Good, I hope all of this is true.

Did anyone see the front page of todays Independent given over entirelt to an attempted smear job on UKIP - "The true face of UKIP" it said, ten things UKIP don't want you to know.

Gosh! What can it be I thought, imagining some shocking revelations.

Just 10 bits of old gossip, none of it relevant, all of which has been written about before. In fact the first "shock revelation" was that all 12 UKIP MEP's are white men between 50 and 65. Well, I don't even suppose that this pointless allegation is even true as Nigel Farage looks considerably younger. Another shock was that Farage likes a drink. Oh please. This is without doubt the most cretinous front page of a newspaper I have ever seen. I can scarcely believe the editor ran with this rubbish. UKIP must really have them running scared if they are trying on crap like this.

The New Statesman fresh from revealing last week that "these are not racists or xenophobes, they are free market ideologues"--O most damned of all!--has a weird article by Aidan Rankin splashed on the cover. He suggests they are in fact xenophobes, and obsessed with (dislike of) homosexuality.

It's not so much running scared, I suggest, as bewilderment that a party doesn't seem to give a damn about the pieties of conventional political discourse.

Guy
That really is weird about Rankin, he , I think was involved in writing their manifesto.

So Managing Directors support UKIP? Any facts to back that spurious claim?

I am one MD who doesn't support UKIP. Anecdotal, but evidence all the same.

Evidence has also been scarce over the past week when I listen to the smarmy Kilroy Silk. He accuses Brussels of being corrupt - why doesn't he come up with the facts?

Will he and his UKIP colleagues take his salary as an MEP? 'Toby says' they have so much money they won't need a salary.

To withdraw from the EU would be crass. The recent expansion has made Europe the largest stable market in the world. I see those people in the new member states as potential customers. As their economy grows rapidly their ability to buy my products will increase.

If you support free trade you welcome the removal of (economic) barriers and that's why UKIP's position is nonsenical. Isolating the UK by withdrawing from Europe will cut us off from the forthcoming economic growth in Europe.

As for sovereignty and the constitution - what a rubbish argument. The monarch is a figurehead within our democracy - and no one plans to get rid of her.

And, so long as we retain control of key areas such as defence and the economy, what difference does it make for the boy who is brought up in Belfast, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle - whether he is governed from Whitehall or Brussels?

I work with staff from France, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Ireland and Italy - guess what - they are just like us. You have nothing to fear.

UKIP is an extremist party... and we know where extremist politics put Europe sixty odd years ago.

I analyse the election we've just seen as the breakthrough for UKIP. They've ceased being a "protest vote" and become something you can plausibly hope will win. That is going to seriously boost their membership and funding.

Syon: If the EU was merely a common market, as once was the case, there wouldn't be a UKIP. Free trade is quite possible without giving up your independence to a semi-accountable (at best) foreign body.

Syon Park: who's "fearing"? Only those who think surrendering to EU membership is a precondition for trading with them!

Oh gee, it took how many comments before some muppet called UKIP extremist and suggested they are similar to BNP and/or the NAZIs. Does anyone who use this cheap device actually believe this? RESPECT have a hell of a lot more in common with BNP than to UKIP.

I think there should be a new "law" called Dodge's law or should that be Kilroy's law: The amount of time it takes for an opponent/critic of UKIP to link them with the BNP/extreme right.

Have you Syon ever read their literature or talked to a UKIP member? I see no connection between them are true extremism. UKIP merely believe that the EU is bad for Britain. That is a perfectly acceptable intellectual position which has more than enough proof.

Syon Park writes:

"He accuses Brussels of being corrupt - why doesn't he come up with the facts?"

What a load of codswallop!

Brian Mickelthwaite has already raised one of the prime examples of EU corruption and, in the manner typical of myopic Europhiles, Mr. Park blunders on, pretending that what he cannot dispute doesn't exist.

So let's start again, Mr. Park. Specifically, what do you say to the refusal of the EU's own auditors to sign-off the accounts for the past ten years?

Do you run your business that way? If so, how did you get access to an internet connection from inside one of HM's prisons?

And on rolls the juggenrnaut of EU myth. Next, that we will not be able to trade with the EU if we withdraw? Why not? Have Bosch, VW, Renault and BMW decided they no longer want to sell their products here?

To counter Mandelsonian myths with facts, both Norway and Switzerland (neither members) do a greater proportion of their trade with the EU than does the UK.

You'll have to do better than this load of recycled Euroballs, I'm afraid. The British public has rumbled you.

It is a sad state of affairs when it takes a Kilroy Silk to galvanize the British into action. The cavalier attitude of the major UK parties could be the cause of their downfall in the very near future, as the population grows increasingly agitated at the performance of their old boys club. The "we know better" stance of all 3 major parties (actually there are really only 2 now because the Lib Dems are history) may well stand up to detailed economic examination, however this is supposed to be a democracy and emotive factors should have their place.
Anyone who doubts the corruption and waste which exists in the EU, clearly has never had dealings with any of their tentacles and there is definitely no forthcoming economic growth in Europe. The Franco German hub is in very deep trouble and for the first time their own populations are starting to rebel even though they re write the rules to suit their own economies at any given point in time.
Wake up Messrs Blair, Howard and Kennedy - so far the electorate has just given you a nip. Next time they will bite your leg off.

Evidence has also been scarce over the past week when I listen to the smarmy Kilroy Silk. He accuses Brussels of being corrupt - why doesn't he come up with the facts?

I take it this is a bit of satire... after all, can anyone who has been reading newspapers or watching the TV for the last 15 years really have any doubt on that front? If you want facts about EU corruption, try here you lazy bastard.

Cancergiggles - Hush your mouth, sir! Why would we want these malevolent morons to wake up? Let them sleep, dreaming their fascist dreams, while electorates use their backs as stepping stones back to freedom.

G Cooper, superb and lucid as always.

Maybe you could educate yourself a little. Why not start with the findings of the journalist Hans-Martin Tillack – paying particular attention to how the EU responded to his claims?

“As for sovereignty and the constitution what a rubbish argument. The monarch is a figurehead….nobody plans to get rid of her”.

You seem to be under the impression that sovereignty is reducible to the issue of whether or not we have a monarch as our head of State. Again, a little more knowledge is required on your part before any sensible political debate with you is possible.

“What difference does it make…whether he is governed by Whitehall or Brussels?”

I think you will find that the question of who governs and how they govern matters to quite a few people.

“I work with staff from France, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Ireland and Italy – guess what – they are just like us. You have nothing to fear.”

Except it seems from people who assume that if you believe in national sovereignty you must be racist.

“UKIP is an extremist party…and we know where extremist politics put Europe sixty odd years ago.”

Given your shaky grasp of politics, I can appreciate why you find it hard to distinguish between Bolsheviks, Fascists, and the UKIP, but before you open your mouth again I suggest you have a good long think.

I dont know why the UKIP hasnt adovacated the UK joining EFTA - its a free trade area without surplus rules and comprises wealth countires that trade alot - like Switzerland and Norway. Go to their website and you'll see a large beaurcracy isnt one of their problems - its run by about 50 people. So this EU or nothing argument is spurious

Whats more I'm sure if we joined, Denamark Sweeden, and maybe the Netherlands would come too.

Add this to the top of my post....

“He accuses Brussels of being corrupt – why doesn’t he come up with the facts”

I don’t think the source of the UKIP's money is small business men - sure they have money but it takes time and effort to raise the cash. The UKIP seems to have come into allot of money rather suddenly and without much effort.

Before the election they were also refusing to comment on where it was coming from. So this post overall looks to me like white propaganda.

I suspect the money came in a very large cheque from one person whose association would not be helpful to the cause. Ergo they are probably foreign. Possibilities include Rupert Murdoch – hates EU, some obscure baby eating right wing American billionaire or possibly a Russian refuge Plutarch who’s worried about a EU arrest warrant.

Firstly you don't have to 'surrender' to EU membership. Thankfully we've stopped fighting our mainland cousins, although clearly some of you UKIP supporters see other Europeans as 'the enemy' and they refuse to 'surrender'. Very sad.

Secondly, companies submit accounts, not parliaments. ENRON submitted accounts annually - did that stop corruption? Corruption is a human fault, with no geographical boundary. It is just as rife in Westminster, although less so since 1997. Would you call for a withdrawl of your local MP in protest? I think not as you'd be left without influence.

Peddling myths about EU corruption is the major weapon of UKIP when persuading ignorant sections of the UK electorate. They should consider the following, which is reality, not myth:

Each year, the European Parliament has to assess how the European Commission has managed the EU's budget. Parliament votes on a resolution each April to decide whether to sign off the budget, a procedure known as "granting discharge". In this way MEPs can show their approval or disapproval of the way EU funds have been spent. The Commission must act upon any comments or recommendations in Parliament's resolution. If Parliament concludes there are serious issues to be addressed, it will postpone the granting of the discharge. The Commission then has to take swift action to remedy the problems.

The repeated refusal of auditors to sign off accounts is largely due to the CAP. Fraud on the part of EU farmers is apparently rife and the CAP has long needed to be reformed. Asides from the fraud, paying farmers to have empty fields is ludicrous.

Our UK farmers currently (albeit reluctantly?) rely on this system. UKIP propose pulling us out of the EU, so Whitehall would then be expected to provide farm subsidies - otherwise our farmers couldn't compete with the subsidised EU farmers - the result would be a complete squeeze on UK agriculture.

Pulling out of the EU is not sensible - getting in there and changing the system is the only sensible approach. The UK currently has some influence, UKIP would leave us with none, competing against a trading block whose collective powers would leave the UK in a disadvantaged position.

Like many other businesses I trade extensively in North America, Australia and Asia. Being based in the UK facilitates this (language, cultural similarities, history) and EU membership facilitates trade in the Euro zone (increased labour pool, increased consumers who are more affluent and important here folks...POLITICAL STABILITY) where the English language and influence is becoming increasingly influential.

You'll no doubt still be cynical, but consider this...if you are suspicious of fellow Europeans now while we're in the EU, think how unco-operative they'd be towards us once we decided we no longer needed them.

Not good poitics is it?

"Whitehall would then be expected to provide farm subsidies "

Why - the experince in New Zeland shows that when governments stop subsidizing farmers they become more profitable.

Syon Park - I blanked out after getting halfway through the second paragraph of your boilerplate. Yawn-o-rama. Your arguments have already been addressed 85 million times.

OK Giles I agree. Then let's get in and change EU agricultural policy in that direction. You can't do it if you're out of the loop.

And as for the dogmatic UKIP fans above - we don't need a patronising lecture on constitutional rights from a pompous pseudo academic. The man in the street is only interested in what it means to him. Biased sources will always tell tles of corruption. I'm not naive enough to say there is no corruption within the EU - it happens everywhere and should be stamped on everywhere.

For the man in the street reforming the CAP would mean safer, better quality, more affordable food produced by more efficient farming methods. You can't reform the CAP if you're outside the EU.

I doubt, Syon Park, many people here are suspicious of fellow Europeans (not that every habitué is British, or even European), but we are deeply suspicious of European forms of government.

Libertarian insticts and an Anglo-Saxon jurisprudential style fit well together; rechtstaat makes me retch.

As for: "The man in the street is only interested in what it means to him." Then the man in the street would probably be perfectly happy to repatriate the direct cost of the EU, never mind any more subtle benefit of freedom.

Mmm... to a heaping of codswallop, add a seasoning of utter piffle.

You simply cannot daintily stick your nose in the air and dismiss the steaming pile of EU corruption in your path, with an airy: 'there is corruption everywhere'.

The fact is that the EU is riddled with corruption - you do rememember Edith Cresson, presumably? She was just one of the few against whom action was taken. Far, far more comfortable, as has been pointed out above, to condemn those who blow whistles than those who suck at the teat.

Europhiles seem to come in two kinds. Those (Kinnock, Patten etc) who have their snouts so far into the trough that it suits them to act as if graft doesn't exist, or those so purblind, so in love with the adolescent dream of pan-Europa that nothing , absolutely nothing can be allowed to blight the vision. Not even facts.

And still you fail to address the reasons why a trading block which is in our debt would seek to curtail that trade with us. Instread you try to scare us like errant children with dark threats of economic reprisals if we dare take back our self-control. If these European politicians are quite as lovely as you pretend, why on earth would they act like that?

Don't tell me. I can guess.

Finally, the insult added to injury - the spectacle of a businessman happy to sell out his own history and culture, the government of his country because it makes it easer for him to carry out his trade. In other words, for his own personal gain.

Frankly, it that weren't so pitiful it would be disgusting.

"Then let's get in and change EU agricultural policy in that direction. You can't do it if you're out of the loop."

I'm afraid thats whats so pitiful about people like you - you see other countries like France and italy want to keep subsidies as their attached to the "idea" of cute little farms. Should we stay in the loop just so we can impose our will on them? Why not get own so that we can all run around in a loop of our own choosing?

You also fell for the idea that if we left we'd no longer be freinds - but we dont have a free trade agreement with Canada/Australia or New Zealand - and war against Canada still seems a little way off.

Any way Syon, keep coming - you're giving all of us here great confidence that the stock BBC arguements in favor of the EU are the best you've got. IN which case its going to be a bit of a slam dunk next election!

GCooper - I tip my hat to you. I fear however your aguments will be in vain, There are none so blind as those who will not see.

anyway to those interested here's some slides from a talk I gave a few months ago on what the EU means to trade

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~giles/docs1/Joining%20the%20European%20Union2.pdf

Giles, yes. It's going to be a slam dunk.

What a bizarre argument Syon Park has: we can only change CAP if we're in there fighting. Why not be outside, not fighting and not giving a merde?

Oh, I saw today that T Bliar, with his always outstanding dearth of originality, stated, on a (thankfully) rare visit to Britain, that Britain had to be at the heart of Europe. Tired. Exhausted. Drab. Stale. Pointless. Lies. He doesn't even seem to understand that people are laughing at him.

The first step of a wise man is to appreciate their ignorance. May I humbly suggest “Syon Park” you go away and find out a little more about the European Union before you make any more pronouncements on this issue? An effort to understand the concept of political sovereignty, some awareness of European political history, and a little knowledge of the differences between English and European legal practices would I am sure bear some fruit. In the meantime will you kindly refrain from saying that those who oppose a single European State 1) Want to have a European war, or pronounce that 2) Corruption is rife in Westminster [clearly untrue – although you could argue that Blair has “corrupted” the functioning of our national institutions by abusing his power [an argument too subtle for you to comprehend at the moment but I am sure there will be books in a few years that will explain it to you]]. As for the “We must be in the European Union because they are a bunch of bullies” argument and the “We must be in the European Union to influence the workings of the European Union” argument I think you will find that if the EU is heavily subsidised by the United Kingdom, and that if it decides to launch a trade war on the United Kingdom many of their economies will collapse - I can see you like to think of the world in lurid terms. I am not sure where this leaves any moral argument for the EU? As for the argument about influencing the EU from inside, I would interested to know how you think this would be possible in a system based on majority voting. As a way of illuminating your answer maybe you should make a special study of what happened to UK fishing rights. I appreciate that you may have more pressing matters than finding out about such things, but in the meantime I suggest that before you slander those who are sceptical about the desirability of being members of European Union you do them the courtesy of knowing something about their arguments. I think it is still possible to be members of the EU if there are radical reforms, but if the advocates of European Federalism are as ignorant and complacent as you seem to be, the chances of achieving such reform are slim. You may not have realised yet but the ball lies in your court.

You can save your pity - it's not needed.

You accuse me of selling out my country's history and culture - absolute rubbish. You question my patriotism and credibility just because I favour co-operation with the world's biggest trading block, of which we are geographically part of.

I'm European and British and English at the same time. For any businessman it makes no difference whether the law makers were in London, Brussels or on the Moon - so long as they are democratically elected and accountable it makes no difference. And it makes us no less English or British.

I'll wait for the 'slam dunk'. It may effect the Conservative vote at the next election.

In the long term it will burn out like the Scotish Nationalist Party or Plaid Cymru in Wales - a delayed death throe of English nationalism that has stepped into the 'none of the above' void on the ballot paper, aided by a chat show host and a football tournament.

The fact you didn't come back on my specific points illustrates why this chest beating bandwagon won't survive long term - its' ideaology and policies don't stand up. It's xenophobic rubbish.

The EU is far from ideal and there is a lot of room for improvement, but the sensible approach is to reform it from within.

Syon Park writes:

"For any businessman it makes no difference whether the law makers were in London, Brussels or on the Moon - so long as they are democratically elected and accountable it makes no difference"

But that is precisely the point many of us are making. How can you possibly advance it with any pretence of seriousness?

The EU is profoundly undemocratic. Its 'parliament' is a sham, the real power residing with unelected bureaucrats and stooge-like 'commissioners'.

They are, to use your very own words, neither democratically elected, nor accountable. On what possible grounds can you support this principle?

You're not one of these roving plants by the EU propaganda office by any chance, are you? Your obfuscations, avoidances and refusal to tackle any point directly are curiously remniscent of the tactics used against the likes of Christopher Booker and other journalists who dare to ask awkward questions.

couple of specific points

EU isnt the world largest trading block - NAFTA is larger.
UK is not geographically attatched to the EU, like Iceland but unlike Switzland which is. So the geographical point is

"it makes no difference whether the law makers were in London, Brussels or on the Moon" yes it does becasue you need a British lawyer for British legal contract, a belgian lawyer for a beglian contract and a martian for a moon contract. I understand that the lwayers on the moon are pretty darn expensive si yes it does make a difference

"as long as they are democratically elected and accountable it makes no difference"
The EU commision originonates legislation and is not elected nor is it accountable. And why do businessmen care how legislation is enacted - they only care about the effect of the legislation on their profits etc.

Frick three complete idiocies in one short phrase - this is turning into the Brussels Trukey shoot.

The fact you didn't come back on my specific points...

I think they did actually, if you include amongst your specific points that:

Then let's get in and change EU agricultural policy in that direction. You can't do it if you're out of the loop.

Giles answered:

Why not get own so that we can all run around in a loop of our own choosing?

Or in more words, we would not need to reform CAP at all if we were outside the EU. We would be able to adopt the New Zealand model for agriculture, or the Icelandic model for fisheries without any need to negotiate an agreement with other European governments.

"The recent expansion has made Europe the largest stable market in the world. I see those people in the new member states as potential customers. As their economy grows rapidly their ability to buy my products will increase."

I'm not so sure that "their economy" will grow rapidly. France and Germany's economies haven't been doing that well, and without them the rest of the EU can't do anything -- and let's not look too closely at Portugal, Spain and Greece, either.

Frankly, I'd be in favor of NAFTA changing from "North American Free Trade" to "North Atlantic Free Trade", with Britain in that NAFTA rather than in the EU.

So, I suspect, would a lot of Brits (especially those guys with the boats and cars), because our restrictions on business are far fewer than Britain's, and exponentially fewer than the EU's.

Don't even get me started on taxes.

The sad thing is that Labor and the LibDems would pull the plug and sink the island rather than ally the UK with a country which has lower taxes and a less-malignant business environment.

Too bad -- we'd love to have you aboard, again -- just as long as you stopped carping at us about our guns and capital punishment.

Oh, and Brian, your post made me feel that there may yet be hope for Britain -- far more than if you were nailed to the EU's rotting corpse.

Thank you.

Er, yes Andy(?)...

Giles answered:

Why not get own so that we can all run around in a loop of our own choosing?

(?????)

Yes the pompous wannabe clever chap above is right - I don't know enough about Europe to understand this. Not convinced by your 'unique' form of logic, I'll leave you lot to your fantasies.

For any businessman it makes no difference whether the law makers were in London, Brussels or on the Moon - so long as they are democratically elected and accountable it makes no difference.

Well speaking as a businessman, it matters very much what laws I am subjected to and to be honest that is not the only reason why I oppose the EU as I am only slightly less antipathetic of the British state... I dislike the 'democratically elected and accountable' laws in Britain as much as the undemocratic and unaccountable directives that come out of the EU. I loath the EU because it is even more in the thrall of anti-economic stasist regulators that the British state, which is at least a bit more amenable to possible reform than the wanna-be superstate (for which I once worked).

Syon,

It's quite straightforward. If we leave the EU, we can get rid of the CAP without having to seek the agreement of everyone else. No need to reform it.

What's the problem with the logic there?

If we get rid of CAP they'll just replace it with CAP 2 the return of the butter mountain. If we leave the EU we'll replace it (and all the other EU policies) with our own messy versions of the same old.

What is needed is not a false panacea of pulling out but reforming the EU into what most people want a free trade area, that's all.

If we get rid of CAP they'll just replace it with CAP 2 the return of the butter mountain.

But they'd be paying for it, not us.

If we leave the EU we'll replace it (and all the other EU policies) with our own messy versions of the same old.

Possibly. But the New Zealand experience, c1984, shows that it's not inevitable.

It matters very much what laws we have, whether they are the result of a democratic process or not, I want a legal system that upholds the liberties that my ancestors have fought to preserve.

The reason why Continental Europe has the liberties it has is because the Anglosphere not only defended itself from a series of Authoritarian Euro federalists in the past (my direct ancestor Thomas Goodman was like numerous others directly involved in the defence of England against the Spanish Armada!) in more recent times it actually had to use military force to impose free societies on Continental Europe in both hot and cold wars!

In most of Europe even today the concept of a free society is relatively unfamiliar. To assume that European politicians understand the subtle and complex ways in which a free society works, or for that matter to even assume that they, some of which [especially the French!] are deeply resentful of the Anglosphere, even desire the United Kingdom to prosper, is crassly naïve.

You may decide to throw away the liberties that generation after generation of our ancestors [another relative John Goodman fought in the Civil War in defence of the rights of parliament!] gained after so much struggle and sacrifice, arguably our greatest contribution to the civilisation of the world, without even bothering to wonder if we are doing the right thing, but it would indeed be a sad and contemptible day.

There have always been advocates of a free society in Continental Europe. There have always been elements in British society opposed to a free society (another John Goodman who appears to be a relative sailed on the Mayflower in order to seek religious freedom!) but so far they have always lost the argument. It is time once more for European politicians to make up their mind. Of course I hope that the EU can secure and uphold a free society for everybody in Europe, but if the EU political establishment continues on its present course, it is a question of when not if the [money bags] UK withdraws.

Chris Goodman writes:

"You may decide to throw away the liberties that generation after generation of our ancestors [another relative John Goodman fought in the Civil War in defence of the rights of parliament!] gained after so much struggle and sacrifice, arguably our greatest contribution to the civilisation of the world..."

I'm glad someone has said this. It's high time it was put on the table.

By his own admission, "Syon Park" couldn't care less about what your ancestors have done. Nor mine. Nor (it appears) even his own.

As long as it helps him make a fast buck (I mean Euro), he doesn't give a damn. The apocryphal story of Bernard Shaw in the railway carriage with the "lady" seems very appropriate. Just what is Mr. Park's lowest price? How much loss of self-determination must we endure so that he may stay in business? How many fisherman must lose their jobs to keep his tub afloat?

Mercifully, self-styled 'businessmen' like this are in a dwindlng minority. A growing number have seen the statist, federalist mess the EU is in, have despaired at the sclerotic economies and have realised that the UK's interests are better served by trading with the entire world as an equal partner, not being shackled to the Museum of Socialism, bound by its rules framed to favour Franco-German monstrosities like Alstom, Thomson and Siemens.

Some, the worst kind of multi-nationals and those businesses that live like parasites, sucking-up subsidies from EU bodies, rolling around like dogs in dung among the 'competencies' and 'compliances' still like the idea - why wouldn't they? It is a scam run by and for their own kind.

The rest eye the world at large, as British businessmen have always done. And fear for the future where they are forced to dance to a tune written in Berlin and Paris, played by a puppet orchestra in Brussels.

I second the "North Atlantic Free Trade" idea.
I can't believe there isn't already something like this.

What/who is the hold up? Of course I'm not certain,
but I'm nonetheless rather confident that the Americans
would be in favor of the idea. What's the general British
opinion of such an agreement?

Nate
I think there is support for a North Atlantic Free Trade Club - but not phrased as such. As Cooper says, British business wants to be able to trade with the world - so that means the right to negotiate agreement not just with Nafta, but Australasia, singapore, India, south Africa, Argentina etc.. Perhaps the biggest cost of the EU is not CAP, social polcy and the like but the way it restricts the ability of Britain to negotiate just these sorts of agreements.

If you are correct about UKIP getting much more money from private donations in the future than the other "major" parties, you can expect that your media elite will start to deplore the unfortunate effects of private poltical contributions.

The hue and cry will be raised that allowing the wealthy to donate will lead to a parilament that can be bought by contributions. Sure enough, one of the governing parties will eventually bring in legislation to make the parties almost completely goverment funded, to make sure that the parties are independent of any possible influence.

Speculation? Nope, it's already happened here in Canada.

Forwarding something posted by Eamonn Butler to Adam Smith Blog: now its the mainstream that's the loony fringe

SP: "Not convinced by your 'unique' form of logic, I'll leave you lot to your fantasies."

Ah, French generalship: "I've won. I'm leaving."

Isn't Syon Park just following the common conception of the Conservative and Libertarian - "make a buck, damn everything else?" When people accuse us of being uncaring or profit-centred, most of us laugh and say that's life (or business). Yet someone else comes to a different set of policies than us believing they will help him, and all of a sudden we're going to talk about saving culture, the nation, the flag, etc.? Please, if the gentlemen is going to vote selfishly and thinks the EU will help him, argue why it won't help him. Appeals to God and Country aren't going to work. Do they work on us?

- Josh, not an EU supporter

Syon says: So Managing Directors support UKIP? Any facts to back that spurious claim?

I am one MD who doesn't support UKIP. Anecdotal, but evidence all the same.

I see your MD (mine votes UKIP), raise you another (my wife, an MD, votes UKIP) and throw in a company secretary for good measure. Just for anecdotal evidence of course.

Poo, first two lines of the above should be in quoted italics.

This news of UKIP financial muscle is both wonderful and terrible at the same time.

Wonderful because there will be some real meat and power behind a drive to rid us of the coming abomination that is the EU supersate.

Terrible - really terrible - because it will split the eurosceptic vote at the next general election. UKIP will be to anti-EU Brits what Ralp Nader is to lefty Americans. The Tories are this country's only realistic hope for an exit. A strong UKIP showing will let that fucker Blair back in (or even worse Gordon Brown). I myself am an FD rather than an MD - I gave a small amount the Tories recently. They're not perfect and I didn't vote for them last time round but they are now my only hope of salvation.

The solution to splitting the vote: trashcan the Tories. They've had their shot, and show no signs of getting it any more right the next time around.

Also, I suspect this whole business will, paradoxically, push Labour leftward. If another major player is staking out political territory on the right, Labour will have to differentiate left or look like it's losing the initiative. So Labour could actually split their own vote. The tories meanwhile get libdemmed in the middle. Heh.

Syon - You haven't had the courage to declare those of us opposed to the totalitarian state of the EU "little Englanders", but that is what you're implying.

If you're familiar with Samizdata, you will surely be aware that some of the people commenting live in European countries and watch its workings from within, aghast. We do not want this jiggery pokery for our own country. This does not mean we are opposed to French or German or other European peoples, languages or cultures. It means we have a British distaste for dictatorships.

Patrick W - The election results will have served to concentrate Michael Howard's mind. He must, as was mentioned in The Telegraph today, understand that, actually, the UKIP vote demonstrates that there is no mass Europhile Tory vote that he has to placate. Most Tories are Euroskeptics. He can stop caving in to dinosaurs like Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine. Nothing either of these men say strikes a note with Tory voters, so they can be safely abandoned.

It should not be beyond the wit of Michael Howard, Lord Saatchi and other extremely bright Tories to devise a way of slaying this Blair-promoted "the Tories are tearing themselves apart over Europe" meme. And the UKIP vote should have given them the spirit to do it.

If the EU can be reformed down into a customs union with a few bells and whistles of co-operation in other legitimate spheres (e.g. pollution), well and good. But it's unlikely. Giscard and the federasts have the bit between their teeth. They're convinced that if they endow the EU with the trappings of a nation state-- flag, anthem, constitution, foreign ministry, army-- the citizens of its member states will learn to think and act Euro.

Some continental countries which cannot stop fighting each other might submit to this discipline. An offshore archipelago with a 1,000-year heritage of semi-detachment from the Continent will never swallow becoming a fraction of a European "demos". But if we pull out at once, unilaterally and without consultation, it may do us more harm than good for quite a while.

The middle course is to make it plain that Britain has not, and never will, sign up to the federastic "project" of "ever closer union", and further that we insist on immediate withdrawal from some areas of EU competency, such as agriculture and fishing. We should uphold De Gaulle's "Europe des patries" and insist on running our own foreign policy.

The official Conservative position makes no sense because it rules out withdrawal under any (as opposed to any foreseeable) circumstances. But most Tory campaigners and sympathisers lean towards UKIP, knowing that Britain must retain withdrawal as a fallback option. There are no eternals or inevitables in diplomacy. The EU is only a very expensive, elaborate, corrupt and pompous treaty alliance. It has as many divisions as the Pope.

UKIP's position is more honest, but it dismisses the possibility that an EFTA-style EU might emerge from the clash between the old Six and the new members which are much more sympathetic to the British outlook. The time when the choice is between withdrawal and federalism has not arrived. Anybody who pretends these are the only options is playing at politics.

Hence the optimum message from the electorate is the one it has given: Eurosceptic, with a strong tilt towards eventual withdrawal, but only if renegotiation fails. Not for the first time, voters have taught politicians a lesson in reconnecting with reality. The politicians' first reactions suggest they are so enmired in "the project" that they can only interpret the vote as a mark of their failure to get the EU message across. So the gadfly effect of UKIP must be applied to their complacent rumps again and again. The voters won't hesitate. As Boss Gettys said to Charles Foster Kane: "You're going to need more than one lesson. And you're going to get more than one lesson."

Verity: I'm not so sure. I reckon Howard can't move the party towards euroskepticism, UKIP's locked him out of that option. He'd look weak and fickle, like he was playing follow-the-leader. You can't let the opposition set the pace. It's exactly the same reason Blair has to take a harder pro-europe line. Watch them and see, I'd lay money on it: Howard stays put and Blair swings left.

Albion4ever - I agree. I don't know any Euroskeptics who harbour a dislike of any European peoples and I think we all want to get along with them and live and let live. The EU project has an appeal in France and Germany, but other countries seem to be being dragged along in the wash. Why not let France and Germany fill up their dance card with each other's names, and the rest of Europe dance around them, as close to Franks and the Huns as they choose, or waltzing around the periphery. Why this iron-fisted insistence that the entire landmass of Europe, and islands like Britain and Iceland, dance to the Franco-German tune?

By the way, before anyone quotes Switzerland and Norway again, they are not living in a state of happy freedom from the EU. They both maintain full time structures in Brussels that ensure compliance with most EU "directives". (Don't you love that word? Doesn't it just reek of democracy?) The EU has commanded Switzerland to give up its banking secrecy laws, for obvious reasons. They were too attractive to rich Europeans who are enabled to avoid paying crushing taxes, thus "robbing" the Brussels exchequer. So this must be stopped. Switzerland is fighting it, but they will not win, because a lot of its trading privileges will be withdrawn. So they are not free. Their "informal" association with the EU is actually very formal indeed.

Julian, that's an interesting reading, but I'm not persuaded. Voters have short memories. If Howard inches quietly towards Euroskepticism, by the time the election rolls round, people will take it for granted that the Tories are broadly Euroskeptic - as people persist in believing that is their natural position anyway. Of course, the socialists would keep the issue alive, but consider the brainpower in the Tory front ranks and the wattage in Labour's front ranks ... a comforting thought, isn't it?

I heard the UKIP man speaking on the Lesley Riddoch talk show on Monday. Everytime anyone of a different political view tried to speak, he broke across their transmission to prevent them from doing so. What little I could make of his largely incoherent contributions sounded frankly peculiar. In the end, after ignoring Riddoch's repeated requests to play well with others in the sand pit, the sound engineers had to fade him out, to the general relief of all I suspect.

It's just a pity more people didn't get to sample his particular style of reasoned debate before the election. No doubt they will now and can make their own minds up.

So not quite "leave it at that", Dale. But to the extent that they did "leave it at that" - I didn't quite catch their views on education, health, policing, etc. I'm sure they must have some. I mean, we are voting for those who would rule us, not the next prom queen, so I'm sure folks will have thought this through.

Or - and I'm just spitballing here - didn't I miss them? Was it that they just didn't have any? Then perhaps I'm being naive to think that a manifesto which has as its only material component the promise to "wreck Europe" (how attractive) doesn't contain quite enough of the detail necessary to keep the lights on that an intelligent person might expect to see.

And isn't it rather sad that the only talismans they have - aside from dependable but tawdry British Bulldog jingoism - is a bag of cash and an unctuous telly celeb sacked for his predilection for rendering entire cultures down to single character types.

A compelling, principled, positive case embracing all of the major apparatus necessary for organising the functioning of a country would have been good, here. But to be fair to them, they have never claimed to be pitching this as an intellectual or principled debate. A large swathe of the populace are perfectly happy to have the whole issue of European policy rendered down to a single, negative issue (as Silk did with appalling ignorance for "Arabs") that they can vote against, rather than go through the difficult, boring business of trying to understand the issues and making a workable counterbalance to US hegemony.

The nation, as always, gets the politicians it deserves. Those on the international scene who would divide us and then pick over our bones are loving it.

Like JohnJo I am an MD, and further I am one of those apparently mythical MDs who put their hands in their pockets to fund the UKIP campaign. Not quite enough to buy a car, but a few bob.
Unlike Syon I understand that there is a whole world of difference between our continental friends and the EU. The EU is not Europe, it is a political construct and one which has an enormous democratic deficeit. I am particularly angered by the lies of those who tell us how many jobs will be lost through withdrawal - as though withdrawal from the political construct means that we sever all trade relations. Ridiculous.
Even if the above were true - is our country, sovereignty, independence and right to selfdetermination really for sale?

Verity: not easily without being overshadowed as "UKIP lite". They'd have to cut into UKIP's momentum first, perhaps by poaching back earlier converts.

My impression, thus far, is that Tory leadership still doesn't fully grasp the implications of the UKIP vote.

I overheard some funny stuff in my office the other day. A colleague of impeccable "Guardianista" views was ranting about how vulgar and boorish the UKIPPERS were, even swigging English wine in celebration. Ugh! How common!

Syon Park, your comments have already had the sand kicked out of them, but I would add that it is extremely hard to fathom how things like the CAP can be reformed given the EU's likely structure. Given the huge demands likely from the new as well as established members, the possibility of unravelling the morass of subsidies looks remote by "reforming within".

I wish we could turn the clock back to when we had the old "common market" (remember that?).

Please read what I said as it seems I've been misquoted within all the hot air and union flag waving. Let me stress I DO CARE ABOUT THE LEGISLATION AND THE PROCESS (I accept it has flaws at the moment) IT'S JUST THAT IT MAKES NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE TO ME WHETHER IT WAS ENACTED IN A 'FOREIGN' COUNTRY OR ON A DIFFERENT PLANET.

Wild Pegasus is correct. Appeals to flag and country don't cut any ice here despite GCooper and Chris Goodman's impassioned chest beating. I'll carry the ideals of freedom and fighting tyranny like previous generations, but what happened 200 years ago has no direct bearing on 2004. Look forward not back!

In fact given your purported illustrious family history (apart from all the fighting your ancestors did, they no doubt oppressed mine at some stage) you must be a huge disappointment to the family name - all you have done is support the lunatic policy of a fringe party on an oh so pretensious web site.

Talking of lunatic policies I must comment on Verity's so called wisdom. If the Conservatives were so intelligent they would have resolved tearing themselves apart over Europe. They've been doing it since 1989. Within which time they signed us up to the ERM. A profound lack of intelligence I think. The divisions are gleefully pointed out by Blair, but he didn't create them contrary to what you may misguidedly believe.

Julian given the Tory divisions and the UKIP surge Blair doesn't have to change policy. He merely has to hold his course, see continued economic growth, let Iraq fade in the electorate's memories and the splits in the opposition vote will see him win a third term.

And why? Because the loonies like the one's above are so rabidly anti European that hey have become obsessed with this one policy and have squabbled in a manner that suggests they are mentally unstable.

I agree with Albion4ever's comments - a cautious Eurosceptic approach within Europe is the best way for Britain. The sad thing is UKIP are beginning to have that influence but they've stupidly said they won't use it.

And as a footnote to some of the silly posts above. My business has never taken subsidies from Brussels or London and I hold myself in no way whatsoever personally responsible for the loss of UK fisheries jobs. It strikes me that overfishing has lead to these job losses, in a similar way that if there is no more 'economically viable' coal in the ground you must 'get on your bike' and become an MD.

Actually, for those paying attention to him Howard has moved the Tories very sharply in the euroskeptic direction only this week, but done it in a way that isn't immediately obvious and while Clarke & Co. were too busy vapouring about the UKIP to notice and complain. (No I'm not going to give you a clue.) At the same time he took the trouble to tell his squabbling backbenchers: "Nobody cares what Conservatives think." (Translation: no one cares what you think, so shut up and let me get on with strategy.)

Another piece of impressive political management. He's very good at the game.

I thought Howard should resolve the situation by allowing the policy to be devolved to local parties, by making each local party association and candidate publicly commit to one of 3 euro-policies:

1. Pure Europhile
2. "In Europe not run by Europe"
3. Pure UKIP

I predict he'd get 5% for the first, 35% for the second and 60% for the third.

Whatever the result, he wouldn't have to lose face over any change of direction - and UKIP would have to withdraw their candidate for any constituency that chose "3" - or be seen as ego-tripping wreckers more interested in seeing their name on the ballot paper than achieving an Independence result.

Syon - I must comment on Verity's so called wisdom. Who referred to my comments "wisdom"? This is an adolescent debating tactic.

The Tory party is not "tearing itself apart over Europe". This is the oft-repeated lies, lies and more lies mouthed by the highly honourable Peter Mandelson, the suave and debonair Alastair Campbell and the great puppet himself, Toneboy Blair. I've never met a single Tory who felt torn apart by Europe. On the skeptometer, most register between mildly skeptical to very skeptical indeed. The notion of ferrets fighting in a sack that the socio-fascists promote is just old fashioned class hatred and naked ambition.

(Alastair Campbell, as we know, would never dream of shouting down anyone else in a debate. Only crude people like UKIP candidates would engage in such behaviour, so shocking in a politican.)

Guy - I agree with you. Michael Howard is a very astute, canny political operator. And he has the willpower to hold his tongue now in order to get an advantage later. This is a very adult characteristic and one not widely shared at Westminster.

Verity wake up! You've missed two landslide election victories for the Labour party.

Why?

Economic mismanagement 1989 - 1993

Sleaze

and of course

Tory infighting over European policy. Remember the 'bastards' in the cabinet? They are still alive - but now they have nothing to lose. If there is any prospect of Michael Howard becoming a euro sceptic PM they will attempt to stab him in the back like they did to Major, Hague and Duncan Smith. Just wait - Heseltine, Portillo, Clark et al are well camouflaged now, keeping their powder dry.

The period from 1993 to present has mirrored Labour's own nightmare with the Militant tendency during the 1980's. Successive leaders have tried standing up to the euro sceptics and got knifed.

Now it seems Euro scepticism is winning the day and Howard is prepared to move in that direction although he dares not say so. Why? Because although it will unite the majority of the Conservative party it will at a stroke make them unelectable as a government. You see when the public sniping from party insiders starts. John Major knew that and that's why he tried to fight the 'bastards'.

Unless the Conservatives win back the centre right electorate from Labour they are without a hope. Lurching further to the right doesn't help the cause.

It strikes me that overfishing has lead to these job losses...

But the overfishing is a consequence of the fact that the EU rules do not provide secure property rights in fisheries. If we had a better set of rules, such as what the Icelandics have, the overfishing would not have occurred.

And still not a single word addressing the rampant EU corruption which Syon Park tried to claim was a figment of our collective imaginatons.

Not a fact. Not an argument, but an attitude dressed up as a policy.

What we get in place of any cogent arguments why this authoritarian, undemocratic, corrupt, federalist behemoth is suposed to be desirable, is the 'New' Labour party-line, with the mandatory working class chip-on-the-shoulder and a dash of the Guardianista sneer at anyone crass enough to believe Britan has a future governng itself.

If people find the UKIP reductionist in its arguments (which it is) they should consider the state of politics in general. All parties have to boil down their ideas to soundbites. Why is UKIP's soundbite any more banal than Blair's endless refrain: 'schools 'n hospitals'?

Does who governs the country matter less than fiddling the exam results and hospital waiting lists?

In passing, it's hard not to note the Gramscian pride in the irrelevance of history and the Stakhanovite pose, with the eyes set fixedly on the future.

Ah, the joys of a modern 'education'! The old Italian communist was right, after all!

Tell me, Syon Park, what Euro exchange rate do you get for 30 pieces of silver?

Syon - There is no Tory in-fighting over Europe. There are two silly old men chuntering away in their corner in the snug. Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine do not the Tory Party make. They are an irrelevance. Yes, Labour will try to pump them up (Labour being the only people who listen to them) but so what? Two dissenters are not "the Tory party tearing itself apart" over Europe.

Oddly enough, I caught that Labour had twice won the election under false colours and lies. And they're still lying. Exam results, hospital waiting lists, roads, trains, ever-higher taxes, same old, same old.

You say "unless the Tories win back the centre right from Labour ...". I would contend that Labour has never had much of a hold on the centre right. The centre right has simply declined to vote in the last couple of elections because the Tories weren't providing a manifesto or a leader they could vote for, and Labour and Blair made them heave.

You unwisely advertise your political proclivities and the paucity of your ability to express yourself with originality when you speak of "lurching to the right". Why not go the whole hog and say, "Swivel-eyed fanatics with their hair on fire lurching to the right"? Could you explain to us how regarding the EU as a totalitarian dictatorship is "lurching to the right", please? It seems to be part of the human condition not to want to live in a dictatorship.

I do agree that the Tories need to woo back the centre right, who have been declining to waste their time voting these last seven years. Interesting, Syon, that UKIP stole an equal percentage of the vote from Labour, what? Does this mean the Labour party is engaged in a suicidal "lurch to the right"?

GCooper if only you were as clever as you think you are. More rhetoric with pretensious pseudo academic references (and even biblical analogies thrown in!)

Let me boil it down for you again as you've obviously failed to grasp the points first time round.

I'll start by repeating that I agree there is corruption within the EU (- more direct evidence of this would in fact be helpful). And as I said previously, corruption is not exclusive to this institution.

As a member of this institution we can get in there and 'sort it out'. We'd then be on a level playing field with the economic benefits of being within the institution (I can still trade outside the EU).

or

We can do as UKIP advocate and leave the institutuion wholesale. Leaving us to compete against a system on our doorstep, that we agree has 'unfair' advantages due to their 'corrupt' practices.

Hardly a choice. This will be the one presented to you and other members of the electorate who struggle on this issue - and it will seriously blunt the euro sceptic argument.

...'unfair' advantages due to their 'corrupt' practices.

The people who suffer the consequences of the corrupt practices are the people who live under the regime. Those outside the regime can escape most of those consequences.

Hong Kong did very well for several decades, despite being on the edge of a state that was far worse than anything the EU has been.

Syon:

What, SPECIFICALLY, are the concrete economic advantages to being a member of an integrated EU as opposed to, say, a member of EFTA but not of the EU?

EG

Syon Park writes:

"GCooper if only you were as clever as you think you are. More rhetoric with pretensious pseudo academic references (and even biblical analogies thrown in!)"

You know, if you're going to try to patronise someone and pretend you're a lot cleverer than you are, it really helps if you learn to spell 'pretentious'.

Meanwhile, still you harp on with the same old Europhile lie about Britain having 'no choice'.

Competing '..against a system on our doorstep'? What sort of system might this be? One composed of an outer ring of hungry, post-Communist free market states surrounding an inner core of decrepit, socialist command economies? And how long do you think that little nest of vipers is going to last?

And as for the risible non-argument that you have to be inside to change it, let me put it simply for you.

We've been in it. We've tried to change it. It will not change. Too many vested interests within the Franco-German core like it just the way it is. In fact they want even more of the same.

But, of course, no small island can survive on its own, can it?

I just hope someone warns the Japanese.

As I said before, the product of the Gramscian plot reveals the deftnes of the plan. No faith in his own culture, no loyalties. How easy to bring down the system when you have reared its young to know nothing and be proud of their ignorance, to believe in nothing and think it smart. How easy, then, to sell them the statist dream.

Lets face it, the EU needs the UK more than the other way round. The UK is one of the largest contributors to the EU and would be giving even more if hadn't been for Thatcher's opt-out. If the UK were not in the EU that money could be saved.

The two countries who didn't join the EU are doing rather well...ie Switzerland and Norway.

It is, of course, possible to pro-European (ie Europeans) and anti-EU. In fact, there is an argument that if you really want to help Europe you would be anti the current drive to be superstate. I personally think the EU will implode sooner or later...

I think the UK joining NAFTA would be an extremely good idea.

10 new countries have just joined as they will see immediate benefits. The UK will continue to be a net contributor short term but will have long term business benefits due to membership.

Countries want to join on the basis that it's better to be working inside it, than outside marginalised. EFTA doesn't provide the stability provided by the EU - AND NOWHERE HAVE I SAID WE HAVE TO TRADE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE EU.

The widely accepted benefits of EU membership include:

1 Economic growth. Enlargement of the EU will generate economic growth in both 'old' and 'new' member states: in the new states the reform of economic systems to a market economy will generate increased productivity and efficiency and allow them to be able to take advantage of the Single Market through increased trade; in the old states as trade and investment opportunities increase with the new states. Estimates suggest that job totals could increase in old member states by 300,000.

2 Political Stability. Such stability is important in generating investment not only from within the EU but from outside it, thus contributing to further economic development.

3 Global Presence. The EU has a stronger global voice, as its enlargement has brought the population to over 500 million (more than the USA and Russia combined), so giving more weight in international negotiations such as trade policy.

4 Business Confidence. Companies in existing Member States will have more confidence with those in the new Member States, as they will be operating on a level playing field in terms of EU legislation. Again, business confidence is an important factor in generating investment and encouraging enterprise and initiative.

5 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Membership of the EU will increase the amount of Foreign Direct Investment in the New Member States.

6 Structural Funds. The regional aid which attempts to redistribute funds from the wealthier regions of the EU to the poorer ones will be made available to the New Member States. This will help develop these countries and improve infrastructure. Improvements in infrastructure will again be a benefit to trade and in theory, all countries involved will benefit - the new member states from improved internal infrastructure and the old member states from the extra revenues earned from new trade.

of course there are disadvantages and in the interest of balance, htese include:

1 Migration. Enlargement could produce high levels of migration as workers move from the new member states such as Poland where unemployment is high at 16.7% to those old member states where it is low such as the Netherlands at 3.6%. It was anticipated that workers would be able to move freely as the EU operates on the principle of the Single Market - one of the 'four freedoms' inherent in the Single Market is the free movement of labour. However, the old member states have created restrictions on the entry of labour into their countries for at least the first two years of enlargement.

2 Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP includes measures such as subsidies and income guarantee schemes for farmers, which could prove to be hugely expensive if extended and a drain on the economies of old member states.

G Cooper - You've nicked most of the points I was going to make, including that such lofty dismissiveness loses a certain je ne sais quoi when the writer can't spell pretentious. He has misspelled it twice, so it wasn't a typo. He can't spell an everyday word in his native language.

Yes, island nations cannot survive alone. I mean, just look at Australia. At the other end of the scale, just look at the mega economy in tiny Singapore, population around 4.5m and with one of the highest standards of living in the world. And, you rightly point to Hong Kong, which is still blazing away.

Frankly, Syon, I adore the idea that the giant state of the EU would be on our doorstep as a competitor! Bring it on! Do you have the faintest inkling of how non-competitive countries in the EU are? How statist? How very, very uncustomer oriented? Indeed, how the notion of competition puzzles and distresses them? This is why they need all their little fidgety, micromanaged rules and regulations. To make sure that everything comes out equal, to the advantage of the state owned industries.

Syon has yet to make mention of one advantage accruing from membership in the EU. If he is imagining that the streets and homes of Europe are crammed with British products, he could not be more wrong.

Syon, you are a good little euroweenie as you have bought into the entire programme.

Let me give you a brief anecdote about euro-statism. The EU opined a couple of years ago that France really, really should allow some competition in their electricity industry. Customers are tied to the infamously overpriced EDF. They gave France until 2004 to allow companies to compete with EDF.

It - uh - hasn't happened. And it won't. Why? Because the state, through EDF, is has an enormous, horrifying pension commitment. It cannot allow its revenues to drop by one centime. Every sous is committed through the year 1 Billion. The French will live with their overpriced electricity in order to meet the generous pension obligations of others. This is how the EU works. It's a roiling mess. But by god, they close for two hours for lunch, they work a 35-hour week, they get six weeks annual leave and no one addresses - because they're afraid to think about - the pension apocalypse, when millions retire and there is no money to meet pension obligations.

Do you really not understand that they have their beady eyes on British N Sea oil and on the productivity of Eastern Europe? Are you genuinely that unworldly?

GCooper writes

"You know, if you're going to try to patronise someone and pretend you're a lot cleverer than you are, it really helps if you learn to spell 'pretentious'."

YES, YOU DID IT GCooper

Verity writes

"Swivel-eyed fanatics with their hair on fire lurching to the right"? Could you explain to us how regarding the EU as a totalitarian dictatorship is "lurching to the right", please?

IT'S CALLED XENOPHOBIA VERITY (DID I SPELL THAT RIGHT?) AND IT BORDERS ON RACISM WHEN YOU CONTINUE WITH CRASS GENERALISATIONS SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING SHITE:

Verity continues,

"Do you have the faintest inkling of how non-competitive countries in the EU are? How statist? How very, very uncustomer oriented? Indeed, how the notion of competition puzzles and distresses them?"

Gosh I'm pleased we in the UK don't have a pension crisis like those poor French. Our free market (mis) selling of pension schemes must have averted it (not). They may pay a bit more for electricity, but the French do get their pensions as promised.

And the French must have wished they had the free market de-regulated (and regularly de-plugged!) Californian energy system, or better still another ENRON providing their energy requirements rather than EDF (again, not). They may pay more for electricity, but the French do get, erm, electricity.

And if they want to steal our north sea oil (that we cleverly stole from the Scots and Scandies) they'd better be quick as it'll be gone soon.

GCooper and Verity you deserve each other. Shame you can't get your own little island and selfishly float off on it.