Sunday, 23 March 2014

My Response to some Liberal Democrat Literature posted through my door on 23/03/2014

Had a good old laugh at the literature through my door from the Lib Dems earlier.

Not only is UKIP mention (of course) in the negative light on every single section of it's 6 section leaflet. It also makes a rather startling and amusing error.

But hey let's pick it apart piece by piece shall we?

Section one titled "Don't let UKIP and the Conservatives risk 3 million British jobs..."

Apparently if we leave the EU 3 million people will be put out of work? ...and apparently it's a "grim fact" too.

Let's think about this claim for a second shall we?

Switzerland have recently distanced themselves from the EU and yet we haven't heard about any major business's or countries cutting trade with Switzerland...

This figure of 3 million jobs comes from a report in 2000 by the South Bank University in which it summarised as saying that up to 3.2 million UK jobs were reliant on trade with the EU.

The amusing thing is that another report published in 2000 by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research revealed that “there is no a prior reason to suppose that many of these jobs, if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU.”

In fact being freed from EU bureaucracy would allow us to make further trade deals with other nations, re-establish trade with the British Commonwealth, a brilliant gathering of Nations we betrayed when we signed the Lisbon Treaty. 3 million jobs at risk? Why would any jobs be at risk if we opened ourselves up to true free trade with a third of the planets population encompassed by the Commonwealth!

The EU Free Trade Agreement which is currently used by Switzerland, Egypt, Mexico and 20 other countries make this claim by the Liberal Democrats a lie. Plain and simple. But hey, tell the other 70 or so other nations currently making free trade agreements with the EU that the Lib Dems are right and that they can't make trade deals with the EU unless a member state?!

The simple fact is EU countries need us as much as we need them. This is another fact that the Lib Dems will never admit to. The Lib Dems do not believe this country has the ability and integrity to 'go it alone', after all, we are weak without being a member of the EU aren't we.
I put forward that we would be allot strong outside the EU without shoveling in £55 million a day as a membership fee to the laughably titled "free trade Union"...

Calling the 'EU a free trade market' is like calling a drug dealer a health care adviser. The simple fact is it is not a free trade market if you pay a membership fee. This is what astonishes me every time i see the reference!

Then in the 2nd section of the leaflet they go on to say the Lib Dem candidates are "leading the campaign to protect more than 400,000 South East jobs that depend on us being in Europe"...

So does that mean that there are 400,000 jobs in the South East and 2.6 million in the rest of the United Kingdom?

They reiterate that according to a YouGov/CBI poll "78% of British Businesses think leaving the EU would be bad for businesses and jobs"

That summary is so vague it's stupid? Bad for jobs how? Bad for business how? Like i have already said it doesn't seem to have harmed any of the other Nations doing trade with the EU?

"Liberal Democrats want Britain to stay in the EU because we are fighting for a stronger economy"

"Being in Europe gives us more strength when negotiating trade deals with global players like the US, China, India and Brazil"

Are we not able to make trade deals with them without the EU?
We survived on trade in World War 2 with the Nazi's attacking our shipping and survived?

Are our negotiators not good enough to haggle our own trade deals?
Is it not better to do a trade deal person to person as apposed to through a mediator?

The whole picture the Lib Dems are painting is a false one and I am sick of being lied to!

Aren't you?

Saturday, 1 March 2014

5 days ago I posted a message saying i was hoping to go on LBC to refute some of the comments and bullying by James O'Brien inflicted on UKIP rep Glen from Sutton.

I was not allowed onto the show as the "subject had moved on" and so i was given James email address.

I sent him the following letter in the hopes i could at least get a decent UKIP point across. However James failed to reply so I have decided to post it here in response to the radio show in the hopes that maybe one or two people will be able to read what I have to say!

"February 25th, 2014

Dear Mr O’Brien,

My name is Thomas Evans; I am a 29 year old UKIP voter and supporter from West Sussex.

I recently listened to a radio exert which has been published as a highlight on the LBC website and felt I should respond to the ‘debate’.

Firstly I just wanted to point out that Glen of the Sutton UKIP office offered you an apology for some of the comments he directed at you via Twitter i.e.: “giving a bias opinion”.
You didn’t accept the apology and eventually got round to saying that “UKIP were BNP in suits” granted this was just your opinion. But correct me if I am wrong, but does that opinion not reflect that of a pretty biased one sided viewpoint?

Secondly UKIP stands for speaking your mind within reason and morally it doesn’t give people the right to go out and say outrageous and offensive things.

Thirdly, if a person calls up your show saying they are a “Candidate for UKIP” or “represent UKIP”. Does that guarantee they really represent UKIP? Does the show check out credentials?

You would be surprised the number of fake accounts I have witnessed in a relatively short period of time on social media. All having extremely recent creation dates.

UKIP are a target at the moment, not only for sections of the media, but also for people representing other parties who feel threatened by what UKIP have to offer voters of other parties and non-voters.

It is also worth adding that your comment as regards UKIP’s policy of not accepting former or current far-right members as “being the only party that has to implement said policy” is a very foolish one. UKIP has a very clear mission statement when it comes to there aims and policies. They are not racist, they are fair and practical and in no way unclear. They present normal members of the general public the platform to express opinions of which they would normally feel threatened to express through fear of accusation.

You compared UKIP’s policies on immigration to that of the BNP after Donna’s comments which I must confess I have not heard. But do you take one person’s word as that that represents a whole party?

I can refer to examples of the big 3 parties having members and representatives embarrassing them. It’s not exclusive to one party.

A member of Labour sent a rival abusive homophobic abuse
A member of the Lib Dem’s was subjected to sexism when she was told by her local party “not to get pregnant because the electorate did not want to see a baby hanging off ‘her person’…”
A Conservative party Councillor who said that “Pakistani children would fail to rise to the top at there schools”

Do you know what the differences or lack of differences are between the BNP and UKIP to be able to back up your claim?

BNP policies on immigration:
- Deport all those who are here illegally
- Deport all those who commit crimes who are not originally British regardless of their crime
- To review cases where people have been granted British citizenship or settlement
- Offer money to those who are not native to Britain as an incentive to leave
- Stop all immigration
- Reject all asylum seekers asylum if they traveled through safe countries to get here.

UKIP policies on immigration:
- Stop mass uncontrolled immigration. Not all immigration. Uncontrolled immigration.
- Freeze some immigration for permanent settlement for five years until immigration controls similar to that of Australia and Canada are re-established. Overstaying a visa would be a criminal offence as it is in aforementioned Australia and Canada.
- The introduction of a controlled immigration system would be established, where it can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy. (Anything from dust bin men to Doctors would be welcomed into the country). Immigrants would not be allowed to claim benefits for five years until after they have put into the system via tax whilst still being able to utilize national services such as the NHS.
- Meanwhile under UKIP others would be able to come and work in the UK with a points based work permit system. This is more than Australia and Canada offer for the record.
- EU citizens who have been living in the country would be able to apply for permanent residency to remain in the country long-term.
- The UK would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and establish our own UK Human Rights laws making it possible to deport foreign criminals and suspected terrorists to there country of origin instead of letting them flaunt the law.

- UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications maintaining the countries international obligations.

It’s pretty obvious to see the differences between UKIP and BNP. To suggest they are similar is very disingenuous.

For a “party of racists and sexists” UKIP has its fair share of minorities representing areas of the country. Off the top of my head I can think of: Shneur Odze (prospective MEP for the North West, Winston McKenzie (Croydon UKIP) and Sanya Jeet Thandi (South-East London). In fact if you look at the party as a whole they have about 50% female representation and members of different minorities representing them. An element to them many other parties could do with having themselves.

UKIP North By Election team: (see attached picture)

You asked “What policies/laws would you like done away with regards the EU?”

I spent 6 hours yesterday trying to list UK based EU directives and gave up in the end. This being because every time I thought I had discovered a complete list of Directives, I discovered several more.
I do not believe there is a complete list of EU directives available to the general public. Mainly because they seem to be amended so often, or because they just haven’t been put on a public domain.

I was able to find 122 directives under 18 categories. Although I am certain there are many more.

Anything ranging from “Accounting, auditing and management control” to “Transport”, not to mention directives categorised under “Generic Other” which have literally dozens of other directives.

I could also add off the top of my head;

- EU emissions directives that have resulted in the UK being taken to court by the EU when several other EU States have not been taken to court for breaching exactly the same standards

- European Court of Human Rights. Let’s give out some more reflective  sentences for crimes committed. If you commit rape your sentence should be allot longer than the 6 months to 2 years currently given. Murder is currently anything from 18-30 years. Lee Rigby murderers case is paused because the Judge wants a sentence reflecting the crime where as under European Court of Human Rights Rigby’s killers would get a sentence about 30 years long each.

- Gay Marriage – Whilst I do not oppose Gay Marriage/Gay Unions I do oppose forcing Religious Institutions into conducting Gay Marriages against there beliefs, however distasteful to some, these beliefs should be respected as should any other religions beliefs be respected morally and lawfully

- Environmental Flood Directives – As has been seen over the last few months this has not worked. Why have directives if they leave councils unable to prevent against floods. The flood directive is instituted at Council level and leaves Council’s having to set one of three categories of seriousness when it comes to the threat of a flood and then take appropriate action on the EU’s say so. This sort of over analysing costs money and drains financing from flood defenses

- Trade - You said the UK was free to do trade with whom they wish. But this is untrue. The vast majority of trade deals are negotiated by Brussels, in fact a recent trade deal fell through with India yet a similar deal being negotiated by the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) is progressing smoothly at last.
Other trade deals negotiated by Britain and other member EU States have to be posed to Brussels and then have to be sanctioned by Brussels. How is this free trade? The UK are also as yet unable to do trade with the vast majority of the commonwealth and would be far more successful if allowed to just construct true free trade deals with the countries of the world.

I would sincerely appreciate it if you withdrew your comments regards UKIP being a “better dressed BNP” or “BNP in suits”.

As I have clearly highlighted, the two parties are nothing alike. I find it personally insulting to be spoken of as a UKIP voter in the same light as a fascist and racist party like the BNP and a man like Nick Griffin who I personally find repulsive to the highest degree!

Whilst I understand I am not going to “convert you” to a UKIP supporter, I at least hope I have shaken off some of your more negative opinions on UKIP as a party and its voters.


Thomas Evans"