UKIP conference at the racecourse

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.

Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?

That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?

Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?

Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?

Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.

[Filo]

Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.

Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?

That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?

Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?

Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?

Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.

He's already found it, his head is stuck there

[IC1967]

Jonrover I don't know what you are on about as I'm sure don't other readers of this forum. So I'll say it again. UKIP exist to get us out of Europe. Their other policies won't get implemented. They come up with other policies because they are expected to by the media. The other 'policies' they come up with aren't worth too much scrutiny as they are just produced to play the politics game.

It just so happens that I agree with a lot of what they have come up with. Hopefully Labour or the Tories will nick some of their ideas and they may see the light of day.

Hmmm, lets see, first you say UKIP are a one issue party, next you say you agree with most of their policies. And now their a one issue party but have to have other policies because the media expect them to. You will make your mouth say owt!

Which one is it you thick turd? Filled your moist flannel yet?

Oh & PS. Isn't it funny all these Tory defectors crawling into the sewer to join Farage. Massive own goal with regard to winning Labour votes...vote UKIP, get a TORY! And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in.

Farage is allowing Labour to sail home in 2015 with his daft antics. GET IN!!

Did you see the reaction of the UKIP faithful when Mr Reckless walked on the stage at their conference? Obviously not. The crowd went wild. Jucyberry saw it and disapproved of the crowd's reaction. It was like a football crowd after a goal has been scored. It went on for 5 minutes. Now given the evidence, I'd be grateful if you could explain your comment 'And what must the UKIP party faithful think. I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in'.

You really do make yourself look daft. Don't bother replying because you won't be able to justify your outlandish, unsubstantiated, ridiculous comment.

Now, I know you are as thick as pig shit but I thought even you would have been able to work out it was a personal opinion, hence " I'd be livid dragging in all these outsiders in." If a few hundred people in an auditorium went "wild for 5 mins" because Reckless was rolled in on a fanfare then whoopy f***in doo! Does that automatically reflect the opinion of the majority of  UKIP members? It still doesn't alter the fact that if I was a UKIP activist with desire to stand as a candidate I would be pretty cheesed off. In fact after the demo on Saturday we followed 4 delegates walking into town who were overheard saying that they might as well rejoin the Tories if any more Tories join.

Excuse me. There was more than a few hundred. They were all UKIP members. You couldn't get in unless you were a member. So I think it is reasonable to assume that their reaction was indicative of what party members think throughout the country. Now toddle off before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have done.

[IC1967]

Mick you little wag. "Trust me". Titter.

Trust you? On a prediction? Trust you?

That's you who predicted that Yes would win the Scottish referendum is it?

Or is it the you who predicted that we'd get relegated in 2012/13 because of our possession efficiency? Is that the you we are talking about?

Or is it the you who predicted the winner of the National?

Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to find your arsehole with a map and compass.

Right. You've got until midnight to offer up an abject apology. Otherwise you will be further exposed tomorrow for what you are. A hardcore leftie that makes things up to try and convince people that socialism is the way forward.

[IC1967]

Boomstick



UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules. That is why they are already hitting Switzerland (before the Swiss have even fully applied the referendum result to pull out of the free movement agreement).
(Why am I not surprised that you didn't actually read what I wrote. The EU sanctions are ALREADY being applied to Swizerland. They are ALREADY biting.)

The EU CANNOT allow associate countries to pick and choose what is appropriate for them, without suffering any penalties. The effects are already being felt inSwitzerland. In my area of work, I was speaking last week to a lab manager (a world-leading researcher who does work in Switzerland for Fiat and Audi, and who wins done funding through EU research projects). He is already laying off staff because the EU funding has been stopped. He is livid that his countrymen have blundered into this decision without considering the consequences. It's a tiny example, but you can multiply that one by hundreds and thousands as the penalties start to bite.

Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several  free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.

So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.

Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.

Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Once again  we go through the tiresome experience of you getting all het up and missing the f***ing point.

(And you're copying and pasting without attribution too - http://www.brugesgroup.com/EFTAorEUQ%26As.pdf )

Go back and read what I said. I was specifically talking about immigration and the consequences of opting out of the agreement of freedom of movement.

Of the countries that you mention Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland are in the EEA and are fully signed up to the EEA requirements on freedom of movement (in fact, moreover, they are all signatories to the Schengen Agreement). I can't for the life of me think why you didn't mention that. Or why that Bruges Group article doesn't mention it either. The fact that those countries have control over their agriculture and fisheries is a historical issue. We may well have the same rights if we left the EU and joined the EEA. But we would NOT have the right to join the EEA and abrogate the freedom of movement agreement. So that path is out.

So, if we wanted to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement of EU citizens, we would have to negotiate from scratch, our own bi-lateral trade agreements with the EU. Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. It had to set up its own bi-lateral trade agreements with the EU. It took them TEN YEARS to do it (1992-2002), during which time they faced import/export levies and their companies were de-barred from tendering for EU contracts. The consequence? Their economy flat-lined throughout the 1990s, and didn't take off until the Swiss economy was fully integrated into the European Single Market in the early 2000s.

So, a best case scenario for us is ten years of economic trouble whilst we sort out the minutiae of bi-lateral agreements with the EU.

But that's before we look at immigration. The whole of the Swiss agreement is now in jeopardy because of their vote to abrogate the freedom of movement agreement. They were sold a pup by the Swiss UKIP equivalent, that the EU was bluffing. They weren't. The EU is stonewalling any moves by Switzerland to get round this. Switzerland has not yet implemented the immigration law following the referendum. If it does, the trade agreement WILL be cancelled.

So, by all means leave the EU. By all means pull out of the treaty on freedom of movement. But the economic consequences will be monumental. Just go and ask a Swiss businessman. I have.

[IC1967]

Is that the best you can do? What a twisty turny thing you are. You were only on about immigration. Don't make me laugh. I've got you bang to rights.

You said 'there are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. The key phrase here is 'all working to a common set of rules'. You then said 'They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules'.

You didn't say 'They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to  freedom of movement'. Your last post tries to make out that this is what you said. You didn't. You said that if countries wanted to trade with the EU then they had to sign up to all the rules including freedom of movement.

As I have pointed out, this is a blatant lie. So what do you do? You lie again. You try to con people into thinking you were only on about immigration (freedom of movement). Anyone with half a brain can see that you were clearly on about all the EU rules and not just freedom of movement. Talk about digging an even bigger hole than you were already in.

Why are you surprised I didn't mention freedom of movement? My post was about exposing your blatant lies. I wasn't hiding anything. I know that EFTA members sign up to freedom of movement. I haven't tried to pretend otherwise. All I was doing was exposing you as a liar.

Now stop digging yourself into an even bigger hole and get that abject apology sorted and promise to mend your ways. You've got until midnight or you will be further exposed tomorrow.

[Filo]

Mick, f**k off you're boring the tits off of everyone!

[BillyStubbsTears]

For the love of God Mick, just f**k off you asinine t**t.

Look at what I wrote.

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=249032.msg485992#msg485992

You, as you ALWAYS do when you are wrong, focus on one semantic point.

Countries who join the EEA DO sign up to a commonly agreed set of rules. For HISTORICAL reasons, a handful are allowed to make their own decisions on how they grow their carrots. But on the BIG issues, there is no wiggle room.

I'll repeat, not that you will listen, you irredeemable dipshit, we WILL NOT be allowed to join the EEA if we don't accept freedom of movement. Which is the central point that I was making before you went off on your own private w**k.

[IC1967]

Where have I said that I think we should join the EEA? I'll tell you. Nowhere.

I fully accept that if we wanted to join we would have to sign up to freedom of movement. I've never disputed this or tried to pretend otherwise.

The whole point of my post was to show people your blatant lies and show them how you try to twist things to suit your hardcore leftie view of life.

I'm quite happy to get into a debate about how the UK would survive outside of the EU but that is a separate subject to the one I am currently addressing.

You accused me of being a liar. All I'm doing is showing that it is  infact you that is the liar not me.

Now get on with that abject apology or your reputation will be further trashed tomorrow.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You lie about your identity. You lie about your photographic memory. You lie about your betting tips. You lie about your betting slips. You lie as a general approach to life.

You misunderstand something I write and you pounce on it to "prove" I am a liar. Grand. If it makes you loathe yourself a little less then lovely. Congratulations.

Now f**k off and stop boring us all with your infantile stupidity.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

On a lighter note David Cameron's speech today was very good I thought.  He just got a lot right.  Pretty sure it will give them a boost.  Also really impressed with Theresa may, surely the next Tory leader?

[IC1967]

Dave was great today. What a contrast to red Ed. He's never going to be able to forget that he forgot to mention the deficit, immigration and welfare in his speech. Then again maybe he will be able to.

[IC1967]

Mick

You lie about your identity. You lie about your photographic memory. You lie about your betting tips. You lie about your betting slips. You lie as a general approach to life.

You misunderstand something I write and you pounce on it to "prove" I am a liar. Grand. If it makes you loathe yourself a little less then lovely. Congratulations.

Now f*** off and stop boring us all with your infantile stupidity.

Like I said. You've got until midnight.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Hmmm. He complains that Labour's economic policies don't add up, then conjures out of thin air a tax policy that would disproportionately give money away to those earning over £50k per year.

No indication of how this will be paid for. No costings. The independent IFS says it is "very difficult" to see how this will be paid for without "extraordinary levels of cuts in public spending." The IFS head suggests that this is a headline gimmick, likely to be funded by putting up other taxes.

Hey ho. A £1600 per year giveaway to 800,000 people earning over £50k. A £500 a year giveaway to everyone else. And tax rises all round to pay for it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I'm cowering in a corner dreading your next onslaught. Please be gentle with me.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There is a question to be answered as to how that's funded, I certainly agree with that.  I thought there was a lot of promise in it though and tax cuts are never a bad thing.  Of course that is a headline pleaser, it was always going to be that way.  I liked the passion DC spoke with and the tone just came accross as much more authoratitve and senior than Ed did last week.

It upped the ante a little this week, I was pessimistic but it a little less so now.  Still in Labour's hands I feel, I still think there's a big chance they'll lose it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

It's unravelling already. The Financial Times (that well-known nest of Socialist vipers!) has the following Editorial header:

"Cameron trades votes for credibility"
It's saying that the numbers don't make sense and they are relying on the headline to win votes.
It goes on to say:
"The Tory leader’s tax cut promises risk degrading public services too far"

The Times calls it "£7bn giveaway to the middle class".

Even the Telegraph questions how the numbers stack up.

This is a barmy promise. Apart from the numbers not stacking up, to deliberately decide to give far, far bigger tax cuts to high earners (just like they did with the 50% top rate) is political madness. It gives Labour a bloody great big stick to crack them with.

Interestingly, it doesn't give UKIP a stick, because they would give even bigger tax cut giveaways to high earners. And they still claim to be the party of the working class in Donny.

[The Red Baron]

I'm not sure the figures add up either, but I don't agree about Cameron's pledges being electoral madness. His whole speech was addressed at the sort of people who are disillusioned with the Tories and drifting over to UKIP. Also don't forget that the tax cuts that he was talking about are to be delivered over the lifetime of a Parliament (i.e. by 2020). The whole exercise was about projecting a brand image- that the Tories are a tax-cutting party and Labour are a tax-raising one. He also shot one of Miliband's foxes in that he directly addressed the "squeezed middle"- although Labour seem to have given up talking about them recently. Maybe they realise they are more likely to go UKIP than Labour.

More problematic for him than the tax cuts though was his pledge on renegotiation with Europe. I can't see the EU moving on Freedom of Movement and many within the EU will consider that if the price of that is a UK withdrawal then it is a price worth paying.

PS. Although it would be stretching a point to call the FT a left-wing paper it has been a pretty consistent editorial supporter of Labour in recent years. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

You might well be right about the electoral appeal of the proposed tax cuts. Certainly The Sun/Mail/Express are entirely shedding any vestige of impartiality and cranking up into "Tory Victory" mode on that subject. Whether it makes as much difference as it used to do, I'm not sure, but it's going to be relentless from now.

On the EU and freedom of movement, we're finally going into the end game for the Tories on this one, after 25 years. As you say, there is no way that the EU will back down in this issue. It is fundamental to the whole concept of the single market. So we have a choice. Accept freedom if movement or leave the EU. But as I said yesterday, the case of Switzerland shows how hellish leaving would be. While they were negotiating entry to the single market (including freedom of movement remember!) their economy slipped badly compared to the rest of Europe. In the first five years of the Single Market, their GDP per capita fell by $500. Inside the Single Market, ours grew by $4000, France's by $2500, Italy's by $2000, Spain's by $2000. Even Germany, which was going through the economic trauma of integrating the East's system into West Germany's economy saw a $1000 increase.

Just like with the Scottish referendum, that is the message that will be pushed by the supporters of the stays quo. Have your romantic idea of cutting yourself off if you want. But look at the economic consequences. Do you REALLY want to spend the next decade getting poorer?

If the Tories win in 2015, they are in an appaling position on this. Cameron knows this argument (at least he bloody well ought to, or all that money his family spent getting him an education that culminated in a First in PPE at Oxford was wasted!) He knows how catastrophic leaving the EU would be. But he also knows that he has few friends in Europe prepared to chuck him a bone, because Britain has been pissing off the rest of the EU for decades. So he's got a terrible hand to play over his promised referendum.

And if they lose in 2015, Cameron's out and the gloves are off as the party tears itself apart in a leadership campaign, played out in the fear of UKIP out-flanking them on the Right.

This next five years is going to be the culmination of a fight that has riven the Tory party throughout my lifetime. I can well see it finally finishing them off, in the way that the old Labour Party was killed off by the splits of the 1980s. 

And THAT of course is precisely what Farage wants to see happen, so that a re-alignment on the Right would see a merge of UKIP and the right-half of the Tories.

Interesting times.

[The Red Baron]

BST

Yes, Cameron has really painted himself into a corner on Europe. Again, he was speaking to potential UKIP voters, because one of the charges levelled at him by the Tory defectors is that they didn’t believe that Cameron was serious about renegotiating with the EU on fundamental matters.

A lot of people, myself included, have suspected that Cameron wanted to be able to recommend a vote to stay in on the basis of concessions won. On this scenario he would gain some concessions on issues that seemed important but in fact no-one in Europe cared all that much about. Then, like Harold Wilson, he would campaign for an “IN” vote. He could probably get most of his Cabinet to line up behind him (an odd maverick like, say, Iain Duncan-Smith, could be tolerated) and would have the support of the Labour and Lib Dem leadership. Now all that has gone, because he has said he will seek a change to Freedom of Movement as a centre-piece of his negotiations. That is something that the EU will regard as non-negotiable, so he will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So he may end up in a position of campaigning for something he really doesn’t want and also knowing that unless he wins the referendum then he’s history. Not a good place to be in!

[IC1967]

The headline grabbing £12,500 tax free allowance is just that. I can see how it could quite easily be fiscally neutral. People are talking as if the allowance is going to go up to £12,500 straight away. It isn't. Its by 2020.

In 2015 the allowance is already planned to be £10,500. So in reality we are looking at a £2000 increase by 2020. Thats 5 years, during which time it would have gone up anyway with inflation at the very least. If we assume a rate of 2.4% inflation (the current rate) up until 2019 then that would take the allowance to £11,545. It would not be a massive jump to £12,500 in 2020. Less than £1000. This is eminently possible given that the economy should be in much better shape by then. The Tories will also have cut benefits such as Tax Credits during this period. These cuts and increased tax receipts and less or even no borrowing would make a £12,500 allowance easily affordable.

Dave has been very clever. He knows the British public by and large don't understand the personal allowance. Most of them will think 'great, I'll be able to earn £12,500 before paying tax'. It won't dawn on most of them that this isn't such a massive change as is being portrayed and they won't realise they won't be getting it until 2020.

A masterstroke by the Tories.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Mick.

Except we're going to have deflation by...when was it?

[IC1967]

Deflation is on the way. Its already arrived in the Eurozone and will be arriving in the UK in the not too distant future.

I said its a headline grabber. I never said I believe it will be implemented. I've just shown how a lot of hot air is being spoken about the policy and that if things stayed as most people expect them to, then it is not such a big jump. The case I've put forward is a hypothetical one that I don't believe will happen for a second.

The policy is predicated on the deficit being removed by 2018. Thats a big 'if'. It assumes inflation at the current rate or slightly higher. Another big 'if'.

I don't think the policy will be implemented. However that is neither here nor there. Dave is conning the public and they will fall for it. This will lead to more votes for the Tories which is great news.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So if deflation is on the way, that means that your previous post is a load of b*llocks, right?

EDIT: Sorry! I've got it! What you were saying in that previous post was something that you didn't actually believe!

When you said "I can see how this can be fiscally neutral", you didn't mean YOU could see it. You meant that you could see how other people would see it?

I get it now. You don't write what you actually think. You write what you think idiots think. It makes most of your other posts suddenly more understandable.

[IC1967]

My post makes perfect sense. In my first sentence I said it was purely a headline grabber. I don't think I could have been much clearer in my view of the policy. I then outlined using conventional wisdom why the policy was not what it initially seemed. I used words such as 'could', 'assume' etc. At no point did I give the impression that I believed the policy. Its obvious to anyone that knows my views on deflation that I couldn't possibly think it would happen.

However the great British public are not as clued up as me. They will fall for it. Get in. You are obviously doing your usual thing of trying to twist what I say in an effort to discredit me. Good luck with that. You've had that many batterings off me I've lost count. Do yourself a favour and ignore my posts. You'll only get battered again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. Thanks for clearing that up. See, on first reading, for someone who doesn't have your ability to read what the f**k you want into simple words, it really, really looked like you were just talking b*llocks again. I'd hate for anyone to have that misconception.

[IC1967]

Right. Thanks for clearing that up. See, on first reading, for someone who doesn't have your ability to read what the f*** you want into simple words, it really, really looked like you were just talking b*llocks again. I'd hate for anyone to have that misconception.

I think you'll find that you're the only one that didn't understand my post. In future I'll try and simplify what I say so that people of low intelligence such as yourself can understand what I'm on about.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That'd be grand Mick.

I realise that in the Micktionary, saying that "I could quite easily see" how something could happen actually means "I reserve the right to claim that I didn't actually mean this when it turns out I'm talking ba-baa again."  See, that Micktionary is just too intellectually difficult for me to get my head round. So Just make it 100% clear what you actually think, then it'll be easy for us.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Blatant lies and misinformation are highlighted in bold. EFTA members are allowed to run their own affairs. Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein have an EFTA/EEA agreement. This allows allow them access to the Single Market. Crucially though they still keep control of agriculture, fisheries, Home Affairs and Justice. They do not have to sign up to all the EU regulations. They are only subject to the 4,500 EEA regulations. They are not signed up to the additional 15,000 EU regulations. Switzerland has a similar arrangement and has negotiated several  free trade bi-lateral agreements with the EU.

So BST, it is clear for all to see that it is you that is living in cloud cuckoo land. You lie to give people the impression that if we left the EU and still wanted to trade with them we'd still be subject to all their rules. This is a monumental lie. It doesn't get much bigger than this. How you've got the nerve to perpetrate such a lie is beyond belief. You really must think everyone on this forum is stupid.

Luckily for all the stupid people on this forum that believe all your utterances I am around to expose you.

Now I'd suggest you get on with that abject apology before I further expose you. You've got until midnight or I'll be posting more damning evidence again tomorrow.

EEA/EFTA gives member countries access to Free Trade with the EU, NOT the Single Market. Completely different things. No wonder you don't know what you're blathering about. As usual.