Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP support Paris 2012 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    I got there through hard work and committment! We, just like every other party, don't have a "perfect solution" we just put forward our ideas as to how best to deal with real life issues like all other parties.
    Sorry for being ambiguous, my question was how did you come to meet the head's of UKIP is so much as what is your actual job as oposed to what did you do. I am sorry if it give you the impression i thought you did anything other than hard work and committment as this is obviously necessary.

    Yes but the solution you come up with could be what might one term radical to the mainstream view of a solution and that worries me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I want to reiterate an ealier point: UKIP is not racist, it's xenephobic (sp?).

    Before you argue with that, let's ask why UKIP doesn't want any political connection with the rest of europe. Afterall, the countries of the EU are all liberal based political systems with strong elements of democracy. If all UKIP are doing is representing their views, why do they refuse to let other europeans share theirs? To say that we shouldn't be ruled by europe is to say I shouldn't be ruled by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (I live in England). I could go further, why should people in the south east have a say over my life in the midlands? Indeed, why should people in South yorkshire have a say of my Nottinghamshire? Furthermore, why should my neighbours have a say, through all levels of government, about life in my home? The argument is endless and ends in arnarchy, in fact it gets to anarchy well before it ends. My point then is this: why is it wrong for free thinking people from other european nations to engage in political debate with people in the United Kingdom and come up with an outcome that will help us all? The only answer I have to this is if we don't trust those people from europe. In short, because we are xenephobic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    oooooo I'm enjoying this.

    The idea of a non competitve sports day is actrually good fun. I went to two primary schools where I experienced both kinds. In many ways the 'non competitive' day was far more competitive than the competitive one, if you follow. Not so much because eveyone wanted to win, but because everyone tooks part, so with the exception of a few track events I, like all my five year old friends, took part in all the activities, throughly enjoying the experience, and helping gain our team (go greens!) points. At the 'competitive' sports day I had all the fun of watching other people play sports. This was dull and alienating. In this way it seems clear to me that the non-competitive day was actrually far superior in promoting sports to children, far more fun for the parents (who got to cheer their kids in far more events and felt ever so much prouder), and kept us much fitter (because we were doing lots events instead of at most 2 and at least 0). You might not be turned by my argument for a 'non competitive' sports day, but if you are at least slightly swayed by it I hope you see that much of the argument against supposed political correctness is generated by a sea of ignorence of what an activity actrually involves.

    Also I fail to see why the EU couldn't be changed. As an institution I think it isn't yet democratic enough which makes this process harder, but if kilroy was saying 'we are going to radically reform the EU', indeed if anyone was saying this, I can only see this would be by far more productive. Just saying we're going to scrap it before one has tried truly radical reforms (like say, a constitution for starters) is somewhat childish.

    Also don't be too naive in thinking that we don't need very close relations to the rest of Europe. Some argue we don't need it because we are close to the USA, but in our life times (well, my life time, I don't know how old other people are) China is likly to become an even bigger superpower, and Russia too, with it's huge amount of natural resources, is oneday likely to develop into a nation far more powerful than the USA today. Strange as it may seem, the best way to maintain liberty in Britain is to work with others who share similar ideas (i.e. Europe). In historical context it is also worth noting that Britain will probably help maintain liberty on the continent as well.
    You may have enjoyed it, but I doubt whether the athletically gifted children who were denied legitimate victories enjoyed it quite so much. But if everyone had fun and the children did more sport then fine, I just used it as an example of how a small group of lefties insist that all people do things a certain way, and if people don't then they are "out-dated" or something-phobic. Secondly, I fully support strong and positive relations with the nations of Europe, the last thing i would want is for us to become insular. If you watched our EU "parliament" political broadcast on tv you would have seen it stressed that we need to take a balanced approach, maintaining ties with all over the world. We can't do this if we adopt the euro or become part of the nation of Europe. I'm sure that the EU is actually damaging to cross-continental relations because through the gradual abolition of the veto and continent-wide legislation we are surely more likely to get under eachothers skin, moreover we are forced to "buddy up" with other EU nations to block other nations proposals, which creates a very adversarial and underhand european political system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, I kind of agree with some of what you said there greyhound.

    I don't actrually agree with the euro (or not at this stage at least) because I think much of europe is too far behind in creating a sustainable and steady economy with no , or little, boom and bust, just like the labour have created here at the moment.

    I also think we could sometimes do with more independence, for example the EU sent a diplomat to the last World Trade Summit as a whole, rather than as single nations. This guy was called something Lamy, and promoted policies including one that would allow companies to sue governments for doing anything that would infringe upon their business such as, for example, making them reduce pollution. This is a mad policy and a delegation of each individual nation's diplomats and politicians may have been more sceptical of such a bizarre policy.

    However, where I differ from UKIP is that I think this could be controlled. By making the EU more democratic it will become more answerable and egits like Lamy should get lost from government. What we really need is more definition of what Europe can and can't do, and we as people living in it need to be included in a consultation of such definitions (which should not be 'hey, here's a referendum. Do you like this constiution or not?' because that doesn't actrually give people the oppotunity to have a say in its construction.)

    As a final point, Mandelson is a bit of an idiot (sadly, a very very clever idiot) but he hasn't, so far as I'm aware, actrually done anything illegal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    Wow, I kind of agree with some of what you said there greyhound.

    I don't actrually agree with the euro (or not at this stage at least) because I think much of europe is too far behind in creating a sustainable and steady economy with no , or little, boom and bust, just like the labour have created here at the moment.

    I also think we could sometimes do with more independence, for example the EU sent a diplomat to the last World Trade Summit as a whole, rather than as single nations. This guy was called something Lamy, and promoted policies including one that would allow companies to sue governments for doing anything that would infringe upon their business such as, for example, making them reduce pollution. This is a mad policy and a delegation of each individual nation's diplomats and politicians may have been more sceptical of such a bizarre policy.

    However, where I differ from UKIP is that I think this could be controlled. By making the EU more democratic it will become more answerable and egits like Lamy should get lost from government. What we really need is more definition of what Europe can and can't do, and we as people living in it need to be included in a consultation of such definitions (which should not be 'hey, here's a referendum. Do you like this constiution or not?' because that doesn't actrually give people the oppotunity to have a say in its construction.)

    As a final point, Mandelson is a bit of an idiot (sadly, a very very clever idiot) but he hasn't, so far as I'm aware, actrually done anything illegal.
    Glad we're starting to find common ground. I think there are other, more fundamental reasons why the euro could never work: the Growth and Stability Pact, which sets out "binding" and lasting rules for the euro's operation is almost dead in the water. Smaller nations are furious that it has been constantly flouted by larger nations and they haven't been punished. Some members want it more strictly enforced, some want it abandoned, yet these are supposed to be long lasting binding rules! Secondly, the central target of the ECB of <2% inflation prescribes a high interest rate which will stunt economic growth, and maintain the high EU level of unemployment and prevent europe ever competing with USA (as many hope it will). Thirdly, the ECB are too independent, obviously independence from political pressure is generally a good thing, but the ECB are simply unaccountable. The Bank of England produce reports and are generally transparent which allows businesses to predict their decisions, this isn't the case with the ECB. I thoroughly recommend reading "Just Say No" by John Redwood, very clear and concise arguments against the euro, especially from a British perspective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    obviously independence from political pressure is generally a good thing
    Hmm, a book for your reading list could well be 'In Defence of Politics' by Bernard Crick (in fact a book for anyone interested in politics, government, sociology etc). I'll bare that book in mind, but I have rather a lot of reading to do before university already .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    Hmm, a book for your reading list could well be 'In Defence of Politics' by Bernard Crick (in fact a book for anyone interested in politics, government, sociology etc). I'll bare that book in mind, but I have rather a lot of reading to do before university already .
    Funny you should suggest that, "In defence of politics" was on the suggested preliminary reading list for my first politics course at uni, its clearly a definitive authority then. I'd like to suggest though that you don't have any reading to do before university, they can't and wouldn't expect you to do any work before the course begins because they can only test you on things you cover in lectures! Any preliminary reading lists should be taken with a pinch of salt and are often constructed for the benefit of those with no knowledge of the subject. If you did an A level in the subject your studying at degree that's all the preliminary work you need to do!
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.