Politics

General chat about anything else goes here.
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

stevegull wrote:Election season rumbles in to focus. What are the issues that will effect your voting intentions? I'm genuinely curious.
The economy seems to be the main one in the current climate
The EU and immigration goes hand in hand but is it enough to change where you put the cross on the ballot paper?
Does a lurch to the right wing or left wing sound appealing to you and you're voting on that ideological standpoint?
For the record, I remain a floating voter.
Well, if it's a choice between Cameron and Milliband, I suppose I'd have to choose the lesser of two weevils.. :-/
Trojan 67
Top Shirt Seller
Top Shirt Seller
Posts: 4836
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 18:05

Post by Trojan 67 »

stevegull wrote: Does a lurch to the right wing or left wing sound appealing to you ?
What matters to the centre forward is accurate delivery from both wingers. Successful legends are measured by goals achieved.

:engflag:
Friend of TorquayFans.com
Member of the Month November 2020
Southampton Gull: "Well deserved"
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

stevegull wrote:Election season rumbles in to focus. What are the issues that will effect your voting intentions? I'm genuinely curious.
The economy seems to be the main one in the current climate
The EU and immigration goes hand in hand but is it enough to change where you put the cross on the ballot paper?
Does a lurch to the right wing or left wing sound appealing to you and you're voting on that ideological standpoint?
For the record, I remain a floating voter.
The economy is a side issue. The real problem is the EU.

Given that our nation is made up of small islands with limited space,
that for the past decade or more the records show that tens of thousands more people enter the country to live here than move away to live,
that these records show only the legal migrations we are able to measure, and not illegal immigrants,
that we have no control over our own borders with regard to EU immigrants,
that for years we have not been self-sufficient in food production,
that we have given billions of pounds more to Europe than we will ever get out of it,
that much of this money disappears into the pockets of corrupt politicians, businesses and bureaucrats,
that many of the biggest companies running businesses here avoid paying UK taxes on their profits by basing themselves in other parts of Europe, that the vast majority of immigrants come from Europe to take low paid jobs which keep wage levels down,
that many of these jobs and the profits they make for their employers are taken out of the country by those foreign-based companies,
that other countries around the world manage to trade with each other without entering into political union,
that EU membership has decimated our fishing industry and helped destroy many of our other industries,
that European laws are undemocratically proposed and passed by European Commissioners and bureaucrats and not by the European Parliament,
that for years auditors have refused to validate the EU's accounts,
that there is no shortage of houses here but a surplus of people,
that these extra people put undue pressures on our education system, NHS, housing, infrastructure and many local communities,
that the population of this nation (and indeed the world) cannot sustainably go on increasing as it has,
then in view of all this (and more) I believe this nation (the United Kingdom) should take its future back into its own hands and control its own borders, its own laws, and its own destiny, by leaving the European Union.

To this end I shall be voting for UKIP in this election, and so should everybody else.
User avatar
Southampton Gull
TorquayFans Admin
TorquayFans Admin
Posts: 7836
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 01:35
Location: Southampton

Post by Southampton Gull »

We will never be allowed to leave the EU, it's key to the master plan to control all of us, we're just too blind to see it.
Dave




Friend of TorquayFans.com
Orange Gull
Vice Captain
Vice Captain
Posts: 633
Joined: 21 Feb 2015, 15:14
Location: Bristol

Post by Orange Gull »

Gullscorer wrote: that European laws are undemocratically proposed and passed by European Commissioners and bureaucrats and not by the European Parliament,
That's not true. To explain it in a nutshell the enacting of EU law is as follows: The Commission proposes a law, this is then passed down to the Council of Ministers that is comprised of relevant ministers from each of the twenty eight member states. These ministers will change what they want and then send the bill to the European Parliament. There it will be debated and and put to a vote, following this any amendments made by the Parliament will be sent back to the Council of Ministers where, if the changes are agreed upon, the bill will be passed into law. If the Council and Parliament cannot agree on amendments after three rounds of passing between themselves, then the bill will be shelved.

The key fact from this is that Commission is relatively powerless, sure it can propose legislation but it cannot pass it and has little influence over the procedure. Is this perfect? No of course not, in my opinion the Parliament should be able to propose legislation but this will be probably come in time, judging by the powers it has gained in the last twenty years.

Gullscorer wrote:To this end I shall be voting for UKIP in this election, and so should everybody else.
I don't appreciate being ordered to vote for a particular party.
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

Orange Gull, sorry, my mistake: I was actually intending to refer to EU regulations, directives and decisions:

A regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive is binding as to the result to be achieved, but leaves the choice of form and methods to each national government. A decision is binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

The European Council can delegate legislative authority to the Commission and, depending on the area and the appropriate legislative procedure, both institutions can make laws. When a regulation comes into force, it overrides all national laws dealing with the same subject matter and subsequent national legislation must be consistent with and made in the light of the regulation. The Commission is far from being 'relatively powerless'.

But even your own explanation illustrates the relative powerlessness of the British people to control their own affairs and the extent to which the EU runs our nation against our wishes and without our knowledge. Political Union with other European nations is something our politicians have insidiously foisted upon the British people over the years and is something we never voted for.

Politicians have always been loath to offer any kind of referendum, and any that goes against their own wishes is followed by further referendums until they get the result they desire, as happened in the Republic of Ireland a few years ago. They have even ignored the Scottish Independence referendum by continuing to institute devolved powers to the different regions of the UK, breaking up the nation into smaller parts and so making them easier to control. Divide and rule.

As for the last line of your post, I must deplore the insinuation that I ordered you to vote in any particular way. I expressed an opinion that everybody should vote for UKIP, and I am entitled to that opinion. Any clear-headed person will see the difference. You appear to be an intelligent clear-headed person yourself, so one must wonder what prompted you to write that line..
Orange Gull
Vice Captain
Vice Captain
Posts: 633
Joined: 21 Feb 2015, 15:14
Location: Bristol

Post by Orange Gull »

Gullscorer wrote: But even your own explanation illustrates the relative powerlessness of the British people to control their own affairs and the extent to which the EU runs our nation against our wishes and without our knowledge. Political Union with other European nations is something our politicians have insidiously foisted upon the British people over the years and is something we never voted for.

Politicians have always been loath to offer any kind of referendum, and any that goes against their own wishes is followed by further referendums until they get the result they desire, as happened in the Republic of Ireland a few years ago. They have even ignored the Scottish Independence referendum by continuing to institute devolved powers to the different regions of the UK, breaking up the nation into smaller parts and so making them easier to control. Divide and rule.
That's why I said that the current system is far from being perfect. There is a yawning democratic deficit in the EU, what is the answer? If someone knew then the problem wouldn't exist at all, but at least some steps are being taken to improve the accessibility of the EU to the public. You can't please everyone in twenty eight different countries all the time but the fact is that we have a lot more influence in the EU than most other states, whether we choose to use that constructively or not is a different matter.

I am in favour of a referendum, even though I am in favour remaining in the EU. There is no logical reason for denying it any longer than what has already been planned. This coming from someone who benefits a lot from Britain being a member state.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning regarding devolution. You claim that by giving power and money to regions such as Scotland, or areas such as Greater Manchester to spend how they wish, rather than having things decided by central government gives Westminster more power? Surely the opposite is true, functions performed by central government are being transferred to local authorities, regional bodies and devolved parliaments. That gives the government less power, not more.
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

You're right, nothing will ever be perfect, even if we leave the EU. There will always be pros and cons; some will benefit personally from Britain being in the EU, others will suffer, and most will not notice or realise the insidious effects of the EU on their lives, just as a leaking pipe pushes up your water bill without your knowledge, at least until such time as the penny drops. In the way people organise their societies, nothing will ever be as precise and efficient as the workings of a machine. But there's a reason why many people refer to the EU as the EUSSR..

I admit my point regarding devolution was unclear (though the 'divide and rule' adage is perfectly valid), but it's really that there is an optimum population size where self-governance is the most effective and advantageous for all the people concerned, and that this has evolved over the centuries to become, in the modern world, the nation state, rather than small groups or tribes, or semi-/quasi-global political unions of countries, though there may be limited roles for larger (the UN) and smaller (Torbay Council) entities. The same of course can be said of regional authorities, but all should evolve slowly and naturally, rather than being subject to the arbitrary ill-thought-out theories, whims, and control-freakery of politicians (not to mention their hidden agendas). Evolution not revolution.
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

Interesting info from an academic source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u ... ion-target

Note that they use the word 'migration', which covers all population movements, even where they're talking about immigration and net immigration, in a politically correct effort to dilute the impact of the data.

UKIP proved right..??
User avatar
Alpine Joe
First Regular
First Regular
Posts: 344
Joined: 31 Oct 2010, 16:01

Post by Alpine Joe »

Gullscorer
Interesting info from an academic source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u ... ion-target

Note that they use the word 'migration', which covers all population movements, even where they're talking about immigration and net immigration, in a politically correct effort to dilute the impact of the data.
Having been used to hearing reference to 'Migration Watch' and their calculations over the years, I was also interested to learn about the politically correct new kids on the block that the BBC had found rcently. The desperation of The Left to come up with an alternative to Migration Watch, who could spin the figures in a way more pleasing to the State broadcaster seems to have been achieved.

The Migration Observatory itself, gets funding from The Economic & Social Research Council, which in turn gets almost all of it's cash from The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, i.e The Government.

The Migration Observatory comes under the umbrella of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), which, surprise surprise, gets it's core funding from The Economic & Social Research Council. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u ... us/funders

A while back, even Labour MP Frank Field admitted that the The Migration Observatory had been set up "to try to undermine’ MigrationWatch", that it was "trying to use the status of Oxford University to peddle Left-wing views on immigration", and that it was "a propaganda effort to change public opinion on immigration". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign.html

Thankfully there are others attempting to bring the public's attention to the Government funded, sugar coated, leftist spin that we know receive, rather than a sensible assessment of the actual figures:

Comments that the Oxford Migration Observatory wanted to get these figures out before the general election probably won't, as a result, dispel the cynicism of those who think the whole thing is a pro-Labour stunt. The BBC thinks it's achieving balance by inviting Mark Reckless on. Against him it pits four variously pro-immigration guests, and probably - therefore - thinks it got it about right. It didn't.It also teed the whole thing up with Dominic Casciani's faithful parroting of the controversially 'impartial' Oxford Migration Observatory (complete with sly digs at MigrationWatch). No one from MigrationWatch was invited to appear. Someone from the avowedly pro-immigration Migration Matters, however, did get an invite. So that's more bias http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... -bias.html
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

Vote for us!
Conservative:
Labour:
UKIP:
Liberal-Democrats:
SNP:
DUP:
Respect Party:
Plaid Cymru:
Green Party:
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests