Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Many thanks for your good wishes, all - and congratulations to Marek for being spot on with his 'Who is it?' post!
I wish I had the answer to your question, Roger - I don't know how we're going to get younger voters on board, but it's something we simply have to do. I don't think UKIP's message has to change in order to attract younger members, I believe it's making it relevant to them that is the conundrum.
UKIP stands for a British referendum on our continued membership of the EU, it's as simple as that. An extremely unscientific nationwide poll of school sixth formers showed that approximately 7% would have voted UKIP. I know that sixth form politics students are notoriously fickle, and that such a survey counts for nothing, but the underlying message is that there is some support for UKIP in younger people - it's getting them on board that will be difficult!
All I can say is - watch this space!
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Andy
I suppose you could offer free membership to all students thus encouraging them to take a more active role in politics. Approach them in schools on local issues - listen to their concerns,desires and needs are for the town they live in. Explain how (if it ever transpires) that money saved by not contributing to the EU pot will be spent and what it means to them. Finally get their email addresses to keep them informed with regular email 'shots' and updates.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Well said Marek,already we are looking at more of the public taking on what Andy is saying and that the new voice for UKIP in Dover is working and I am glad I got out of the way.
Good idea guys, save the EU £43m per day and give it away in handouts to the undeserving. Anything left over can go to offset the cost of fighting ego boosting wars in far off places.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Sid
I am pro EU. Now we are in ( I voted NON! ) we have to make the most of it.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Agreed Marek. Some just want to moan and go back to being 'Little Englanders'. A look at history would tell them 'isolationism' does not work.
We should put our not inconsiderable efforts into making the EU better for all. A first step would be to stop sending our failed politicians (Kinnocks spring to mind) to represent us.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
auditing the books would be more important, then a severe pruning of the hangers on.
wont happen though.
It will cost millions to audit the books and take years to do. Start by pruning, heavily.
Sid, as I`m obviously a "Little Englander", I`d be most interested to know whether in fact you think that there are ANY disadvantages to being in the EU and if so what they are.
On the other hand, are you just one of these people that think we ought to be in the EU because it`s " the way forward" but without really knowing why?
With regards to "isolationism" ( sounds like a PC liberal word! ) I don`t seem to recall that our country did so bad years ago when we virtually made and invented everything without ANY assistance from Europe.
Finally, how on earth do you think that we can actually make this corrupt and fraudulent institution "better for all" ( sounds like a Labour election cry! )?
Perhaps give them even more of our money that we haven`t got?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
ever direct and to the point john, the isolationism question is a non starter.
the member states need us whether or not we are in the union.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
We would continue to trade with them and the rest of the World, so I can't see us being worse off, from a trading point of view, but surely better off, from a contributions point of view.
I love Europe, but not the EU.
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
roger we are doing that now so whats the point of changing,it only cost lots to get out money we cant aford at the moment,so cameron says.
Roger the rules for trading with Non-EU members are different to trading with those in the EU. We would undoubtedly commercially disadvantage ourselves.
John, the idea of standing aloof to the EU has been tried often since Nappy Bone Apart was toppled, the first time. On each ocassion when this policy was tried we ended up either losing out on treaties or getting militarily involved when, had we been at the centre, conflict could have been avoided. So, my friend, there is hard historical evidence to suggest we would always do better to be in the EU and driving it in the way we want, rather than sticking two fingers up and turning our backs on it.
The Great War may have been avoided if Disraeli and Lord Derby had played their cards right many years earlier. Lord Derby advocated doing almost nothing with Europe and treaties handing over Bosnia-Herzegovina to Austria (to keep Russia sweet) were signed. This lead eventually to the assassination of the Archdke and the rest, as they say, is history. However, millions gave their lives in 1914-1918 because Lord Derby sat on his hands many years earlier.
I take your point Sid, but where we differ is that I believe the EU will only be driven in the manner that THEY want, not how we want. The EU is primarily "driven" by France and Germany for their benefit and I can`t see that altering any time soon.
With regards to us having trading disadvantages as a Non-EU member, it doesn`t seem to have affected Norway or Switzerland. Outside of the EU we would also be free to slash red tape and pursue new trade with the emerging markets. ( in addition to the European markets )
Still, it wouldn`t do to agree on everything!
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
In fact, some of the £48m per day contribution to the EU could be channelled into promoting British businesses outside the EU. We really don't need to fear life beyond the EU; two thirds of the world aren't members, and as far as I know the EU economies of member states are in as parlous a state of affairs as any other - my point being that membership of the EU doesn't mean economic prosperity, as Greece, Portugal, Spain and even dear old Blighty will attest to.
Japan, supposedly the model global economy of the past thirty years, is in an even worse state than Greece, which just goes to show (to me, anyway) that what matters is sound economic business practices domestically rather than membership of some idealistic and arbitrary international club that costs so much and delivers so little.
The jibes about those who do not believe the EU to be the be all and end all as being 'Little Englanders' is an example of a failed argument. When all else has come to naught, insults. One could retort that pro-EU advocates might be traitors who should be locked up in the Tower, but then we're told that our English heritage is jingoistic and racist, so I won't go down that road.
True friends stab you in the front.
You could say all those things Andy, but then you would be denying the historical facts. Keeping our noses out Europe led to two world wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the Russo-Turk war, the annexation of Bosnia-Herzogovina, the botched independence of Greece, the annexation of Egypt, the Crimean War.
All the above happened as a direct result of Britain taking the, "we're not European" attitude in its foreign policy. Castlereagh, Salisbury and Churchill all advocated direct input from Britain to prevent such things happening. Derby, Canning, Thatcher, Chamberlain and Lloyd George advocated keeping our head down.
Europe without British involvement will always dissolve into pettty squabbles and open warfare, recent Balkans episode for example, and then our politicians send our troops in to try and sort it out. That's the wrong approach.
We need to be at the centre, along with France and Germany. Only through direct involvement, difficult as John rightly alludes, will we ever stand a chance of changing the EU for the better. Until we take that approach the EU will forever be a predominantly German/French club making decisions that are best for them.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, please continue like that!
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Say all what things, Sid? For the record, I have an A level in the period of history you see fit to lecture me on, and your interpretation of history is subjective, to say the very least.
The system of alliances that led to the outbreak of WW1 is to blame for that particular conflict, nothing to do with Britain staying remote from Europe. I would be interested to see how a Serb terrorist assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire could have anything to do with British isolationationist politics - it is quite beyond me, and likewise how German expansionism in the 30s has anything to do with British isolationism is again nonsense. Especially as appeasement negotiations between Germany and other nations were held through the British Embassy in Switzerland in 1938 and 39 - hardly the act of trying to keep ones noses out of things. TBH, you're twisting history to suit your own political beliefs, irrespective of the truth.
If you honestly believe that the EU is anything other than a Franco/German club making decisions best suited to themselves, you are failing to see the truth of the matter: Great Britain is an irrelevance to them, we are no longer the superpower you seem to think we are. Even with British involvement, the EU is dissolving into petty squabbles - like the recent Balkan war. Are you trying to tell me that Britain was suddenly not a part of the EU as war broke out? We've been full members since long before the Balkan war, but that's what I'm trying to stress - we're just one of a number of faceless delegates at meaningless (and expensive) Euro conferences that are powerless to do anything meaningful when hostilities do surface.
I respect that we're never going to agree on this, but there can be no valid reason as to why so many successive election manifesto promises have been broken by political parties of all colours. If any party gave an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on continued British membership of the EU, UKIP would be dead in the water overnight. However, the continued denial of the right of the British people to have a say in the future of the country will just mean that the UKIP argument will continue louder and stronger, and those who see UKIP as not right-wing enough for their purposes will continue to support even more right wing parties in ever increasing numbers.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
As a minor aside here, might the UK not do a better job of renogotiating terms and making the EU work for us if we did not keep sending representatives of minor parties whose whole reason for being there is to get us out?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Can't stop the democratic processes, Chris.......despite Labour's fairly clear attempts to do so recently.
True friends stab you in the front.