UK Independent party: "amicable" divorce from the European Union.

Voters are turning to the UK Independence Party as it is the only party with alternative policies, its leader Nigel Farage has told activists.

At UKIP's spring conference, Mr Farage dismissed claims his party's success in recent by-elections was a protest vote.
He said people felt betrayed by a political class who were more interested in their own careers than national interest.

He also called for an "amicable" divorce from the European Union.

"There is a wholesale rejection of the career, political, professional class in this country going on. We have had enough of them," he told the conference in Exeter.

UKIP 'Only Westminster alternative'

I think he is the only man out there to speak the truth, I do think the UK is better off divorcing the EU and go back to a normal trade agreement

reply to post by citizenoftheworld

UK Independent party: "amicable" divorce from the European Union

I'm not on intimate terms with UK politics but just as an outsider looking in, I have to agree with the divorce. I've never thought that either the UK or Ireland were good fits for the EU.

But now, to be sure, there's a lot of pressure coming from all direction to prevent any such estrangement. In fact, you may well soon see that Independence Party painted in the same way the EDL has already been tagged. From there... who knows?

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by citizenoftheworld

 

UK Independent party: "amicable" divorce from the European Union

I'm not on intimate terms with UK politics but just as an outsider looking in, I have to agree with the divorce. I've never thought that either the UK or Ireland were good fits for the EU.

But now, to be sure, there's a lot of pressure coming from all direction to prevent any such estrangement. In fact, you may well soon see that Independence Party painted in the same way the EDL has already been tagged. From there... who knows?

EDL and UKIP are two very different beasts. They have very little in common. People over simplify and think that there policies overlap because the UKIP talk about tighter boarder controls. But it is a far cry from the xenophobic, islamophobic, pretty-much-everything-else-ophobic stance taken up by EDL.

reply to post by nothingwrong

EDL and UKIP are two very different beasts. They have very little in common. People over simplify and think that there policies overlap because the UKIP talk about tighter boarder controls. But it is a far cry from the xenophobic, islamophobic, pretty-much-everything-else-ophobic stance taken up by EDL.

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that UKIP and the EDL were the same acorn.

The point was that... what could be dome to UKIP could be the same as what has been done to the EDL, which is basically to have your reason for being and your message mechanically separated and rearranged by the government and media, among others.

The same thing happens here in the states. Organizations like the SPLC; powered by racism and driven by politics, are infamous for labeling and libeling. The media accepts this branding without question and feeds it to a gullible public.

Cheers

reply to post by citizenoftheworld


Looks like Cameron is beginning to feel the heat and use other Parties strategies to win the next Election!

news.sky.com...

Problem is, I think its too late. All these areas in the UK which have become shall we say 'non-English' won't be voting for UKIP and thats a lot of areas... their votes will be going to Labour!!

reply to post by redoubt


They have tried this in the past with UKIP (and to a lesser extend the English Democrats) - Cameron once said in the past that UKIP was full of "fruit cakes, nutters and closet racists"... He has had to back-peddle from those comments he made in recent months as it is quite apparent they are not, or if they are then it is what people want anyway, as they are stripping Tory (and Labour) support in the polls.

I've never really looked at UKIP with any serious devotion, I always got the impression they were a one trick party but I have recently looked at their manifesto and it isn't that crazy and is rather sensible. I am not convinced they will get my vote yet though, but I am not going to be voting for either the Tories or Labour next time round, that much is certain.

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
Problem is, I think its too late. All these areas in the UK which have become shall we say 'non-English' won't be voting for UKIP and thats a lot of areas... their votes will be going to Labour!!

Hmmm, there are not that many area's in the country like that and, to be honest, most immigrants can't vote anyway, so it's a moot point. People still forget that around 90% of the country is White British still, it's just in the centre of the big towns and cities it just doesn't feel like it, but that's to say we're being overrun.

reply to post by citizenoftheworld


S&F OP.

I think UKIP is the only answer we have left in he UK to the agendas of the NWO. It may have been feeble in the past but it gains strength every day. Most people I know have already been voting UKIP, or will vote UKIP at the next opportunity.

I would say though that as fantastic and truthful as Farage has been, I don't believe he is totally honest. As far as I know he's never really confessed to the true nature of the financial system. He's never outted the entire system as a fraud to enslave the entire world's population in debt. As far as I'm aware he's never said he will shut down The Bank of England and make the Treasury the one that presses the key that creates money out of thin air instead of them. I'd love to be wrong about that, so if anyone can correct me on this issue I have with Farage I'd be grateful.

reply to post by stumason

98.8% White population in my area (Torbay, SW England), currently got one of the few Liberal Democrat MP's in Parliament here, but it switches between them and the Conservatives every few elections or so.
I haven't made my mind up for the next election but I am drawn towards the UKIP candidate if only to send an anti EU message through my vote. It's that or spoil my ballot paper, but spoiling it with a personal message seems to be a waste in my opinion.

reply to post by grainofsand


Ahh, Torbay - my family hail from those parts! I'm also going on hols there in May Best bit of the country, down that way!

Now back to our regularly scheduled political madness.....

reply to post by stumason


I don't know if most immigrants can vote or not but I do know that citizens of the EU can vote in our local elections. Which are just as important in shaping our lives as General Elections. That's nearly 600,000 in 2010, with no doubt higher figures for 2011, and 2012. That's one hell of a lot of voters, especially cumulatively over time.

Because I'm on a low bandwidth connection I can't pull up the figures from source but this UK tabloid, states that we are now the number one destination for EU immigrants.

Research by the EU's statistics arm Eurostat has revealed Britain in 2010 had the largest intake of immigrants at 591,000.

The UK population now stands at 63.2million with one in eight residents now born abroad.

www.express.co.uk...

This is why the welfare bill, and the cost of the NHS is as it is. Not because of the disabled, the shirkers, or the fraudulent claimants, but because we've got an influx of white immigrants from Europe who are accessing the benefits of a system that they have not paid into for their whole lives. To be fair, their country of origin should hand over two pots of money for each of them. One, the average cost of medical care for the remainder of that immigrants life, and two the average cost of welfare for the remainder of that immigrants life.

Dropping out of the EU would be of fantastic benefit to the UK in a number of ways, but without pulling out of the IMF, ECB and other transational banking institutions and obligations we'd still not be free of their manipulations and machinations.

reply to post by merkins


Ah,, EU immigrants - I thought you meant the swathes of people we have from the subcontinent etc who like Sharia related topics....

Yes, they can vote in locals but I doubt many actually do. Even we don't for the most part, unfortunately!

I agree though that EU migration has been far too high. Other EU countries do not face this problem, as everyone goes through them to come here, so we're fighting a losing battle if we try to solve it through Europe. The only recourse is to withdraw to stop that flood of people...

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
Problem is, I think its too late. All these areas in the UK which have become shall we say 'non-English' won't be voting for UKIP and thats a lot of areas... their votes will be going to Labour!!

Hmmm, there are not that many area's in the country like that and, to be honest, most immigrants can't vote anyway, so it's a moot point. People still forget that around 90% of the country is White British still, it's just in the centre of the big towns and cities it just doesn't feel like it, but that's to say we're being overrun.

here we go again with the 'WHITE BRITISH' mentality... I never said anything about being 'WHITE BRITISH'... I was talking about being 'ENGLISH' which means those from the British Caribbean Countries and those who are Mixed Race born out of the White British Lady Marrying a Black Caribbean Man!!

When will people like you realize that its not the 'WHITE BRITISH' who are the only ones in the UK who don't like the current influx of Immigrants? And again I'm talking about those from the ME and AFRICA more than those from EASTERN EUROPE because in all honesty there aren't that many from EASTERN EUROPE compared to those from the ME, ASIA AND AFRICA........ YET!!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Jesus, calm down....

Usually when people complain about area's being over run by immigrants, the usual measure of this is the decline in the White British population, you know, the original inhabitants of these islands.

That isn't to say, however, that other ethnic groups might not like it either, but when they make up less than 10% of the total UK population anyway, it is somewhat meaningless to look at their statistics. It is also a bit hypocritical of them to have a go at immigrants having done exactly the same thing a couple of decades ago.

my fear as a brit living in england who fails to see the point of the EU as is (and who also is starting to see UKIP as the only viable alternative vote to the usual waste of space options) is that if scotland does leave the union, then we would end up stuck with the tories for life.

shudder

ETA: farage could be a great agent for positive change but i dont see him as pm material in any way, though i doubt that would happen

reply to post by skalla

I pretty much agree with what you're saying but the UKIP vote at the very least forces the hand of the other parties to reconsider the love for Europe. You're right though, no Scotland and the tories would have a much stronger hand in parliament.
Saying that though, if it wasn't for the Scottish MP's votes we would have had reduced fee/free higher education in England as well, they didn't help us at all with that.

here is something learned over the weekend, British people living on government welfare, and have a spare bedroom not in use, have to pay tax on it! anyone know if that is true?

Originally posted by pikestaff
here is something learned over the weekend, British people living on government welfare, and have a spare bedroom not in use, have to pay tax on it! anyone know if that is true?

It is a reduction of benefit for people who get their rent paid while they live in a social/council home and they do not work.
It is an equalisation of situation for people in social housing to bring them into line with people who rent homes from commercial/private landlords.
There is a certain amount allowed for people to claim for rent help if they are not in work.
If a single person lives in a 3 bedroom house then their rent benefit is reduced to reflect the excess housing which they have. This has always been the situation for people in commercial/privately rented accommodation and there is only an outcry now that the situation is being equalised for those who live in already subsidised low-rent social/council homes. No-one gave a toss about the private tenants over the last decades yet there is much bleating now that the tax payer is no longer going to fund 3 bed homes for single people in social/council homes.

I am actually for this change as the ridiculously low rents in council homes are already subsidised by the rest of us who own or rent from the private sector. Why should the rules be different for council tenants? If the same people crying about this rule change want to campaign for similar benefits for private tenants then yes I understand, but none of them cared until the changes affected the already subsidised social tenants.

It is not a tax, it is a reduction of benefit to pay for 1 bedroom/1 person, not funding 2/3/4 bed homes for single people or couples who do not work.

reply to post by stumason


TBHWY, my concern is with Overcrowding really and all the Fanatics that have been let in and allowed to grow in numbers!

It seems that the Government still don't care that our Land is near enough full!

Originally posted by pikestaff
here is something learned over the weekend, British people living on government welfare, and have a spare bedroom not in use, have to pay tax on it! anyone know if that is true?

Yes this is true. A 14% tax on a spare room even if that spare room is required for medical reasons. I am unfortuately being hit by this when it comes in in under two weeks. It's a little more complicated than it may appear and no doubt many brainwashed people will agree with it while forgetting that the banks, elites and politicians are responsible for the financial tsunami.

In my case, I was offered a run down two bed ground level home after 10 years on the list. Even though it took me to another town from all my friends and family and would cost thousands to adapt and a long time to complete it I took the offer. What was meant to be the main bedroom would just fit a standard British double bed (4.5ft by 6ft approx) without a wardrobe or other incidental bedroom furniture. The 2nd room is 7ft by 6ft approx.

Due to my disability the home was extensively adapted to my needs. I still had to make my lounge room into my bedroom and vice versa though, so as to have enough room to get around the bed. The 2nd bedroom or box room houses equipment i need due to my disability, a camp bed for overnight carers and is the only place I can sit down to eat a meal. Theres simply no room or facility for me to do that elsewhere in the property.

Now I have the 14% tax on top of a similar tax being introduced for county taxes as well as a 30% tax for 'Fairer' care costs which add up to about a 70% percent reduction in income since October, not because I don't need the help but because there is a war on disability happening in the UK, and when the population see the government attacking the disabled it becomes acceptable for everyone ese to do the same. I have been told to move to a one bed. However, even if I did not need the extra room and agreed to move to a one bed home they wouldn't be able to house me in one because they don't exist. Also I could rent a one bedroom with ten times the total square footage and much higher rent and be fine, but if you live in a collection of connecting boxes you are screwed.

Additionally the government states that they have to bring in ths tax because they caim the housing beefit bill is too high. If that was really their concern they wouldn't have the plan to allow 'social housing' landlords to charge whatever rent they like. This plan will make the housing bill mushroom to far higher than it is today. Best way to cut that bill is to bring in proper rent controls for housing. It's wrong that rent can be twice as much as a mortgage for the same property. And wrong that social landlords are being given more and more passes while their tenants are suffering from poorer and poorer service from them. Limit how much can be charged rather than the percentage the tenants have to pay from their already savagely cut income.

My landlord or more correctly the staff of the organisation, don't care about the state of their properties because they don't own them. The organisation owns them, and so their only incentive is to reduce costs and pay the surplus in wages, expenses and bonuses to themselves. It's a corrupt system about to get much more corrupt.