Not like the rest at all ?

[Beef Oven!]

I very seldom laugh out loud ... :-)

Lol! Yes, I find racism a hoot, too!

We must allow ourselves to laugh at clever little remarks about 'fair-share of racists', and stick two fingers up at the political correct brigade.

[MrGongGong]

stick two fingers up at the political correct brigade.

and a REAL example ?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hey I know
lets not be gratuitously offensive to people
I know it's hard for Nige but i'm sure you could manage it (and usually do)

And where's Don ?
Who is the chap in the beard ?
Bring back the captain I say

[Beef Oven!]

They hardly mention it at all ......... erm

Actually, I think they do mention it more than that. I think they say they are in favour of a proper management of who comes into the country. You know it makes sense.

The Greens don't say anything (acceptable for a fringe party), Cameron wants to get it up to hundreds of thousands (or is it down?), Labour's position is hard to know, the BNP can't see beyond the colour of the skin of the immigrant, and so on.

[Beef Oven!]

and a REAL example ?
And where's Don ?
Who is the chap in the beard ?
Bring back the captain I say

Chap? He's a bloke. Stop lapsing into middle-class talk. I do seasonal avatars. Don will be back shortly.

[Serial_Apologist]

Actually, I think they do mention it more than that. I think they say they are in favour of a proper management of who comes into the country. You know it makes sense.

The Greens don't say anything (acceptable for a fringe party),

Jean will correct me on this, but afaik the Greens as an anticapitalist party favour sorting out the economic problems that lead to mass labour migration in search of liveable wages and standards on a global scale, which needs international organisation and solidarity, rather than pretending it is possible to sort them out based on a merely nationalist perspective. But as a first step they say outlawing paying below the minimal statutory wage level should be carried out in practice.

[Beef Oven!]

Jean will correct me on this, but afaik the Greens as an anticapitalist party favour sorting out the economic problems that lead to mass labour migration in search of liveable wages and standards on a global scale, which needs international organisation and solidarity, rather than pretending it is possible to sort them out based on a merely nationalist perspective. But as a first step they say outlawing paying below the minimal statutory wage level should be carried out in practice.

With one MP, a slight MEP presence and not much else, they like a challenge!

[ahinton]

'75% of our laws' is what a past German chancellor estimated it to be and the UKIP have grabbed it as a quasi-numerical battle-cry.

I (not the UKIP, perhaps) believe that 100% of our laws are ''made in Brussels''. I take a qualitative view. 100% of British laws can be made within the UK, so long as they fit the EU specifications. Woe betide any British law, be it a 'poop-scoop' bylaw, or legislation on UK benefits entitlement that does not fit the EU ideological template - it will be overturned. Fact. Pure and simple.

Try this one for size.

Certain organisations in UK (not many, it's true, but enough to make it of some importance) enjoy the priviliege of statutory immunity from liability to damages; this means that a genuinely disaffected member of the public with a meritorious case against any one of them can instigate litigation against the offending one and, if successful, can have all legal costs awarded by the Court against said organisation BUT the Court is expressly forbidden by law from awarding damages in favour of the litigant irrespective of the value of the damage caused or the merits of the case. The laws that grant such immunity are made in Britain, not Brussels, Strasbourg, Maastricht or anywhere else. In one such instance when the European Commission's take on this unfair situation (with which the UK government claims that it is "content", albeit without providing any reason or explanation for its view) was referred to that Commission's Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs via an MEP, the response (which took some six months to elicit) was very clear in that EC does not get involved in or have or seek any influence over such matters and instead leaves decisions on the granting of such immunity to individual member states' governments. So much for "Brussels" interfering with laws made by the UK Parliament. I'm sure that there'd be no shortage of similar instances if anyone could be bothered to put them to such a test.

[amateur51]

Chap? He's a bloke. Stop lapsing into middle-class talk. I do seasonal avatars. Don will be back shortly.

But you ARE middle-class, Blanche!

[Beef Oven!]

Try this one for size.

Certain organisations in UK (not many, it's true, but enough to make it of some importance) enjoy the priviliege of statutory immunity from liability to damages; this means that a genuinely disaffected member of the public with a meritorious case against any one of them can instigate litigation against the offending one and, if successful, can have all legal costs awarded by the Court against said organisation BUT the Court is expressly forbidden by law from awarding damages in favour of the litigant irrespective of the value of the damage caused or the merits of the case. The laws that grant such immunity are made in Britain, not Brussels, Strasbourg, Maastricht or anywhere else. In one such instance when the European Commission's take on this unfair situation (with which the UK government claims that it is "content", albeit without providing any reason or explanation for its view) was referred to that Commission's Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs via an MEP, the response (which took some six months to elicit) was very clear in that EC does not get involved in or have or seek any influence over such matters and instead leaves decisions on the granting of such immunity to individual member states' governments. So much for "Brussels" interfering with laws made by the UK Parliament. I'm sure that there'd be no shortage of similar instances if anyone could be bothered to put them to such a test.

When you say 'try this for size' I was expecting something of substance. Sounds like the EU are saying 'we didn't know about this trifling legislation and it's no use to us - as you were'.

Whoopee! The EU isn't interested in one obscure law, that nobody had heard of anyway!

Btw, if that law ever contradicted any EU dictate on immigration, banking, car insurance, protectionist business measures etc, you can expect them to become interested in it, and we'd have to change our laws!

[Richard Barrett]

Leaving the EU will enable the UK to determine its own laws, through its own parliament as before

Not so, as I've pointed out.

You have to be realistic. Any right-wing political party will attract its fair share of people who have an irrational approach to race. It goes with the territory.

And this as far as I'm concerned would be a primary reason to have nothing to do with any right-wing political party. As you say, it (bigotry, divisiveness, lack of respect for fellow humans etc.) goes with the territory (greed, profiteering, institutionalised inequality etc.).

[jean]

...any EU dictate on immigration...

Why do you always forget how convenient it is for us to go and exercise our skills in boosting the economies of other EU countries?

[jean]

And this as far as I'm concerned would be a primary reason to have nothing to do with any right-wing political party. As you say, it (bigotry, divisiveness, lack of respect for fellow humans etc.) goes with the territory (greed, profiteering, institutionalised inequality etc.).

Indeed.

As I said above, Beefy has these flashes of insight - and still votes for them!

[Anna]

Leaving the EU will enable the UK to determine its own laws, through its own parliament as before, rather than being 100% tied into the requirements of what our legislation should look like.

But you do accept that 'our' laws would have to incorporate, where necessary, various EU regulations? I'm thinking for example of exports.

Also, I cannot see anywhere whether UKIP have said they would wish the UK to join the EEA or EFTA, or both? In which case the UK would still be subject to EU regulations and directives (and of course pay into the EU) or whether UKIP would intend to entirely go it alone.

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed.

As I said above, Beefy has these flashes of insight - and still votes for them!

Flashes of insight? How patronising. And arrogant - when there is even the smallest of overlap with your thinking, you call it a flash of insight.

[Beef Oven!]

Not so, as I've pointed out.

And this as far as I'm concerned would be a primary reason to have nothing to do with any right-wing political party. As you say, it (bigotry, divisiveness, lack of respect for fellow humans etc.) goes with the territory (greed, profiteering, institutionalised inequality etc.).

Just because you point something out, it does not render it a universal truth.

I don't see it as a 'primary reason to have nothing to do with a political party'. I see it as a challenge. The world's not perfect.