NationStates Jolt Archive

David Cameron recently made some potentially libelous comments about everyone's favourite party: UKIP.

Do you think mr Cameron was spot-on, or suffering from acute hyperbolism?

People who have non-mainstream opinions.

And everybody knows non-mainstream opinions are eeeeevil.

Oh, and:

Down with Shengen!
Down with the Europarliament!
Down with the Common Currency!

I'm no fan of cameron, and would happily spit in his dirty tory face. but he is right about those nutjobs.

What is UKIP?

I'm no fan of cameron, and would happily spit in his dirty tory face. but he is right about those nutjobs.

Really? Why are they nutjobs?

UKIP demands apology from Cameron

The UK Independence Party is calling for David Cameron to apologise after he claimed its members were "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".

The Conservative leader made the remarks during a phone-in on the London radio station LBC.

He said he believed UKIP was "racist" because of some of the things he had heard its members say.

But UKIP Euro MP Nigel Farage said that unless he could prove his claims, Mr Cameron should apologise.



The comments came when Mr Cameron was asked about UKIP's plans to press for the names of secret Tory donors to be made public under the Freedom of Information Act.

He said the party was just trying to make mischief, adding: "UKIP is sort of a bunch of ... fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists, mostly."


After being told of the comments, Mr Farage said he believed it was the Tory leader's "inexperience as a politician that may account for why he stepped way over the line".

He said: "Let him tell us anything that we have said that could be construed as remotely racist, otherwise we demand an apology.

"I don't mind him calling us loonies - I don't mind him calling us fruitcakes. We are big enough and ugly enough and we have a sense of humour.

"But what you cannot do in the 21st Century is to lob about accusations of racism.

"That is an absolute disgrace. We are a non-racist, non-sectarian party and we always have been, and frankly we're a damn sight more cosmopolitan than Mr Cameron's Conservative Party."

He added there was "a tradition of the Conservatives being very rude about UKIP".

"After all, Michael Howard called us cranks and gadflies, and I'm wearing the gadfly tie today... I think it just shows that we've touched upon a nerve."

I was making a general point that I think UKIP has a problem in that they are the sort of 'stop the world, I want to get off' party
David Cameron

He said 2.7m people had voted for UKIP during the European elections 18 months ago.

"We are obviously worrying Mr Cameron - that can be the only explanation for this ill-considered and ill-tempered outburst."

In a later interview during a visit to Leeds, the Tory leader defended his remarks and said he did not think he had not spoken out of turn.

"I was making a general point that I think UKIP has a problem in that they are the sort of 'stop the world, I want to get off' party," he said.

"I don't think they've got anything to say to a modern country and I was being asked particularly about something they're doing at the moment but, no, I think [it was] a very sensible thing to say."

At the launch of the UKIP local elections campaign last week, Euro MP John Whittaker said the party hoped to make gains at the expense of the Conservatives.

The Tories, under new leader Mr Cameron, had moved away from Middle England and deserted core Conservative voters, he argued.

"UKIP stands for the restoration of civil pride, helping people to feel they are part of the local community," said Mr Whittaker.

'Cash for peerages'

The row comes as Prime Minister Tony Blair prepares to meet Mr Cameron to discuss rules on political funding.

At present anyone donating more than £5,000 has to be named - but people lending money do not have to be.

The fact people had lent millions of pounds to Labour and the Tories in 2005 emerged only after claims, which have been denied, of "cash for peerages".

Both parties are being probed by police and the Electoral Commission. Both have said they will name future lenders.

Labour has named 12 businessmen who loaned the party almost £14m in the run-up to the general election.

The Tories have named 13 backers who lent them £16m, and say they will show the Electoral Commission a list of names of other people who lent money but who have now been repaid and who do not want to be identified.

UKIP has threatened to use the Freedom of Information Act to try to unmask the secret Tory backers who lent the party £5m to bankroll its General Election campaign.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/4875026.stm

They're not racist. Cameron's using "racist" as a compound term to include any form of "Them's not us so them's bad" mentality.

The correct phrase, sir, is Xenophobic.

I believe a correction should be made post-haste.

*General lawlage*

They're idiots. Withdraw from the EU? Please.

They're idiots. Withdraw from the EU? Please.
We should, because the EU has never done anything for our long-term trade efforts, our integration with our closest trading neighbours or our relationships with foreign countries in general.

Nope, no sarcasm. Honest.

Cameron's just worried that he's going to lose some of his base to UKIP at the next election due to his efforts to rebrand the party. He's worried that some of the right-wing voters who vote Conservative will be displeased with his changes, so he's trying to portray UKIP as a load of nutters, fools and racists. The best way to deal with a threat like UKIP is to treat mock them and call them extremist. I don't think Cameron really cares if they are racists and fools or not, he just wants the electorate to believe they are.

UKIP probably have more racists than the average population in their membership - anti-EU, anti-immigration and right-wing social policies are attractive to those who are racist.
That's not to say UKIP's policies, or the party itself, is racist - in truth I don't know about that. But by its very nature as a rejectionist party it attracts that fringe.
They are nutjobs, however, to believe it would not be massively harmful to this country to pull out of the EU.

UKIP suck

I'm no fan of cameron, and would happily spit in his dirty tory face. but he is right about those nutjobs.
Agreed. Normally, if a Tory opens the mouth, there's only shit coming out of it, but he actually got a point here.

They're idiots. Withdraw from the EU? Please.


Please explain.

Remember that the free trade agreement is separate from the EU deal?

If by Free Trade Agreement you mean EFTA, current members (IIRC) Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, it is a separate and once-competing organisation that pretty much died when Britain chose to join the EU.

Any lowering of customs barriers and institutions of a Common Market in the EU are utterly dependent on membership - i.e. everywhere in the agreements it refers to Member States, not to individual countries. So if you're no longer a member state, you no longer have the benefits.
Bearing in mind that the biggest market for British goods and services is the EU, and that trading free from customs and tariffs within that region only boosts that trade.

Thank god. I really was missing punch and judy politics. Makes it all the more amusing, eh?

What is UKIP?

Furitbats and crypto-racists, of course.

If by Free Trade Agreement you mean EFTA, current members (IIRC) Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, it is a separate and once-competing organisation that pretty much died when Britain chose to join the EU.


Actually, the Treaty of Rome is still in force.

Yes, the Treaty of Rome, by which we joined the EEC, which became the EC, which became the EU. If you pull out of the Union, you have to repudiate the Treaty of Rome, and repeal the European Communities Act. Which means any benefits gained by signing that treaty are lost.

Yes, the Treaty of Rome, by which we joined the EEC, which became the EC, which became the EU. If you pull out of the Union, you have to repudiate the Treaty of Rome, and repeal the European Communities Act. Which means any benefits gained by signing that treaty are lost.

Did we join the Treaty of Rome? I thought that started the European Coal and Steel Community, which the UK never joined.


EDIT: Actually, that was the Treaty of Paris. I obviously need to revise my EU hisrory, or the SOCA and Europol will be onto me!

Thank god. I really was missing punch and judy politics. Makes it all the more amusing, eh?
Then you should have seen PMQs a couple of weeks ago, Prescott shockingly came up with something clever about punch and judy politics and used it to pwn Hague (I suppose that should more accurately have been called Deputy PMQs, but you get the idea)

We signed Rome when we joined the Community. It is still the founding document.

Then you should have seen PMQs a couple of weeks ago, Prescott shockingly came up with something clever about punch and judy politics and used it to pwn Hague (I suppose that should more accurately have been called Deputy PMQs, but you get the idea)

But Hague was already pwnd by Blair in 97! Perhaps he should take advice from his tory friends and run amok with the ceremionial mace...

Yes, the Treaty of Rome, by which we joined the EEC, which became the EC, which became the EU. If you pull out of the Union, you have to repudiate the Treaty of Rome, and repeal the European Communities Act. Which means any benefits gained by signing that treaty are lost.

Says who? Is it somewhere in the massive EU treaty?

Says we, when we signed up to it 30-some years ago.

There is no provision for pulling out within the framework of the Treaties, so to leave the Union requires leaving the structure altogether; which means pulling out entirely, including any free trade parts of the EU treaties and directives.

But Hague was already pwnd by Blair in 97! Perhaps he should take advice from his tory friends and run amok with the ceremionial mace...
That'll be 2001, then?

snip

Actually Nadkor, what's the presence of UKIP in Northern Ireland politics? Much? Non-existent? Only Westminster....

AFAIK UKIP follow the convention of not standing in N. Ireland, along with all of the other British parties.

Actually Nadkor, what's the presence of UKIP in Northern Ireland politics? Much? Non-existent? Only Westminster....
Like pretty much every party which isn't specifically Northern Irish (e.g. Labour, Lib Dems, Tories* etc); Non-existent. They don't stand here.

It's the laughable NI version of democracy; where we can't vote for any party that actually has a chance of getting any sort of power to try and sort our situation out.

*The Tories stood in one constituency last election, I think.

Like pretty much every party which isn't specifically Northern Irish (e.g. Labour, Lib Dems, Tories* etc); Non-existent. They don't stand here.

It's the laughable NI version of democracy; where we can't vote for any party that actually has a chance of getting any sort of power to try and sort our situation out.

*The Tories stood in one constituency last election, I think.

Yeah, thats what I thought- I remember the Tory candidate running and it struck me as odd. Thanks.

And to you Terror Incognitia :)

AFAIK UKIP follow the convention of not standing in N. Ireland, along with all of the other British parties.
And they did we would actually have the opportunity to vote for a party that doesn't seek to entrench the outdated and, frankly, more or less non-existent in society as a whole outside of politics, sectarian divide (while also actually getting some say in the running of the country), and it might go some way to 'normalising' the political landscape of this place.

Which would be nice, for a change.

As I understand it, they never used to stand, as with parties from the Republic, so that Northern Irish politics would not drag in the UK and ROI.

Possibly as the peace settlement progresses, this reasoning will no longer apply. If a Tory candidate has already stood for election in N Ireland, presumably we've reached that point, at least in the eyes of someone at Conservative Central Office.

Presumably though, if devolution can be restored, and actually last, it will matter much less whether parties standing in the Province have anything to do with the mainland.

And Mongooses, np ... I just butted in on your question to Nadkor, I don't mind at all :D

Bother, I voted for the crypto-racists before I noticed the crypto-racists and fruitbats option.

Note to self: read polls properly in future.

Although I will probably vote for UKIP in the EU elections, they are mostly composed of nutters and racists. A shame really.

I think classifying them as "nutters and rasists" as a bit far, most of them are disenchanted tories or lib dems who don't like Europe. I see them as more of a pressure group on Europe than an actual party, even though they have policies in other areas they hardly mention them.
If you want racist nutjobs look no further than the BNP

If I said what i thought about the UKIP i'd be instantly banned. Lets just say there idiots.

I think classifying them as "nutters and rasists" as a bit far, most of them are disenchanted tories or lib dems who don't like Europe. I see them as more of a pressure group on Europe than an actual party, even though they have policies in other areas they hardly mention them.
If you want racist nutjobs look no further than the BNP
Well maybe. I thought that at first, but I watched a documentary where someone followed Kilroy around for a while when he was still in UKIP, and some of the comments that their other MEPs came out with were... interesting... to say the least. They're reforming themselves into a neo-liberal party for the next general election, so if they kick out the nutters they could be a very good choice. 6 months ago I would have said they shouldn't be standing in the nationals because they just steal votes off of the Tories, but the Tories under Cameron are basically Soc Dems the same as Labour anyway so I would consider voting for them (I know, 6 months ago it would have sounded crazy).