Andy, the treatment of Bosnia-Herzogovina but in the 1800's, massively shaped the stances taken by the European super-powers in later years and of course, in the recent Balkan War. Britain had no part in those original negotiations because Lord Derby as Foreign Secretary believed firmly in non-interventionst behaviour. Disraeli who was PM couldn't be bothered with the details and left his best friend, Lord Derby, to deal with them. Pressure from Queen Vic evetnually forced Disraaeli to take Derby to task. By the time Derby acted the negotiations were over.
I am not twisting history as you accuse me, but relaying the facts which can easily be verified. I am also not trying to lecture you.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
We'll agree to disagree over Early Modern History, Sid! I think you're putting a spin on history that isn't there, but then as I say, we'll just differ on it.
In answer to your question about UKIP's plans for Dover - the one I got shirty with you over on Ian's thread, I believe that UKIP cannot have specific plans for towns, cities or even regions on a specific individual basis. Let's be honest, UKIP isn't going to get an MP elected in the UK without the electoral system being reformed to PR, and it's highly questionable that that will ever happen.
Where I believe UKIP can score success is in marginalising the Tory vote to the extent where Tory party managers have to acknowledge that a significant minority of its voters will carry on voting for a party that represents something along the lines of their own beliefs. I believe that the BBC has estimated that UKIP and BNP votes cost the Tory party an overall majority at this parliament, to the tune of some 20 seats. I believe that this scenario will be repeated unless some form of referendum is offered to the right wing of the Tory party and voters of broadly similar views; whilst the Prime Minister is doing a good job of holding together a political alliance he must have hated the thought of at the beginning of May, it's something the Tory party will surely not want to see again, and for that reason I believe the pressure must be kept up on the Tories to honour previous commitments.
UKIP isn't going to form a government, or any effective opposition to a government; therefore, being pragmatic about the whole thing, we have to apply pressure to the people who can bring about the target for UKIP voters, which is the right for the British people to be heard over the future of how our country is governed. In answer to your jibes, that isn't being a 'Little Englander', that's just wanting to know that being steered towards Brussels is what the majority want. I don't believe that is what the majority want, I don't believe it's economically sound to be governed in macro economic terms by people who do not put Great Britain first, and I believe it's morally wrong to not put such major issues to the very people affected by them.
True friends stab you in the front.
Andy, in an effort to have almost the last word, my early modern history is all fact, no spin, it can all be verified.
I understand the position as you put it for UKIP thanks, but how does that square up with standing in local elections? Without some local agenda UKIP candidates will be annihilated at the polls with presumably th attendant knock-on to national politics.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
In terms of local elections, I believe that exactly the same principle applies, Sid. If Tory party managers see erosion of their vote, they will have to acknowledge the significant minority within (or without) their ranks and respond accordingly.
If they start to lose Town and District Councils because of minority votes, it is the rank and file that will start asking why, and the senior managers will have to address the answers to that. In this area, I believe that the Town Council needs fresh blood and ideas; there are some very good councillors of all political colours, but the Tories themselves have repeatedly stated that they believe the Town Council should be apolitical, and this has handed control of the Town Council to the Labour Party since as long as I have been in the area. I believe the ideal of any council being apolitical is rubbish, and it's by forming an effective and vociferous opposition that will keep the incumbents on their toes.
At District level, I just happen to believe that DDC needs a kick up the backside. All around us, the District is going to seed, and I honestly think the time has come for many to acknowledge their failings and stand down. I've advocated that you yourself stand for the District Council as I believe you to have the right blend of integrity, ability and forward thinking necessary to take the area forward instead of the stagnation and failure we can all see around us. There are many capable members of the UKIP party who would bring pressure to bear on a council whose position with regards to the district is jaded and fast becoming untenable. If the major UKIP policy of bringing about an EU referendum has little bearing on local politics - and there's much in that statement - then bringing on local politicians in the gateway to England must have merit in its own right.
True friends stab you in the front.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you must try to keep up sid, dover pride have been very active, they evn have a column in the express.
among their most recent successes we had a stylish sign in a boarded up shop next to a cafe, stating that someone should open a cafe, then in another window a sign declaring that a decent shoe shop should open there.
the shop in question was sited opposite a shoe shop.
How remiss of me Howard, I will try to do better in future. I thought Dover pride had been going for years and was a sort of multi-agency group. It would be interesting to know more of what they do, apart from shop signs.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Sid, I am glad that Andy gave you a lecturing in history, as what you wrote to summarise a recent history of wars in Europe and elsewhere (you will no-doubt know that Egypt is not in Europe) was similar to other statements of yours in the past concerning history, namely quite incomprehensible!
One could turn it all around and state that if Britain had not got involved in many recent wars (in the last few centuries) - independently of whoever participated in their respective triggering off - then Britain would have not lost so many soldiers. But this too would be a futile discussion, as we can't change history. But what you wrote goes beyond all comprehension! And it's contradictory! To give an example, Britain participated in the two World Wars precisely because of an interest in European situations, demonstrating the exact opposite of isolationism! In fact in both Wars, no country had threatened direct British interests, and London declared war in both cases so as to defend European countries. What ARE you trying to get on at, Sid, I just cannot understand what goes on in your presenting of history!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Also, Sid, I think that New Labour received a knocking at the last general Elections, and your views on Europe are exactly those of New Labour, so there you go!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alexander
we entered the last unpleasantness due to a pact with poland, notwithstanding that it quite clear that the fuhrer and his friends would have eventually annihalated us once they had control of the european land mass.
THanks Howard.
Alexander, I flaming well know where Egypt is. But, in an effort to help you be better informed I will expand the historical panorama for you further. As I said to Andy, none of this is made up, none of this is spin, it is ALL verifiable historical fact, if you care to research for yourself.
When the Ottoman Empire began to collapse the European vultures circled overhead. That'll be Russia, France, Austria, Germany and Britiain to you. In order to protect the communication route to India we grabbed Egypt on the basis of a. keeping the French out, and b. a promise to sort out the collapsing Egyptian adminstration. We also grabbed Cyprus. Both were taken as we had given up on our alliance with Turkey and no longer saw the loss of Constantinople as a threat to India.
Taking Cyprus was to enable our fleet to be nearer the Suez Canal as the nearest station at that time was Malta.
Britain had embarked on 'passive' African expansion at that time and it was deemed important to hold the lands through which the Nile flowed. Ergo, we needed to position ourselves in Egypt in order to take Sudan (and get revenge for the death of General Gordon), Uganda and Kenya in addition to some states in West Africa, notably Nigeria. A far greater landmass was conceded to the French but it was considered mainly desert and therefore worthless.
Germany had a foothold in East Africa, but they were more interested in places like Heligoland which we ceded to them in exchange for for a large part of German East Africa.
This type of stuff was going on throughout the period after Waterloo and prior to the Great War, and places like Bosnia-Herzogovina, Bulgaria and Romania were treated as mere chattels by the stronger European nations. For a good deal of the time between Waterloo and the Great War, Britain sat aloof to the shenanigans and kept itself ready only to intervene if war looked likely or needed someone to help negotiate the peace.
The point I am making is this. Only by being at the top table and having a big say in affairs of Europe are we ever likely to make it work for us, as historical evidence shows staying away tends to lead to the continentals arguing and our troops being killed while trying to sort out the mess, or, at best, Britain missing out on something critical for the nation.
I don't understand or appreciate your accusation of being a New Labourite. I don't tell lies or spin the truth, which, if you or Andy or anyone else for that matter checks, all that I've posted on this subject is easy to verify. I do however admit to being a European of British decent and I therefore wnat the best for my country. I passionately believe that to be acheivable IN Europe as opposed to OUT of Europe.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
"History is bunk" (Henry Ford)
Alexander
Sid and I are going to disagree over his interpretation of all this until the end of time, so it's not worth arguing about. Henry Ford may be right, though: whatever the merits or otherwise of Sid's take on history, it's absolute bunk with regard to right-wing politics in the 21st Century. Voting for a referendum on British membership of the EU has got nothing whatsoever to do with 19th Century Balkan politics (or similar) as I think we all know. Focus, instead, in getting the UKIP message to as many as possible and don't be clouded by smoke screens such as Sid's. Sid believes that what is best for the UK is achievable by being in Europe and you & I don't. Leave it at that and don't get embroiled in unseemly squabbles which just leave everyone cold. If the pro-EU lobby is so cut & dried, the past umpteen governments would have held a referendum by now; the fact that they haven't tells its own story, and UKIP must drive that message home. Only when a referendum is held will UKIP go away.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Well we are geting there with the viewing on this site now at 9994,will it get to the 10.000, by the end of the night and replies now on 770, we need to get that up to 800 before midnight, turn them all into votes for UKIP and new members and we will hit the jackpot. LETS GO FOR IT.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The point of the history postings Andy is very simple. When Britain turns its back on Europe there is usually hell to pay at some point. The only way to make Europe better and work for the UK is for us be at the top table fighting our corner for all we're worth.
Our failure to do better so far is directly linked to the cronies we have sent to represent us. Until we do, the other members will not take us seriously, and that plays into the hands of France and Germany, the two nations that caused more trouble for Europe in the last 200 years than any other.
The UKIP policy on EU membership, if successful, will be ruinous for this country.
Henry Ford was an American. They have no perspective on anything let alone history.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Sid That is your thinking but is out of tune with what most of the public are thinking about the E.U. what makes you think you are right and all the others are wrong.?I would also like to point out to you that most of your own working life in the last few years has been out the the EU and you have done OK. And we are saying that it could be the same for the whole of the U.K.
Vic mate, I have only been working outside of the EU for the last 2.5 years.
My thinking is only based on historical precedent, which I feel is too obvious to ignore. It doesn't make me right, just aware of the potential risks and consequences.
As for what the rest of the country thinks, I have no idea, but I suspect the new generations, 18 - 40, don't have the same hang-ups as those of us who grew up with Britain outside the EU and who voted for entering what they thought was a trading club.
If I can work out how, I will run a poll on Facebook to get some idea of reaction. It would interesting if not very accurate of course.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that sounds scientific sid, a facebook poll.
i seem to remember the vote at the last election would put the english democrats in power with the bnp coming close.
I think a poll on Facebook Sid would prove to be a bit selective, probably akin to asking readers of the Saga magazine who they preferred best out of Val Doonican or Lady GaGa!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Sid, firstly I won't get pulled into another e.u.-bashing campaign on this site for a while and a bit, as I have been flagged down various times, so I'll respect the pacts! However, a look at history is a different subject, so I feel free to participate, also respecting Andy's advice, hence I'll avoid mentioning the Balkans, other than to state that Bismark had said (before the Kaiser dismissed him): the Balkans are not worth (the life of) one Pomeranian Grenadier!
But do you know that the British and French had the Entente Cordiale, which avoided conflict between our two countries and made it possible for the British and French to divide Africa in administrative spheres? Also, the German, Italian Belgian and Portughese administration spheres in Africa were all accepted as part of the idea that Britain and major European countries did all this in agreement with each-other to avoid conflicts one against ther other. Furthermore, in the eightennth and ninetennth centuries, Britain and European states repeatedly had conferences to define borders within Europe and so avoid disputes and wars between one country and another. hence, Britain does not have a history of isolationism! This was the point I was trying to get through. the term 'little Englander' seems to be the phrasing of people who have little knowledge of history! It baffles me! it so happens that I too have knowledge on history!
Nowadays, Africans and Asians all have reached the same grade of technology as the British and Europeans, and so times have changed. There is no place for Britain getting involved in disputes in Europe that could potentially lead to a war, and so I do not advocate any world-policing programmes either.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Facebook, Twitter, MySpace........whatever mode you choose is pointless, Sid - as Howard says, it's hardly scientific, is it? What is needed is for the Government to boldly go where others before have singularly failed to, and call for a referendum. I expect it would be a bitterly fought campaign by all concerned, but it would put an end to this disgraceful hiding of our rights to choose the way we are governed.
True friends stab you in the front.
