Comments on: UKIP surge in the wake of expenses expose

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:52:52 +0000

Michael,

How would we not have as big a presence on the global market? It would be bigger, we would not be hindered by the EU’s anti-free market, inward looking, protectionist regulations. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, the EU would still trade with us, on any scale for a simple reason – they need to.

And by the way, your “You wish there was still a British Empire” comment just makes you look petty and ridiculous.

By: Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:57:49 +0000

I’m not doing normal moderation in this thread, since it’s beyond saving, and is a safety valve for people incapable of following the comments policy elsewhere – but there are lines. No libellous comments please.

By: Promsan

Promsan — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:16:00 +0000

…and it’s worth noting that in all the various tables for PPP GDP per Capita, HDI, “Happiness”, and all those sorts of things, EFTA countries: Norway and Switzerland outperform all but Luxembourg in the EU.

It comes across as reactionary fearmongering to say “we’ll be isolated and our economy will go to the dogs”, ahem, really? what’s happening at the moment? and how is EU membership helping exactly?

…and the notion that wanting freedom from an organisation that can’t get it’s accounts signed off for over a decade is all about clinging onto empire seems groundless (an understatement)…
there are any number of alternative economic models the UK could pursue that would yield better growth and social stability than the current arrangement with the EU …it’s just geographical convenience: why not a global union of industrialised and free democracies?

By: Promsan

Promsan — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:50:58 +0000

“Nationalists, like yourself, cant seem to get in into your head that the UK is no longer the heart of a global empire, we cant just pull up our draw-bridge and say no to other countries.”

…could always join NAFTA!
We’d be far better of with the US Dollar than the Euro.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:21:29 +0000

Billy, I do believe your comments about Churchill are incorrect., he categorically did not want a “United States of Europe”. Churchill wanted the European countries to form a partnership and co-operate with each other (a much looser arrangement than a United States of Europe) leaving Britain to remain outside of Europe and be part of “The Commonwealth of Nations”. This would be very sensible seeing as the Commonwealth presently represents 53 countries and 2 billion people and our Queen is its head. Britain would also be able to trade freely with these countries, unlike now where we have to pay a fee to the E.U. for the pleasure. Ask yourself why is Norway such a prosperous country? Well, firstly it greatly benefits from a very flourishing and well run fishing industry and it is outside of the E.U. and can trade with whoever it chooses. Just think how much taxed income our Treasurery would be receiving now if only we had a well run Fishing Industry instead of one that is on its knees because of all the E.U. regulation. As an example a Norwegian fisherman is able to catch 16,000 tons of fish (I don’t know what kind) per year, whereas a Cornish fisherman is only allowed 16,000 kilos per year; French fishermen enjoy 70% of the fish stocks around our waters (which now belong to the E.U.) leaving our poor fishermen with 7%. If Britain is to prosper once more we must withdraw our membership of the European Union for the reasons stated above.

By: Monica Shelley

Monica Shelley — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:55:50 +0000

No, Michael, you are wrong. We could still do all the trade we wanted to with EU countries if we left the the EU itself, and we would have the advantage of no longer being impeded and frustrated by EU trade barriers between us and the rest of the world. It is the EU that practices protectionism, and don’t ever forget that!
Has Scottish Nationalism cut Scotland off from the rest of the world in trade? Or Welsh nationalism? Have they become poorer? Have they become isolated and powerless? Of course not.
The EU is just milking this country for all we are worth, and it is a disgrace that when our economy is so weak, the EU (initials stand for Extravagance unlimited) is increasing our contributions and impoverishing us still further. The few little pittances that we get back are an insult.
If self-government is nationalism, and nationalism is so bad, then I suppose you think that Tibet is better off being absorbed by China than it would be as a free independent nation. Do you think the Tibetans are better off as part of something big? Should they be scared of being isolated? Should the Free Tibet movement also be dismissed as nationalism, imperialist, right-wing or fascist?
Of course the older parties will insult UKIP and talk a lot of nonsense about it. That is only to be expected as they are hostile and fuming whenever any alternative party comes on the political scene.
They are sneering and jeering because they are insecure, panicking because they are all in crisis over the MPs expenses scandal, and can hardly muster one voter apart from those who never read the news….

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:54:14 +0000

@ Neil

Lets think about that for a moment Neil, yes, the other European countries would still trade will us, however no where near on the same scale, it would be harder for us to travel throughout Europe, and, lets face it, we would not have as big a pressence in the Global market.

Nationalists, like yourself, cant seem to get in into your head that the UK is no longer the heart of a global empire, we cant just pull up our draw-bridge and say no to other countries.

By: Andy D

Andy D — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:57:27 +0000

Anthony, with respect, though it is certainly significant that there has been a boost in UKIP support, surely the title for this thread should have been “YouGov: Labour support falls to its lowest ever” purely because of the monumental significance of that fact.

Opinion polls for voting intentions of political parties go back to 1943, and in that time Labour had never dropped below 23%. Indeed it has probably been at least since the 1918-1922 Parliament since true Labour support has been so low, before the party first formed a government.

By: Pete B

Pete B — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:33:16 +0000

“I also like some of the blind nationalist optimism on here regards to trade. As the majority of the trade we do goes into the EU – if we leave – the UK will lose any say in how technical standards and regulations are created and enforced. These will be decided within the EU and the UK, to trade will have to comply.”

I’m guessing this might have been aimed at me. Yes, the majority of our trade is with the EU, but we have a negative Balance of Payments with them. Therefore if it stopped completely (which it wouldn’t, of course) we would be better off.

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 16 May 2009 11:14:37 +0000

Regardless of whether the UK was in the EU or not, it is almost impossible to imagine a realistic scenario where any European country would stop trading with us. To say that we would still be forced to abide by their trading rules or else not trade is disingenious – IF the UK decided that some of the trading rules were not to our liking, and did not follow them, does anyone seriously suggest that the EU would cut off trade rather than bend to accomodate?

The fact is the EU depends heavily on the UK for any clout it has. Without the UK, the EU would have reduced financial muscle, very little diplomatic/political muscle, and absolutely 0 military muscle.

The EU needs the UK, not the other way round. We should leave ASAP.