As soon as I read the "Let Turkey in" bit, that was enough... We have enough problems already without allowing millions more to pour in, quite apart from any security issues that, after the Algeria events of the last week, the politicians are finally waking up to

The dropping UKIP support is possibly the result of the "friends of the EU" stepping up their propaganda blitz in favour of staying in the EU. However, the economic facts are that the UK economy is stagnant, there is a possibility of a triple-dip recession and lots of people are losing their jobs. The influx of Romanian and Bulgarian people will turn the screw.

In the words of the song that the repugnant Tony Blair used - "Things can only get better" - for UKIP.

Sadly, as the performance of the UKIP claque on TV and radio has demonstrated, there is no strength in depth for Westminster election time to capitalise on the situation. UKIP is like an upturned triangle in management terms - all Generals (corporals actually in political ability-and the comparison with Corporal Hitler is about right) and no troops on the ground. The best they can muster is a terrorist strike at a by-election.

The time will come when the British public will be desperate for a party that can get us out of the economic mess. As it has taken the best part of 40 years for the globalists to decimate our industries, sell off the family silver, and suck us down into the EU "black hole" in which we control little of our country, it is not a simple task.
UKIP in its present state is not the answer but it blocks any other initiative.

Currently, UKIP cannot even win a Parliamentary election to get us out of the EU. An IN-OUT election is probably unwinnable at this time and Cameron, Miliband and/or Clegg are unlikely to offer one. They do not need to - just promise for another 2 years until the 2015 election is out of the way in their favour. In the meantime the EU will gather in more power over the Eurozone, get control of our financial sector whilst building military ties with UK, and strengthen the US-EU link with the help of the commercial/political "elite".

To rebuild a successful economy and deal with the issues surrounding the growing underclass in Europe and the USA, as the population expands, is a mammoth job. The religious fervour of Christianity which perhaps drove the people of the West for centuries is waning and being challenged by the religious fervour of Islam, a dictatorial religion. A challenge on our flank whilst facing economic meltdown is not a happy prospect.

Where is the light at the end of the tunnel for the anti-EU brigade ? Where is the light at the end of the tunnel for the EU ?

There's Mogadon. And if that fails there's David Owen.

Good question ... Our Nige is good for a drink with the lads, and gossiping with the girlie-boys of the media. But if we had followed the pack, and their tactics had worked, we would be heavily into a referendum campaign right now, with the almost certainty of losing.

These people are a liability, and the sooner the "eurosceptic" community wake up and smell the coffee, the better.

Perhaps UKIP's poll rating is inversely proportional to the media exposure of its leader.

Now perhaps we need to begin thinking harder about the nature of the problem. Economic migration was always going to be a problem - what matters is our response to it. That has been partly national and partly international, and only part of the latter has been an EU issue. We need to address the problem in its totality, and then work out how - specifically - it could be better in a post-EU Britain.

HELP NEEDED. . .

I am going through a crisis of logical thought.

What do I think I know?

1. The ruling elites (including the 'great' industrialists, the large banking families and the media barons) have for decades if not centuries (see Cecil Rhodes) been pushing towards a One World Government

2. The Palace of Westminstare has become more or less a branch office of the EU system, with as much autonomy as the EU bureaucrats allow

3. The EU has become more or less a branch office of the UN, with as much autonomy as the plutocrats allow.

4. If we manage to extricate ourselves from the EU (which I have longed for passionately for decades) we will have an independent seat at the UN / international forums deciding global regulations, rather than being represented by the EU at those discussions.

5. Our glorious 'leaders' and their supporting civil service, NGOs and legacy media will almost certainly comply with just about every regulation that comes out of the UN / international forums, in the same way that they do at the moment with those self same regulations which are passed down through the middle man of the EU

6. We will have an opt out (cf Norway) on matters that can be clearly demonstrated as being 'not in our national interest'.


BUT - aren't we going to be represented by the very same people that support a OWG and avidly implement (if not gold plate) all regulations that are imposed on us by the UN via the EU?

SO - my question is . . .

Is it that all we're fighting for (going forward) are those (very likely) extremely rare occasions when we veto a global regulation, plus the satisfaction of knowing that we had our say in the framing of those regulations even if the outcome is nevertheless decided in the same way (and with the same result) that it is now.

My apologies - maybe I'm just grumpy on a snowy Monday morning

Ukip will take off when it attracts the disaffected white manual working class.This group will never vote Conservative but increasingly see Labour as not supporting policies that are in its interest.This is most obvious with immigration which disproportionately and adversely impacts on them.

Patriotism and self interest is the way to persuade them to vote.They have stopped voting Labour, hence the low turnouts,the habit is broken,now Ukip needs to start looking like an alternative.

That's as may be, but from what I gather those that voted before/just after the war were more interested in the person/party/policies they voted, not the fact they looked nice.

Therefore I think UKIP, whether they have decent policies, other than OUT of the EU, doesn't come into it, today's voters are more interested in appearance, (think, doesn't that nice Mr Blair, have a lovely smile, isn't he just a regular kinda guy, that and the dislike of the tories got him voted in) soundbites and the 'what's in it for me' today attitude rather than the country as a whole and our children's future.

What sticks in my gut, people professing to care about their children, yet happily go and vote for the very ones who care nothing about them, in fact use them as propaganda tools for everything/anything they want controlled or banned.

So whether UKIP has found its way or not there comes a time when people have to make a stand against the lib/lab/con beasts, so either UKIP or BNP will get my vote, if only to mess up the 'not the conservatives'.

Those that don't make a stand deserve all they get, unfortunately those of us who do have to suffer the consequences of the tribal voting & stupidity

I think you're quite right in principle regarding our fishing industry (and in fact, all our sovereign rights regarding exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources - living and non-living - within our territorial waters).

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will provide us with much stronger rights with regard to our lawful 200 mile exclusion zone (or as the UNCLOS refers to it, the 'exclusive economic zone') as it would see our country as an independent sovereign state as opposed to being within a single entity (the EU). The problem is that there are around 350 articles in this convention (with about another 150 articles in the appendices) and as always the devil is in the detail. After scraping the surface (not an easy task) it is fairly clear that this convention is greatly concerned with the redistribution of wealth from developed to developing countries and was rejected in its genesis by both Reagan and Thatcher (Thatcher herself famously quoting that " . . . what this treaty proposes is nothing less than the international nationalisation of roughly two thirds of the Earth's surface . . . ". However, this convention/treaty is on the UN regulatory books and will at some point be passed by the US congress and will be passed down to us by the EU.

So, in some sense, escaping from the EU yoke will make us more free with regard to our fishing rights within our territorial waters (not forgetting of course that a). I see no evidence that any of our current or potential 'leaders' will have the stomach for precipitating a 'cod war' with the Spanish in our Western approaches and b). the thorny can of worms known euphemistically as the North Sea oil and gas exploration and exploitation - and whether it is in Scottish waters - will quickly raise its ugly head).

I think the CFP is probably the greatest of all the scandals that this country has had the misfortune to suffer since joining the EU system and it is one clear area where detaching ourselves from the EU has the potential to make a significant, positive, difference but it won't be plain sailing (hence the A50 requirement).

With regard to governing ourselves. If we need to follow ALL international regulations - are we really ??