be interested to read this from 2001:
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
Now, that's socialism for you.
My deeply-held fears of the EU, my passion for democracy, and my disgust that none of the major parties will address this issue, means that (for me and I suspect many others) that the time for civility is over. If only by being loud and boorish can one get the point across, then so be it. The stakes are too high for niceties.
:( >:(
-
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
1. Very gracious of you, but I suspect that freedom will disappear within the next decade. ;)
2. The term British used in a pejorative way, I notice! Pot..kettle..black comes to mind. ::)
I really can't see how you arrived at that conclusion. All I was trying to do was distinguish between the immigrant and the native workers in reference to my previous sentence. I'm proud to be both English and British. And, for that matter, Jewish. I would never use any of those terms in a pejorative manner!
Also, I don't see the relevance of the "pot, kettle, black" comment. Please explain. :(
I really am surprised to see you resorting to such left-wing distraction techniques. :) :) :)
You used the term small-minded British boors, and I took that to be a distinct, and inferior, variety of small-minded boor. Hence my pot..kettle...black remark was addressing the undertanding that you were of the opinion that Farage would not make comments about Belgium, but you could make remarks about the British people. I was mistaken and I take it back with an apology. :-[
I really do fear the power of the EU and, since you seem to be less than keen on left-wing techniques (judging by your last remark), you may be interested to read this from 2001:
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
Now, that's socialism for you.
My deeply-held fears of the EU, my passion for democracy, and my disgust that none of the major parties will address this issue, means that (for me and I suspect many others) that the time for civility is over. If only by being loud and boorish can one get the point across, then so be it. The stakes are too high for niceties.
:( >:(
Thanks for that - I certainly don't want to fall out with you - we agree on many things. :) :) :)
While I am a firm supporter of European economic co-operation, and not averse to European political unity (in the sense of speaking with one voice on global issues), I am definitely not an enthusiast for the current crop of EU institutions.
The European Commission is a bureaucratic swamp, populated by stereotypical civil servants of the Jobsworth school of administrative obfuscation. The only thing more horrifying than the level of incompetence displayed is the level of power these nonentities are able to wield. The endemic corruption and wastefulness have to be seen to be believed.
The European Parliament is effectively powerless, because it dare not take on any really worthwhile legislation for fear of the major players (France, Germany, UK) walking out.
The whole shooting match needs booting out and we should start again from scratch. :) :) :)
-
Thanks for that - I certainly don't want to fall out with you - we agree on many things. :) :) :)
While I am a firm supporter of European economic co-operation, and not averse to European political unity (in the sense of speaking with one voice on global issues), I am definitely not an enthusiast for the current crop of EU institutions.
The European Commission is a bureaucratic swamp, populated by stereotypical civil servants of the Jobsworth school of administrative obfuscation. The only thing more horrifying than the level of incompetence displayed is the level of power these nonentities are able to wield. The endemic corruption and wastefulness have to be seen to be believed.
The European Parliament is effectively powerless, because it dare not take on any really worthwhile legislation for fear of the major players (France, Germany, UK) walking out.
The whole shooting match needs booting out and we should start again from scratch. :) :) :)
Well, we certainly agree on that, J. ! :y :y
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
-
I think you need to distinguish between wit and rudeness.
You are entitled to your views about the EU, as is Mr. Farage. But which part of democracy involves standing up in Parliament and being gratuitously offensive to elected officials?
I happen to disagree with you and Farage, as I think the economic future of this country must depend on our neighbours. I am also in favour of an open immigration policy, as, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the mindless thugs our current education system is turning out. What's wrong with Polish plumbers and Indian doctors if we can't produce our own home grown talent?
I'd prefer to mix with those people than small-minded British boors like Farage.
1. Very gracious of you, but I suspect that freedom will disappear within the next decade. ;)
2. The term British used in a pejorative way, I notice! Pot..kettle..black comes to mind. ::)
I really can't see how you arrived at that conclusion. All I was trying to do was distinguish between the immigrant and the native workers in reference to my previous sentence. I'm proud to be both English and British. And, for that matter, Jewish. I would never use any of those terms in a pejorative manner!
Also, I don't see the relevance of the "pot, kettle, black" comment. Please explain. :(
I really am surprised to see you resorting to such left-wing distraction techniques. :) :) :)
You used the term small-minded British boors, and I took that to be a distinct, and inferior, variety of small-minded boor. Hence my pot..kettle...black remark was addressing the undertanding that you were of the opinion that Farage would not make comments about Belgium, but you could make remarks about the British people. I was mistaken and I take it back with an apology. :-[
I really do fear the power of the EU and, since you seem to be less than keen on left-wing techniques (judging by your last remark), you may be interested to read this from 2001:
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
Now, that's socialism for you.
My deeply-held fears of the EU, my passion for democracy, and my disgust that none of the major parties will address this issue, means that (for me and I suspect many others) that the time for civility is over. If only by being loud and boorish can one get the point across, then so be it. The stakes are too high for niceties.
:( >:(
For those that like to form their own opinions about the acts of the EU institutions, here http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=C-273/99&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100 is the actual case report.
This may also help you form an opinion about the accuracy of the Telegraph article.
K
-
Yes! How dare that 'person' insult Belgium!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How to make friends eh?! ::) ::) ::)
I presume you're talking about Nigel Farage's peech last week.
I think we need to put this in perspective:
June 1978. House of Commons. Labour Chancellor Denis Healey describes being attacked by Geoffrey Howe (at the time the Conservative shadow Chancellor) as "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
Result: Much mirth. No censure of Healey. No outrage.
February 2010. European Parliament. Nigel Farage says Herman Van Rompuy has "the charisma of a damp rag".
Result: Censure. Much outrage at this un-British rudeness.
So, logically, being compared to a dead sheep is OK, but being compared to a damp rag is not. Clearly, for the media, it all comes down to who is making the comment.
UKIP have very little funds, and few friends in the liberal media. Had Farage merely pointed out in a very low key civil manner the obvious fact that Van Rumpuy has not been elected by the people and that his post of president is not therefore democratically valid, his speech would not have received any coverage. He gave it full guns and got plenty of column inches and many people have taken on board the undemocratic nature of this charade which is known as the EU.
I would like to point out that anyone who supported Scottish and Welsh devolution (bringing democracy nearer to the people) must, unless they are a hypocrite, be against more powers being transferred to Brussels.
Well done, Nigel. :y
I'm rather disappointed by this speech Nick - reported in the Guardian link given by Elizabeth - as many valid points made by Farage were diminished in effect somewhat by his outright hostility towards Van Rompuy and Belgium.
Dealings with this bureaucratic behemoth need an approach steeped in forensic detail, not intemperate language that simply blurs the real issues which need to be addressed.
On the basis of what I heard Farage lost a deal of credibility by making those remarks rather than sticking to a hard-hitting unequivocal fact based speech on the potential failings and unsavoury nature of this particular appointment, and of the constitution and overall intent of this worrying body in general.
-
Today Farage has been rightly fined 3,000 euros for refusing to apologise for his outburst :D :D :y :y
-
Today Farage has been rightly fined 3,000 euros for refusing to apologise for his outburst :D :D :y :y
He'll insist on paying it in pounds sterling.
-
Today Farage has been rightly fined 3,000 euros for refusing to apologise for his outburst :D :D :y :y
He'll insist on paying it in pounds sterling.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y
-
Today Farage has been rightly fined 3,000 euros for refusing to apologise for his outburst :D :D :y :y
He'll insist on paying it in pounds sterling.
Worth every penny. ;D
Kevin
-
Today Farage has been rightly fined 3,000 euros for refusing to apologise for his outburst :D :D :y :y
He'll insist on paying it in pounds sterling.
Hahahahahaha - gold standard posting 8-) :y :y
-
I'd never heard of the fella until tonight .I've just had to search you tube for him . He fascinates me ,well his attitude fascinates me .How can someone talk sorry shout for 10 minuets and say nothing .
-
I'd never heard of the fella until tonight .I've just had to search you tube for him . He fascinates me ,well his attitude fascinates me .How can someone talk sorry shout for 10 minuets and say nothing .
I've never seen him dance.
-
I'd never heard of the fella until tonight .I've just had to search you tube for him . He fascinates me ,well his attitude fascinates me .How can someone talk sorry shout for 10 minuets and say nothing .
I've never seen him dance.[/quote]
dunno why not he seems to do everything else to get attention
-
I'd never heard of the fella until tonight .I've just had to search you tube for him . He fascinates me ,well his attitude fascinates me .How can someone talk sorry shout for 10 minuets and say nothing .
I've never seen him dance.[/quote]
dunno why not he seems to do everything else to get attention
Well, you said he did ten minuets. ;D
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
-
I reckon we should have a whip round to help with his fine. Why must we be ashamed when someone tries to stick up for the UK for a change. And how can we denigrate someone for ranting against an unelected President of a Europe that we never vote for. ;)
-
I reckon we should have a whip round to help with his fine. Why must we be ashamed when someone tries to stick up for the UK for a change. And how can we denigrate someone for ranting against an unelected President of a Europe that we never vote for. ;)
I think it went the way he intended. 3,000 euros couldn't buy the sort of publicity UKIP got and judging by the many comments I have read, he cemented the eurosceptic vote. Europhiles would have ranted whatever he had said. Smart call on his part, I think. :y
-
He's only saying what most of us think.
Did we elect the president (don't know his name) and he only pays 17% tax. Enough said.
Well done Nigel!!!
-
He's only saying what most of us think.
Did we elect the president (don't know his name) and he only pays 17% tax. Enough said.
Well done Nigel!!!
Steve - which particular "us" did you have in mind?
K
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
very well put opti :y
capitilist: someone who wants their cake, your cake and everyone else's cake and eats the lot and makes us make more cakes for them and eats them.......................i had a good analogy somewhere and lost my train of thought ;D
-
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
Socialism:
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Do I think it's fundamentally wrong? Yes.
"...and the words Capitalism/Capitalist..."
Didn't use either of those terms in my post.
(A visit to Specsavers required, maybe? ;) )
I believe in private enterprise and personal liberty. Period. :y
-
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
Socialism:
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Do I think it's fundamentally wrong? Yes.
"...and the words Capitalism/Capitalist..."
Didn't use either of those terms in my post.
(A visit to Specsavers required, maybe? ;) )
I believe in private enterprise and personal liberty. Period. :y
what's private about the taxpayer bailing out the banks? capitilism needs regulation - you can't operate on Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" mantra it's proven to fail and fail spectacularly
put the railways back in taxpayer hands, give the gas, electricity and water back to the taxpayer after it was stolen from us, come down hard on the tax dodging mega-rich - so what if it drives them out - they've proven useless at generating wealth for anyone but themselves - go live elsewhere you fat greedy tinkers. the sooner we stop pandering to this great capitilist myth the better - capitilism can't work without exploitation, without greed and without government aid when it all goes tits up :o
-
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
Socialism:
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Do I think it's fundamentally wrong? Yes.
"...and the words Capitalism/Capitalist..."
Didn't use either of those terms in my post.
(A visit to Specsavers required, maybe? ;) )
I believe in private enterprise and personal liberty. Period. :y
what's private about the taxpayer bailing out the banks? capitilism needs regulation - you can't operate on Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" mantra it's proven to fail and fail spectacularly
put the railways back in taxpayer hands, give the gas, electricity and water back to the taxpayer after it was stolen from us, come down hard on the tax dodging mega-rich - so what if it drives them out - they've proven useless at generating wealth for anyone but themselves - go live elsewhere you fat greedy tinkers. the sooner we stop pandering to this great capitilist myth the better - capitilism can't work without exploitation, without greed and without government aid when it all goes tits up :o
Nickbat........always seems to overlook this small point BJ::) ::) ;).....I always thought that private enterprise was all about self reliance.....and not being a drain on the taxpayer........Apparently not ::) ::) ::)......The Banks are fully aware that they will be bailed out time and time again by the taxpayer.......only capitalists when it suits them it seems......... taking all the profits........responsible for none of the losses...... :-/ :-/ :-/
-
Nickbat........always seems to overlook this small point BJ::) ::) ;).....I always thought that private enterprise was all about self reliance.....and not being a drain on the taxpayer........Apparently not ::) ::) ::)......The Banks are fully aware that they will be bailed out time and time again by the taxpayer.......only capitalists when it suits them it seems......... taking all the profits........responsible for none of the losses...... :-/ :-/ :-/
I don't overlook things,Optimist.
1. The banking crisis began in the US. There is credible evidence that the seeds were sown as a result of political interference in the markets during the Carter administration when banks were forced into making loans to less-than-creditworthy sections of the Americn society for political reasons.
2. The banks did not go "running home to Socialist Mummy" for bail outs, as Bj suggests. Several banks refused help (e.g Barclays) while others accepted the stock guarantees as part of the restructuring requested by the government (e.g. Lloyds). Several banks in the US also refused state assistance. In the UK it was not a crisis caused by private enterprise, nor solved by socialism. It was, if anything a crisis caused not only by White House interference in the housing market, but exacerbated by the global market, to which both socialist and capitalist states contribute.
3. Where you allege that "taxpayers" money is graciously handed out by these wonderful socialists, perhaps you should wonder where this money actually comes from. Prior to the crisis, the banks and others gave absolutely huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, whereupon our wonderful socialist government embarked on an irresponsible spending spree (hence the fact that we're bankrupt now). So, all this talk of bank greed and dear old Mummy Socialist kindly handing out it's own hard-earned cash to help them is complete nonsense.
Perhaps, Optimist, you should remember that it is private enterprise - including, and especially, the financial sector during the good times - that pays for all the public sector largesse of which you seem to be so enamoured.
:(
-
Nickbat........always seems to overlook this small point BJ::) ::) ;).....I always thought that private enterprise was all about self reliance.....and not being a drain on the taxpayer........Apparently not ::) ::) ::)......The Banks are fully aware that they will be bailed out time and time again by the taxpayer.......only capitalists when it suits them it seems......... taking all the profits........responsible for none of the losses...... :-/ :-/ :-/
I don't overlook things,Optimist.
1. The banking crisis began in the US. There is credible evidence that the seeds were sown as a result of political interference in the markets during the Carter administration when banks were forced into making loans to less-than-creditworthy sections of the Americn society for political reasons.
2. The banks did not go "running home to Socialist Mummy" for bail outs, as Bj suggests. Several banks refused help (e.g Barclays) while others accepted the stock guarantees as part of the restructuring requested by the government (e.g. Lloyds). Several banks in the US also refused state assistance. In the UK it was not a crisis caused by private enterprise, nor solved by socialism. It was, if anything a crisis caused not only by White House interference in the housing market, but exacerbated by the global market, to which both socialist and capitalist states contribute.
3. Where you allege that "taxpayers" money is graciously handed out by these wonderful socialists, perhaps you should wonder where this money actually comes from. Prior to the crisis, the banks and others gave absolutely huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, whereupon our wonderful socialist government embarked on an irresponsible spending spree (hence the fact that we're bankrupt now). So, all this talk of bank greed and dear old Mummy Socialist kindly handing out it's own hard-earned cash to help them is complete nonsense.
Perhaps, Optimist, you should remember that it is private enterprise - including, and especially, the financial sector during the good times - that pays for all the public sector largesse of which you seem to be so enamoured.
:(
......I seriously doubt that we will ever agree on this subject ...Nick.. :y :y
-
I dont know why your bothering speaking sense to these two Nickbat.The pair of them know slightly less than nothing on the subjects they choose to rant about and have very closed minds and are therefore unable to learn anything about anything. your wasting your time mate. ::)
-
Nickbat........always seems to overlook this small point BJ::) ::) ;).....I always thought that private enterprise was all about self reliance.....and not being a drain on the taxpayer........Apparently not ::) ::) ::)......The Banks are fully aware that they will be bailed out time and time again by the taxpayer.......only capitalists when it suits them it seems......... taking all the profits........responsible for none of the losses...... :-/ :-/ :-/
I don't overlook things,Optimist.
1. The banking crisis began in the US. There is credible evidence that the seeds were sown as a result of political interference in the markets during the Carter administration when banks were forced into making loans to less-than-creditworthy sections of the Americn society for political reasons.
2. The banks did not go "running home to Socialist Mummy" for bail outs, as Bj suggests. Several banks refused help (e.g Barclays) while others accepted the stock guarantees as part of the restructuring requested by the government (e.g. Lloyds). Several banks in the US also refused state assistance. In the UK it was not a crisis caused by private enterprise, nor solved by socialism. It was, if anything a crisis caused not only by White House interference in the housing market, but exacerbated by the global market, to which both socialist and capitalist states contribute.
3. Where you allege that "taxpayers" money is graciously handed out by these wonderful socialists, perhaps you should wonder where this money actually comes from. Prior to the crisis, the banks and others gave absolutely huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, whereupon our wonderful socialist government embarked on an irresponsible spending spree (hence the fact that we're bankrupt now). So, all this talk of bank greed and dear old Mummy Socialist kindly handing out it's own hard-earned cash to help them is complete nonsense.
Perhaps, Optimist, you should remember that it is private enterprise - including, and especially, the financial sector during the good times - that pays for all the public sector largesse of which you seem to be so enamoured.
:(
to take your points 1 by 1 Nick
1) no-one has ever forced a bank into doing anything other than serving its own bottom line
2) Barclays went cap-in-hand to the saudis for a private bail-out, my suspicion remains they don't want govt snooping in their tax-avoiding books - and i can't take credit for Opti's wonderful line :y
3) this last point beggars belief, the huge amounts of tax are dwarfed by the massive amounts of tax they don't pay - squirrelling through every loophole in the book so let's put the violins away for now.
i do admire the chutzpah tho Nick, really I do - but even you have to let go of the great banking philanthropism bs - no-ones buying (shares in banks anymore) 8-)
-
Nickbat........always seems to overlook this small point BJ::) ::) ;).....I always thought that private enterprise was all about self reliance.....and not being a drain on the taxpayer........Apparently not ::) ::) ::)......The Banks are fully aware that they will be bailed out time and time again by the taxpayer.......only capitalists when it suits them it seems......... taking all the profits........responsible for none of the losses...... :-/ :-/ :-/
I don't overlook things,Optimist.
1. The banking crisis began in the US. There is credible evidence that the seeds were sown as a result of political interference in the markets during the Carter administration when banks were forced into making loans to less-than-creditworthy sections of the Americn society for political reasons.
2. The banks did not go "running home to Socialist Mummy" for bail outs, as Bj suggests. Several banks refused help (e.g Barclays) while others accepted the stock guarantees as part of the restructuring requested by the government (e.g. Lloyds). Several banks in the US also refused state assistance. In the UK it was not a crisis caused by private enterprise, nor solved by socialism. It was, if anything a crisis caused not only by White House interference in the housing market, but exacerbated by the global market, to which both socialist and capitalist states contribute.
3. Where you allege that "taxpayers" money is graciously handed out by these wonderful socialists, perhaps you should wonder where this money actually comes from. Prior to the crisis, the banks and others gave absolutely huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, whereupon our wonderful socialist government embarked on an irresponsible spending spree (hence the fact that we're bankrupt now). So, all this talk of bank greed and dear old Mummy Socialist kindly handing out it's own hard-earned cash to help them is complete nonsense.
Perhaps, Optimist, you should remember that it is private enterprise - including, and especially, the financial sector during the good times - that pays for all the public sector largesse of which you seem to be so enamoured.
:(
to take your points 1 by 1 Nick
1) no-one has ever forced a bank into doing anything other than serving its own bottom line
2) Barclays went cap-in-hand to the saudis for a private bail-out, my suspicion remains they don't want govt snooping in their tax-avoiding books - and i can't take credit for Opti's wonderful line :y
3) this last point beggars belief, the huge amounts of tax are dwarfed by the massive amounts of tax they don't pay - squirrelling through every loophole in the book so let's put the violins away for now.
i do admire the chutzpah tho Nick, really I do - but even you have to let go of the great banking philanthropism bs - no-ones buying (shares in banks anymore) 8-)
......if this thread was a fooball match.... the final score would be......
Banjax and Optimist 4......Albs and Nickbat 0 .
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D......give up you crazy bank loving pair..... ;) ;)
-
I dont know why your bothering speaking sense to these two Nickbat.The pair of them know slightly less than nothing on the subjects they choose to rant about and have very closed minds and are therefore unable to learn anything about anything. your wasting your time mate. ::)
i've never been accused of having a closed mind albs, but then you're right and everyone else is wrong....that's an open mind is it? sorry i don't know much about closed minds - you'll have to enlighten us :y
-
......if this thread was a fooball match.... the final score would be......
Banjax and Optimist 4......Albs and Nickbat 0 .
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D......give up you crazy bank loving pair..... ;) ;)
[/quote]
unfortunately to use your analogy Opti, the banks make up the rules, pay for the referee, remove the goalposts and decide only they can play with the ball and score as much as they like so i doubt we'd win m8 :y
-
......if this thread was a fooball match.... the final score would be......
Banjax and Optimist 4......Albs and Nickbat 0 .
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D......give up you crazy bank loving pair..... ;) ;)
Evidence, if indeed evidence were needed, that it is impossible to carry out an adult discussion with people who liken such discourse to a football match and then gloat over their "apparent" victory (in their own minds only, though, it must be said). >:( >:(
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
-
Go 'ead der Albs ;D
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
Tasty tonight....innit? ;D ;D
-
actually albs - you're right, i know nothing about banking, well, about as much as your average banker it would seem ;)
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
jeesus h. christ first you're with the bankers and now you're calling it a term of abuse? focus man focus! :o
off to watch footy before this goes downhill :y
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
jeesus h. christ first you're with the bankers and now you're calling it a term of abuse? focus man focus! :o
off to watch footy before this goes downhill :y
There's no footie on.
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
jeesus h. christ first you're with the bankers and now you're calling it a term of abuse? focus man focus! :o
off to watch footy before this goes downhill :y
We both know what you were insinuating and if you had read previous posts, you would have known that Albs has a family member in the industry. :(
-
I was referring specifically (but not exclusively) to the many posts you two have posted about banking. I have some close personal knowledge of the subject and Nickbat has quite a lot more. It is very obvious that neither of you has even the tiniest shred of knowledge on the subject but you seem to constantly string together bits of headlines from the mirror and the gaurdian and try to present it as articulated thought. Juvenile and laughable imo.
i knew you were a merchant banker :y
Abuse. Plain and simple. >:(
jeesus h. christ first you're with the bankers and now you're calling it a term of abuse? focus man focus! :o
off to watch footy before this goes downhill :y
We both know what you were insinuating and if you had read previous posts, you would have known that Albs has a family member in the industry. :(
Yeah. His full name is Albs King.
-
Have I missed anything ?.... ::) ::) ;)
-
This thread has really gone downhill......I blame STMO..... ::) ;)
-
This thread has really gone downhill......I blame STMO..... ::) ;)
It's a fair cop guv, I'll come quiet.
-
interesting ::)
bank=mechanism that the owner earn good sums from your money and give you nearly nothing ;D and sometimes even your money evaporizes ;D ;D
capitalism=big fish eats all small fish.. and as a miggy owner no chance for you to be a big fish ;D
-
This thread has really gone downhill......I blame STMO..... ::) ;)
It's a fair cop guv, I'll come quiet.
Yeo, he did not even know there was football on the TV tonight, not that I will be watching it......... :D :D :D
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
A point well worth considering Del 8-) :y :y
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees
How dare you refer to to our present system of government as being 'Socialist' Opti :o :o
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
A point well worth considering Del 8-) :y :y
1. The suggestion of monocles and bowler hats is plain daft.
2. Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Indeed, who are the "rest of Europe"? The socialist, Bilderburgers?
The EU is an organisation that costs us £138.6 million net, per day. The EU Commission answers to no-one. It is likely that, soon, we shall have a European Public Prosecutor, with an accompanying law body, Corpus Juris, which will effectively usurp our centuries old English & Scottish legal systems.
Ina few years time, it will give me no pleasure to say that you were warned.
:( >:(
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
A point well worth considering Del 8-) :y :y
1. The suggestion of monocles and bowler hats is plain daft.
2. Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Indeed, who are the "rest of Europe"? The socialist, Bilderburgers?
The EU is an organisation that costs us £138.6 million net, per day. The EU Commission answers to no-one. It is likely that, soon, we shall have a European Public Prosecutor, with an accompanying law body, Corpus Juris, which will effectively usurp our centuries old English & Scottish legal systems.
Ina few years time, it will give me no pleasure to say that you were warned.
:( >:(
Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Me, for one.
European Public Prosecutor: here, for those that like to make their own informed opinions, is a link to the relevant Treaty article: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF. Go to Article 86 - page 36/153 on my screen.
Quote: "In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament." [my emphasis]
Corpus juris? = a body of law, not a law body. Or have I missed something?
K
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
A point well worth considering Del 8-) :y :y
1. The suggestion of monocles and bowler hats is plain daft.
2. Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Indeed, who are the "rest of Europe"? The socialist, Bilderburgers?
The EU is an organisation that costs us £138.6 million net, per day. The EU Commission answers to no-one. It is likely that, soon, we shall have a European Public Prosecutor, with an accompanying law body, Corpus Juris, which will effectively usurp our centuries old English & Scottish legal systems.
Ina few years time, it will give me no pleasure to say that you were warned.
:( >:(
or perhaps............ I (Nickbat) got it completely wrong..... ::) ;)
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
And we're really that brilliant now?
A point well worth considering Del 8-) :y :y
1. The suggestion of monocles and bowler hats is plain daft.
2. Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Indeed, who are the "rest of Europe"? The socialist, Bilderburgers?
The EU is an organisation that costs us £138.6 million net, per day. The EU Commission answers to no-one. It is likely that, soon, we shall have a European Public Prosecutor, with an accompanying law body, Corpus Juris, which will effectively usurp our centuries old English & Scottish legal systems.
Ina few years time, it will give me no pleasure to say that you were warned.
:( >:(
Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Me, for one.
European Public Prosecutor: here, for those that like to make their own informed opinions, is a link to the relevant Treaty article: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF. Go to Article 86 - page 36/153 on my screen.
Quote: "In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament." [my emphasis]
Corpus juris? = a body of law, not a law body. Or have I missed something?
K
This seems to be a slightly different take on this K that confirms in my mind at least that anything connected with Brussels is fraught with double-meaning and holds the possibility of having substantial poilcy 'creep'
Article 18 of Corpus Juris expressly refers to the whole of the territory of all the member states of the EU forming "a single legal area. The former President of the European Parliament, the notorious federalist Josi Maria Gil-Robles, wants to see a common European judicial space", to which the answer must surely be: "No way, Josi".
The European legal area would involve sweeping away the existing criminal justice systems of the Member States. Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus would be abolished and with them our ancient freedoms, to be replaced by an inquisitorial system based on the tyrannical Napoleonic Code. The presumption of innocence would become worthless and every man, woman and child in the country, guilty or innocent, would become liable to be arrested at the whim of the European Public prosecution. Warrants could b¢ issued anywhere in the European Union and the police officers enforcing Corpus Juris would not respect national boundaries - forcible removal from one Member State to another is provided for. It is inevitable that Europol would become closely involved and the destruction of that organisation must surely become a national priority
Read more here: http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/cj_folder/cj_index.html
Treaty article: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF. Go to Article 86 -
Reading on from the first paragraph relevent to your link K, does the following not suggest that, typical of the way the EU bodies steer their legislative proposals, this is another measure that will be forced through 'by hook or by crook'?
In the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the
draft regulation be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be
suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four
months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.[/b]
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to
establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft regulation concerned, they shall notify the
European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to
proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and
Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced
cooperation shall apply.[/b]
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees
How dare you refer to to our present system of government as being 'Socialist' Opti :o :o
an oversight for which my comrade will be severely reprimanded Zulu :y
opti - how'd you fancy discovering where salt comes from? ;D ;D
-
Huh? :-?
my way of saying hello Nick :y
but seriously - it doesn't need expanding does it? as others have said they're a disgraceful, childish, self-serving bunch of little englanders who have no idea how to behave, hence resort to cheap publicity stunts and jumping on whichever band-wagons are passing
imagine that lot got in - we'd be the laughing-stock of europe in our little bowler hats, monocles and cups of tea ;D
Have you actually READ their manifesto? :-?
No, I didn't think so. ;)
hilarious isn't it :y
scrap human rights? nice, real nice - nutters
increase defence spending by 40%? do they know thats quite a lot of money? more than they’d ever save leaving the EU
they want to free UK from relying on middle east and russian oil, yet oppose wind farms?
300% increase in border control!! this has all been costed has it?
oh, and Norway isn’t a member of the EU? correct, technically it’s not but this makes no difference to the legislation imposed by the EU because it is a member (a founding member no less) of the European economic area - a must if you want access to the EU’s internal market......which we do don’t we?
same for the Swiss - to all intents and purposes they’re a fully functioning member of the EU
my cheques in the post - where do i sign up to these geniuses? ;D
In case anyone thinks that Banjax gives a balance apprasial of the UKIP manifesto, allow me to present this:
* New “Flat tax” replacing Income Tax & National Insurance
* No tax on first £11,500p.a earnings
* No tax for people on minimum wage
* VAT scrapped to be replaced by a local sales tax
* End uncontrolled mass immigration
* Work permits only for UK economic needs (as in Australia)
* Keep our proud tradition of helping genuine asylum seekers who fear for their lives.
* Swiss-style referenda on key local and national issues
* Student grants, not student loans
* Invest in new high-speed rail routes and re-open selected local lines.
* Encourage electric cars, lorries and trains
* Make foreign lorries pay to use UK roads
* Stop persecuting motorists with huge tax rises and over-zealous enforcement
* Cease funding for the IPCC, pull out of the EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme and would establish a Royal Commission that would allow scientists on both sides of the debate to research climate change and come to a conclusion
:y :y :y :y :y
Can't see anything "hilarious" there. But then, I don't have Banjax's sense of humour.
Yes, it does also call for our services to be properly equipped, and yes it does call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act (that great piece of EU legislation that is so ill-conceived that it is a charter for any ne'er do well with lawyer). Eminently sensible to me.
No, not nutters. The nutters are the socialists that have spent so many years breaking this country and our society apart.
.....You use the words socialist/socialism ......as though they are some kind of disease Nick :-/ :-/......and the words Capitalism/Capitalist........as though we have Utopia here on Earth :-/Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid.
It is strange how .......all those nasty Capitalist..(I don't give a shit about anything ...or anybody but myself) banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees. :P :P :P :P :P
banks/bankers....have now come running home to Socialist Mummy......who has very kindly put a multi-billion pound Socialist plaster on their grazed capitalist knees
How dare you refer to to our present system of government as being 'Socialist' Opti :o :o
an oversight for which my comrade will be severely reprimanded Zulu :y
opti - how'd you fancy discovering where salt comes from? ;D ;D
.....Agreed......the word socialist is not really appropriate for "New (blue)Labour".......fifteen years of breaking rocks ......will soon sort me out.... ;D ;D ;)
-
1. The suggestion of monocles and bowler hats is plain daft.
2. Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Indeed, who are the "rest of Europe"? The socialist, Bilderburgers?
The EU is an organisation that costs us £138.6 million net, per day. The EU Commission answers to no-one. It is likely that, soon, we shall have a European Public Prosecutor, with an accompanying law body, Corpus Juris, which will effectively usurp our centuries old English & Scottish legal systems.
Ina few years time, it will give me no pleasure to say that you were warned.
:( >:( [/quote]
Who cares what the rest of Europe "thinks"? Me, for one.
European Public Prosecutor: here, for those that like to make their own informed opinions, is a link to the relevant Treaty article: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF. Go to Article 86 - page 36/153 on my screen.
Quote: "In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament." [my emphasis]
Corpus juris? = a body of law, not a law body. Or have I missed something?
K[/quote]
This seems to be a slightly different take on this K that confirms in my mind at least that anything connected with Brussels is fraught with double-meaning and holds the possibility of having substantial poilcy 'creep'
Article 18 of Corpus Juris expressly refers to the whole of the territory of all the member states of the EU forming "a single legal area. The former President of the European Parliament, the notorious federalist Josi Maria Gil-Robles, wants to see a common European judicial space", to which the answer must surely be: "No way, Josi".
The European legal area would involve sweeping away the existing criminal justice systems of the Member States. Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus would be abolished and with them our ancient freedoms, to be replaced by an inquisitorial system based on the tyrannical Napoleonic Code. The presumption of innocence would become worthless and every man, woman and child in the country, guilty or innocent, would become liable to be arrested at the whim of the European Public prosecution. Warrants could b¢ issued anywhere in the European Union and the police officers enforcing Corpus Juris would not respect national boundaries - forcible removal from one Member State to another is provided for. It is inevitable that Europol would become closely involved and the destruction of that organisation must surely become a national priority
Read more here: http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/cj_folder/cj_index.html
Treaty article: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF. Go to Article 86 -
Reading on from the first paragraph relevent to your link K, does the following not suggest that, typical of the way the EU bodies steer their legislative proposals, this is another measure that will be forced through 'by hook or by crook'?
In the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the
draft regulation be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be
suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four
months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.[/b]
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to
establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft regulation concerned, they shall notify the
European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to
proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and
Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced
cooperation shall apply.[/b][/quote]
Regarding different takes, Z, I am always cautious as to whether the author is looking at the reality & facts from original sources, or merely bending the information to their own pre-determined ends. As someone said to me at work recently: "Don't confuse me with the facts ...!"
fraught with double-meaning Yes .. at least double ... it is often difficult to find any meaning in some things.
substantial policy 'creep' I've met some of those in Whitehall and in Brussels!
eurofaq I was unable to work out who this site belongs to. Tried to find some authority behind the assertions, but found none. I have to admit that anything that refers to a "notorious federalist" can make me react, rather than respond. Surely the EU is pursuing a policy of liberal intergovernmentalism? :)
forced through If I read these provison correctly, they still require a minimum of nine member states to agree. Does this not take the power away from the institutions and put it back to the Members? (Discuss)
Sorry, I've messed up the quotes above.
K
-
Is it mandatory for the posts in these threads to get bigger and [size=16]bigger[/size] and [size=20]bigger[/size] ??
I fail to see why every thing every other person has ever said must be quoted by every one else .. or is it pure laziness ?? Ie .. just hit quote then add one line ???
Doesn't make the subject any more attractive to the neutral reader .... mind you .. as there are usually only 4/5 posters having their own private argument I guess it doesn't matter really .. :)
-
Is it mandatory for the posts in these threads to get bigger and [size=16]bigger[/size] and [size=20]bigger[/size] ??
I fail to see why every thing every other person has ever said must be quoted by every one else .. or is it pure laziness ?? Ie .. just hit quote then add one line ???
Doesn't make the subject any more attractive to the neutral reader .... mind you .. as there are usually only 4/5 posters having their own private argument I guess it doesn't matter really .. :)
......I don't know how to reduce thread length .....Entwood......
Read the I.Q thread .....and you'll see why.... ;)
-
really .. :)
When the nature of how these posts are presented conspires to make their reading unwelcome for those who are not of the 'usual suspects' variety, I certainly do take the point E - and in doing so offer my apologies. :y :y
-
Is ... :)
mea culpa. I do like to go on. And on. Apologies.
K
-
Regarding different takes, Z, I am always cautious as to whether the author is looking at the reality & facts from original sources, or merely bending the information to their own pre-determined ends. As someone said to me at work recently: "Don't confuse me with the facts ...!"
Don't confuse me with the facts
(A) ;D ;D I do like that - such sentiments have been known to help out enormously in 'certain' Departments.
You are quite right to exercise the caution you mention K as there seem to be many avenues through which such interpretation might pass.
fraught with double-meaning Yes .. at least double ... it is often difficult to find any meaning in some things.
(B) Perhaps the reason for such convoluted language used in the formation of these proposals?
substantial policy 'creep' I've met some of those in Whitehall and in Brussels!
(C) Aah for the quiet power that commands, in those rooms, leading off those very corridors.
eurofaq I was unable to work out who this site belongs to. Tried to find some authority behind the assertions, but found none. I have to admit that anything that refers to a "notorious federalist" can make me react, rather than respond. Surely the EU is pursuing a policy of liberal intergovernmentalism? :)
(D) I certainly accept that K as some of the terms used in my quote suggest to me that the thoughts spring from sources other than those friendly towards Brussels. This should not preclude any merit in substance they may have all the same.
I'm not sure about Brussels and liberal intergovernmental-ism however with this (and other things) in mind - forgive the source, I tried but failed to establish a different reference point;
EUROPE’S chief bureaucrat last night provoked fury after threatening to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.
Read more at:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels
forced through If I read these provison correctly, they still require a minimum of nine member states to agree. Does this not take the power away from the institutions and put it back to the Members? (Discuss)
(E) On the face of it may do K, however with the gradual homogenisation of nations and most facets of their legislative elements within the Union, how long will it be before the 'Institutions' become the de-facto voice, via the Presidency, of 'EU' thereby relegating the individual member countries to be merely local legislative facilitators for the body as a whole?
Sorry, I've messed up the quotes above.
K
-
In discussing the post of European Public Prosecutor and Corpus Juris, I omitted to mention that I had read about this on the blog of Marta Andreasen:
http://www.martaandreasen.com/News_1.html
-
Commission to table proposal for EU-wide €10 per tonne carbon tax
European Voice reports that the new European Commissioner for Taxation, Algirdas Šemeta, is planning to propose a minimum rate of tax on carbon across the whole of the EU. The move, which was considered too controversial by the first Barroso commission, would mean that carbon tax is calculated according to the energy content of certain energy sources such as petrol, coal and natural gas, and the quantity of CO2 they emit. It would be introduced through an amendment to the EU's Energy Taxation Directive, originally adopted in 1992. An earlier draft of the proposal set the minimum excise rate at €10 per tonne of CO2 emitted.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/%C5%A1emeta-seeks-minimum-tax-on-carbon-emissions/67292.aspx
+++
Spanish EU Presidency to propose European Public Prosecutor;
UK veto would not stop Britons being extradited for prosecution elsewhere in EU
Europolitics reports that the Spanish EU Presidency is due to submit a proposal for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor (EPP) in April to “investigate fraud and speculation against the euro”. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the office can be established by a unanimous vote, after approval by the European Parliament, or if that fails, a group of at least nine member states may proceed under so-called ‘enhanced cooperation’.
http://www.eu2010.es/en/documentosynoticias/noticias/mar03_pumpido.html
+++
EUROPE’S chief bureaucrat last night provoked fury after threatening to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claimed that financial stability was so critical that sweeping new powers were needed for Eurocrats in Brussels to meddle in the economies of all EU members.
But his threat sparked an angry backlash from critics of an ever- growing Brussels bureaucracy.
It raised fears that the EU – under unelected new President Herman van Rompuy – is planning a power grab.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161609/EU-chief-vows-to-run-our-economy-from-Brussels
++++
The Common Fisheries Policy has emptied the ocean
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1S8_H2YmN4[/media]
Today, alone, another four reasons to vote UKIP are added to my list.
:( :(
-
Is it mandatory for the posts in these threads to get bigger and [size=16]bigger[/size] and [size=20]bigger[/size] ??
I fail to see why every thing every other person has ever said must be quoted by every one else .. or is it pure laziness ?? Ie .. just hit quote then add one line ???
Doesn't make the subject any more attractive to the neutral reader .... mind you .. as there are usually only 4/5 posters having their own private argument I guess it doesn't matter really .. :)
How right you are Entwood! :y :y :y
To win hearts and minds arguments have to be simply outlined, but these posts do the exact opposite with assorted cuts and pastes to justify points; ie using other peoples words to justify the argument!
In fact unless you are an individual versed in technical political and legal jargon, these posts will simply not be read and understood. The "terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired" factor steps in!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
On the Europe factor a simple equation can in fact be laid out:
We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe
8-) 8-) 8-)
Oh, and just to say that the days of the British Empire are well and truly gone, finally dying around 1960, and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world.
The more you complicate the argument, without clear solutions to the problem being expresses by the authors, and with insults being traded, the more any counter arguments are discredited.
To you all, why not use your own words and thoughts to outline your argument and provide a solution rather than endlessly belching out other peoples soundbites, blogs, and references in an effort to "outgun" your debating opponent? You may then reach a larger audience 8-) 8-) :-* :-*
-
We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe
Odd that you should present the only option to full EU superstate integration as being a return to "the separate nation states and empires of 1870". What about going back to the 1973 European Economic Community, which is what the majority of anti-federalists want?
Secondly, you talk of a "new collaborative Europe". Collaboration implies having a say. The UK say in EU matters is dwindling by the day.
Thirdly, you assert that "war is impossible" in a collaborative Europe. Depends what sort of war you have in mind. Civil wars will be far more likely as a result, IMHO.
:(
-
How right you are Entwood! :y :y :y
To win hearts and minds arguments have to be simply outlined, but these posts do the exact opposite with assorted cuts and pastes to justify points; ie using other peoples words to justify the argument!
In fact unless you are an individual versed in technical political and legal jargon, these posts will simply not be read and understood. The "terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired" factor steps in!!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
On the Europe factor a simple equation can in fact be laid out:
We either go back to the separate nation states and empires of 1870, with the consequences that bought, or continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible and jointly we create a better future for our children / grandchildren to live in a peaceful wealthy Europe
8-) 8-) 8-)
Oh, and just to say that the days of the British Empire are well and truly gone, finally dying around 1960, and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world.
The more you complicate the argument, without clear solutions to the problem being expresses by the authors, and with insults being traded, the more any counter arguments are discredited.
To you all, why not use your own words and thoughts to outline your argument and provide a solution rather than endlessly belching out other peoples soundbites, blogs, and references in an effort to "outgun" your debating opponent? You may then reach a larger audience 8-) 8-) :-* :-*
continue to build a new collaborative Europe where war is impossible
It depends upon where the threat of war emanates E. In general, peace on the European continent in relation the traditional eastern enemy of the now Russia/satellites - then USSR - has been guaranteed by NATO, American military might and the presence of nuclear weapons.
Yes, I take your point that a traditional war amongst the member states is somewhat lessened by virtue of the closer union that now exists, but this by no means precludes a future conflict such as that seen recently in the Balkans and based on the desire to attain power and to correct perceived ethnic imbalances.
As time goes on and the Brussels concept of the EU develops will there not be a tendency for such conflicts to become more likely? Witness the unrest in Greece, the increasing concern over the stability of the Euro currency, immigration, employment and the threat of a resurgent and fundamentalist Islam.
and our British future lies in Europe trading with the world
.
I would suggest that our future lies in having a strong Westminster Government determined to do the best for the people of this country - and answerable to the people of this country - while maintaining close trading links with 'Europe' and the remainder of the world.
Are we really incapable of providing capable government in this Nation without the all-encompassing presence of these burgeoning regulations pushed out by Brussels?
-
The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.
-
The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.
and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.
if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert :y
-
The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.
and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.
if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert :y
It would be a disaster if........ these great men and women ( bankers) left the country BJ. ::) ::) ;) How would the illiterate..... uneducated.....unwashed.... proletariat........such as you and I... survive without their guidance.....leadership......and business acumen :'( :'(......The country would be in a terrible state ......without these intellectual giants to look after our needs...........on the other hand however..... ::) ::) ;)
-
The taxes from Bank bonuses (many of which are being paid today) are about to contribute £2.5 billion to the the treasury coffers.
I saw a news report on Monday which said that HSBC(alone) would be paying £800 million in tax this year,looks like the loan is starting to be repaid,and when it is the industry will continue contributing these amounts to the treasury every year as they always have done. Unless of course we drive the industry abroad in which case it can contribute its billions to the treasurys of other countries instead.
and why would the industry be driven abroad Albs? this myth perpetrated by city scaremongers everytime theres a slight squeeze. the fact is some fickle bankers will leave (and if they're scared away by a one off supertax they were always wanting to leave), most don't and won't because of our relatively low taxation, the language, the ease of living in the UK and our centrality to the global markets.
if it does risk the financial sector leaving then maybe it would be better to have a more diverse economy, not so reliant on the whims of banks? just a thought, you're the expert :y
It would be a disaster if........ these great men and women ( bankers) left the country BJ. ::) ::) ;) How would the illiterate..... uneducated.....unwashed.... proletariat........such as you and I... survive without their guidance.....leadership......and business acumen :'( :'(......The country would be in a terrible state ......without these intellectual giants to look after our needs...........on the other hand however..... ::) ::) ;)
not sure which looks more foolish, the sarcasm or the post!
-
Banjax - I did suggest a week or so ago that anyone who had any good ideas on how we could return to the good old days of being a manufacturing reliant economy rather than being reliant on the financial sector should send their answers on a postcard to Downing St. as its obvious that no - one there has any idea how to go about it.I trust that your postcard is on its way to Westminster. :y
Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle. ;)
-
Banjax - I did suggest a week or so ago that anyone who had any good ideas on how we could return to the good old days of being a manufacturing reliant economy rather than being reliant on the financial sector should send their answers on a postcard to Downing St. as its obvious that no - one there has any idea how to go about it.I trust that your postcard is on its way to Westminster. :y
Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle. ;)
it is, but since the Post Office is now run like a corporation, purely to make money, I doubt it'll get there before the hung parliament :y
-
Optimist - It just wouldnt be right for me to engage in a battle of wits with you, as you are so obviously only (at best) half equipped for the battle. ;)
;D Quite a quip quotient! ;D