is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
Ukip, an Analysis & Way Forward via The House of Commons & FleXcit with full documentation!
as it becomes ever clearer, to the informed, that Ukip has ever more deeply significant problems beyond the sexual dalliances of its leadership in continental bordellos and employing wives and mistresses, whether past present or future, the divorce of buffoons like Roger Helmer are of little significance – with whom and where they sleep is like them, an irrelevance.
Clearly their much claimed populist positioning and mobilising of a ‘people’s army’ has all the ring of truth of scoundrels such as General Jackson, General Lord Dunat and others in trying to pretend that Britain’s folly of engagement by the self serving degenerate fool Tony Blair and the low grades he gathered around him trying to claim Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was other than a route, in militarty, political, economic and humanitarian terms.
Clearly it is not just Ukip tyhat is bereft of leadership and sound judgement.
Ukip however is being implausible before the even for even the poorly informed!
You will note the jingo of mobilising a ‘peoples’ army’, which has clearly stalled as shown by the failure of their Police Crime Commissioner candidate in South Yorkshire to get out any kind of vote let alone mobilise those who have not engaged politically in the past scoring a mere 4.7% of the votes of the electorate, albeit a gain on last time when Jonatyhan Arnot had a mere 16,000 or so votes, this time their candidate picked up a little by the increase of turnout from 14.5% to 14.9% and absorbing the votes of last time’s popular English Democrat candidate who did not stand this time.
Hardly mobilising a ‘peoples’ army’ though to be fair the winner with almost double the vote was the Labour candidate an Anglican priest teaching ethics at the local red brick Uni. with a meager 7.4% holding within a few hundred of the disgraced outgoing Labour incumbent; thus showing Ukip is not materially effecting Labour in their he\artlands.
Then much akin to the anti homosexual appearance of Roger Helmer’s comments and Ukip in general, particularly Nigel Farage and his close chum, at the time, Godfrey Bloom – as displayed by Nigel Farage openly denouncing Nikki Sinclaire, an openly declared homosexual subsequent to her gender reassignment, within hours of her being elected as one of his MEPs despite the fact that she went on to donate more of her own money to the Ukip cause in the following 4 montha than Farage himself has donated in 21 years!
Ukip saw a gap in the market – a new band wagon to jump on – and decided to try to increase their vote using the wide open goal and crowd from the now collapsed BNP looking for a new home by preaching a doctrine all too akin to the racist hate material published by their own MEP Gerard Batten to exploit the increase in mobility of people world wide resulting in a huge difficulty dealing with immigrants.
Ukip were dubiously backed not only by a few police officers of dubious integrity and questionable awsociates but also by a cult of extremist so called self proclaimed ‘christians’!
The mask is slipping! Part of Ukip’s propaganda was to claim that Britain was awash with immigrants but when you study the figures you find that this just isn’t true when compared witjh other countries – not wishjing to let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to make a shoddy case Ukip blamed the EU for this, yet as you will see from the facts in the chart below the argument is unsound:
It is worth noting that Ukip champions the cause of leaving the EU, which is of course a sound policy, but to do so dishonestly is to cast their future to the wind!
Were Britain to Leave_The_EU it would not make a jot of difference to our immigrant levels and the fact they site Norway and Switzerland as exemplars shows how very ill informed and dishonest they are since both countries are not only outside of the EU but also have much higher levels of immigration than Britain.
To compound their folly Ukip suggest a role model of Australia as having a much better control of immigration yet where Britain currently has some 13% of our population who are immigrants Australia stands at 27%. Meanwhile although Ukip would seem to be deriving much support and attention from the opposition wing in America where interestingly it is shown to have nearly the identical immigration level to these United Kingdoms with 41M of its 313M peoples being immigrants, thus 13%!
Ukip’s dishonesty is increasingly being seen through, not to mention the3 vile nature of many in its leadership clique and its immediate claque.
One can expect Mark Reckless to be re-elected in the upcoming by election but for the life of me I see absolutely no precedent or track record of figures to show the protest vote stands any chance of seeing him hold his seat in the upcoming General Election – the turn of the wheel when irt comes to actual achievement in Ukip to date shows that Ukip has little hope of gaining MPs at a General Election.
One may well seek to make much of their coming second in several by elections but the difference between 2nd. and 1st. is the difference between success and failure and if they are unable to produce winners in by elections with everything in their favour it seems clear that their sole achievement in a General election will be to ensure Britain NEVER leaves the EU, by destroying what little hope we have of a Referendum and compounding the catastrophe by placing Labour in Downing Street to continue the destruction of Britain they have resol;utely achieved in every other moment of folly where they were elected!
Let us hope the public wake from their somnambulent loss of faith in democracy and return to voting rather than leaving the vote to those jumping on ill informed populist band wagons.
Some reassurance may be found that although Ukip lay claim to 40,000 members they should remember at a time when the eligible electorate was far smaller Baronet Sir Oswald Moseley built up to 50,000, largely pandering to a working-class hooligan strain exploited subsequently by John Tyndall’s National Front in the 1970s in Britain, the same grouping that Alex Salmond endeavoured to tap into in Scotland and Adolf Hitler had successfully exploited in Germany, yet in Britain as a whole Moseley spectacularly failed in electoral achievement as did Tyndall!
Clearly Ukip has failed in domestic elections to dateand without Tory turncoats and malcontents they would be as insignificant as their natural rivals in the English Defence League, Britain First, BNP, English Democrats, Greens and Monster Raving Loonies!
Ukip having spectacularly failed to come up with any plausible and costed serious policies in its 21 years, dismissing former efforts as soon as they are shown to be, to use their own leader’s description ‘drivel’ despite his having personally been in charge of policy inventing most of it ad lib to suit occasions and having personally signed off and commended their last manifesto; being only to happy to lay the blame at anyone’s door rather than shoulder the responsibility for his own ineptitude!
It looks all too likely that Nigel Farage will be squirming around in efforts to lay the blame for Ukip’s totally inaccurate immigrant policy at someone’s door unwilling to damage his income stream and career path by accepting responsibility for his actions!
In 21 years the one policy which Nigel Farage’s party has spectacularly failed to address is a responsible and honourable EU exit and survival strategy – a concept and policy document both far from populist in its required detail and obviously far beyond his or his party’s intellectual ability to produce to date – therefore I take the liberty of putting forward a suggestion that all who genuinely wish to Leave_The_EU amongst the ranks of those who have to date been duped into supporting Ukip consider adopting minded that the ONLY route to this is via referendum which can only be achieved by holding one’s nose and voting Conservative – how so ever one might vote in insignificant protest votes pending the General Election.
To that end and to help Ukip supporters understand the importance of a responsible and honourable EU exit and survival strategy I publish below an article from another blog.
The article which follows was first published at CLICK HERE
The House of Commons on:
Leaving The EU – 01-Jul-2013
Published yesterday by the House of Commons Library was a research paper on “leaving the EU”. The online introduction is here which offers a download facility for the entire 112-page document. For those who want to look at it without downloading, you can access it here.The paper is edited by Vaughne Miller and she tells us that the Treaty on European Union provides for a Member State to leave the EU, either on the basis of a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without one.
If the UK were to leave the EU following a referendum, Miller says, it is likely that the Government would negotiate an agreement with the EU, which would probably contain transitional arrangements as well as provide for the UK’s long-term future relations with the EU. There is no precedent for such an agreement, but it would in all likelihood come at the end of complex and lengthy negotiations.
The full impact of a UK withdrawal, she adds, is impossible to predict, but from an assessment of the current EU role in a range of policy areas, it is possible to identify issues and estimate some of the impacts of removing the EU role in these areas. The implications would be greater in areas such as agriculture, trade and employment than they would in, say, education or culture.
As to whether UK citizens would benefit from leaving the EU, Miller argues that this would depend on how the UK Government of the day filled the policy gaps left by withdrawal from the EU.
She argues that, in some areas, the environment, for example, where the UK is bound by other international agreements, much of the content of EU law would probably remain. In others, it might be expedient for the UK to retain the substance of EU law, or for the Government to remove EU obligations from UK statutes.
Much would depend, Miller concludes, on whether the UK sought to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore continue to have access to the single market, or preferred to go it alone and negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU.
And such is the view of a senior researcher in the House of Commons Library. It is not the definitive word by any means, but it is a contribution to a complex subject, where much debate and clarification is needed. At least, it does explore the Article 50 issue, telling us that an EU-exit would not be straightforward and would involve complex and probably lengthy negotiations over the UK’s future relations with the EU.
In so doing, several of the more egregious myths are debunked. For instance, the decision to leave, we are told, does not need the endorsement or formal agreement of the other Member States. Withdrawal can happen, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement, two years after the leaving State notifies the European Council of its intention to withdraw.
Nevertheless, we learn, the terms of Article 50 TEU imply an orderly, negotiated withdrawal, and it is clearly indicated that transitional provisions would have to be agreed, allowing EU law and obligations to continue to apply until all loose ends had been tied up. It would not be possible to withdraw immediately from several policy areas without causing enormous disruption.
In my view, such are the complications that completion of negotiations within a two-year period is unlikely, and we could see the UK – as well as the member states – looking for an extension, before a withdrawal agreement could be finalised, with any side treaties that might be needed.
For all its utility, though, the paper has some huge gaps. There is, by way of one example, virtually no recognition of the effect of globalisation of trade, and the expanding role of international standards-setting bodies which, via WTO, are largely displacing the EU as originators of trade regulation.
In this context, a paper that talks of harmonised rules on type approval of road vehicles, that does not mention UNECE and the World Forum on the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, must be considered severely lacking. There is much of the “little European” in the arguments adduced.
For the moment, though, the paper is probably ahead of the field, which means that many commentators will be struggling to catch up. It gets some attention from the advertising and merchandising conglomerate, the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, which offers a thin report, homing in on narrow FUD issues. One suspects its author lacks the intellectual framework with which to assess the paper properly.
But then, media interests have shown little ability to deal with the detailed issues attendant on our leaving the EU – and many of the commenters even less so. The House of Commons researchers are better equipped, although one has to say, not that much better. But their contributions do make a start to what is going to be a long haul.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Leaving the EU –
Commons Library Research Paper
Published 01 July 2013 | Research papers RP13/42
Amended 21 August 2013
Authors: Vaughne Miller
Topic: Economic policy, EU budget, EU defence policy, EU external relations, EU institutions, EU law and treaties, EU political integration, International law, International politics and government, International trade
The Treaty on European Union provides for a Member State to leave the EU, either on the basis of a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without one. If the UK were to leave the EU following a referendum, it is likely that the Government would negotiate an agreement with the EU, which would probably contain transitional arrangements as well as provide for the UK’s long-term future relations with the EU. There is no precedent for such an agreement, but it would in all likelihood come at the end of complex and lengthy negotiations.
The full impact of a UK withdrawal is impossible to predict, but from an assessment of the current EU role in a range of policy areas, it is possible to identify issues and estimate some of the impacts of removing the EU role in these areas. The implications would be greater in areas such as agriculture, trade and employment than they would in, say, education or culture.
As to whether UK citizens would benefit from leaving the EU, this would depend on how the UK Government of the day filled the policy gaps left by withdrawal from the EU. In some areas, the environment, for example, where the UK is bound by other international agreements, much of the content of EU law would probably remain. In others, it might be expedient for the UK to retain the substance of EU law, or for the Government to remove EU obligations from UK statutes.
Much would depend on whether the UK sought to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore continue to have access to the single market, or preferred to go it alone and negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU.
To view This HoC Briefing Paper Introduction CLICK HERE
To Download the full Government Report
To view The FleXcit web site for more information CLICK HERE
To read the Full FleXcit Plan, so far, CLICK HERE
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com