12 August 2010
18:4465218I agree Howard , he will do nothing about it , in my oppinion he is a poor leader and wont last to long . as for the libs there support is disapearing faster than the polar ice caps .
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 August 2010
18:4865223yep your probably right,probably be called bashing the bishop.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
12 August 2010
20:5065241Welcome back Brian
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
13 August 2010
00:4965290Mark, you should go on the stage mate, that posting #41 made me chuckle.
13 August 2010
10:2565331Thanks Sid im sure the coalition will give me more material .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 August 2010
10:4865344that is guaranteed, i am waiting for danny alexander to say something, that should be worth waiting for.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 August 2010
16:0765390thanks marek.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
14 August 2010
06:3665424Vic
As Chris has posted elsewhere what is UKIP's MEP's excuses for not attending the European Parliament and representing the electorate that voted for them in the first place?What are they doing on their 'days off'?
How do they justify taking large sums of money from an organisation that UKIP feel should be disbanded and is already costing the tax payer £44 million per day.As an ill educated layman it appears to be hypocritical but what the heck do I know?!.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
14 August 2010
11:5765470In answer to your question Marek I would refer you to my previous posts No`s.35 & 36.
However, who knows what they are doing on their days off? Without being "tagged" it`s difficult to tell. Could be anything, such as:-
1. Taking the wife shopping.
2. Helping local constituents.
3. Sitting in the back garden with a bottle of red.
4. Going through the old Labour manifestos and having a bloody good laugh.
5. Assisting local Branches and attending their meetings.
6. Thinking up of yet new ways to upset the EU bureaucracy by demonstrating outside their Parliament before receiving rapid attention from the Europol gestapo.
7. Pondering why Labours "Baroness" Ashton actually needs to be provided with a private jet to go on her jollies around the world?
Could be anything eh?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
14 August 2010
13:5665472John
Points 1 & 3 are acceptable. The other time would be best spent on how UKIP intend to increase public spending and how they intend to fund a 40% increase in the armed forces budget. I am not saying the Forces don't need it but where is the money coming from?.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
14 August 2010
14:0165473John and Vic
You are both of an age that allowed you to vote at the referendum back in the 70's about whether the UK should remain in the Common Market...so just how did you both vote?. Truthful answers only please!.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
14 August 2010
15:0265475Marek,
In answer to your latest "question" I guess, for starters, the money for funding any increase in spending will be obtained by leaving your friends in the EU. Our contributions to the EU including indirect costs associated with "red tape" amount to £120 Billion a year. ( latest estimate )
The independant group " Open Europe " estimate that these costs will increase to £356 billion by 2018. ( a lower estimate than UKIP`s but nevertheless "independant" ) Therefore, as soon as we start to get rid of the majority of the 120,000 EU directives and regulations currently in force in the UK the better.
With regard to the voting question, I have to say that to my shame, I didn`t bother. I was of an age where I wasn`t particularly bothered in politics as I incorrectly assumed, like a lot of people, that those in charge know best and will only do what`s best for our country. How wrong I was!
Marek, I have to ask.........are these genuine questions, or just designed to P*** off Vic by not using the original UKIP thread?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 August 2010
15:1265476i doubt that anything sinister is afoot john, the same argument broke into annes "singles" thread.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 August 2010
21:2365511We really should address the UKIP pipedream of everything being affordable by pulling out of the EU. John quotes a figure of 120 billion which should be enough to pay for every scheme they can come up with however when the subsidies, grants and the so-called 'Thatcher Rebate' which Britain receives are subtracted from the total you are left with a little under 7 billion. Worth remembering at this point that Britains contribution amounts to 9.95% of the EU budget.
Taking one example of the effect withdrawing could have, wheat costs as much to produce as it's salable value. Subsidies keep the price of wheat down while other subsidies enable farmers to continue growing it, without them wheat would be subject to market forces and the price would rise meaning the products produced from it (such as bread) would have to triple in price. How much of the assumed less than 7 billion 'saving' would have to be spent just to keep basic foodstuffs affordable?
http://www.stuartagnewmep.co.uk/stuartagnew/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529&Itemid=32Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
14 August 2010
22:4665525Chris,
Could I suggest that you read my post again?
Let me see if I can clarify for you. Our current NET cash contribution to the EU is £6.4 billion per annum. This figure will rise to more than £10 billion NET once we lose our rebate.
However, INCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS, such as "red tape" the true cost that we bare is estimated to be £120 billion a year.
As you can see, any subsidy that we would subsequently need to provide for our OWN farmers etc., could afford to be met.
As I seem to be answering all the questions, let me ask yourself and Marek one or two. You mention the loss of the UK`s "rebate" that Margaret Thatcher won for this country, only for the Cheshire cat Blair to come along and voluntarily surrender it. Fact. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this country benefited financially from this daft move and whether you consider this was done in the best interests of the British public? ( UKIP objected to this )
Secondly, did you think it was a good idea for Prudence Brown, the financial wizard, to flog off about half of our gold reserves at a rock bottom price primarily to support the ailing Euro?
Mind you, I suppose they did require a few extra quid from us in order to enable them to give the Kinnock`s the £10 million or so that they`ve had out of the EU system. Nice work if you can get it!
15 August 2010
08:2665538Steady John, we ALL know that New Labour/Labour are flawless and spotless in all their dealings.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 August 2010
09:4265545not much of an argument sid, you seem to be saying if you think we are bad you should see the other lot.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 August 2010
17:4165705Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 August 2010
17:4265706asking the e.u., that is, to invade!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 August 2010
17:4465707Just a poor joke of mine for your UKIP site, Marek! Don't get upset!
