Christina

I see your point, Michael, but I think you've missed mine. A Tory Government will be different than a Labour one, so we need to think about those changes and what strategy is needed for a changed Government. I think more leverage will be ours because many Tories agree with us, not many Labourites do.

Raymond Finch

PC.
It is too late for us to do anything about Lisbon. The treaty has been ratified here. Any work we can do about the LT must be concentrated in Ireland.
As for UKIP MPs. If I didn't think we could have such then I would consider all to be lost.
I would not trust MPs of any other party to restore our freedoms.

david H

Aardvark, the senior figures of UKIP seem to be aloof from people's concerns. They are promoting their own ideology but neither listening to nor engaging with people in general. We see this in a small scale on here. Are they supposed to be above the electorate? Persona;lly, I think they are very small beer.
For example, the BNP supporters join in debates and are very active in communities. It shows they care and not just self-seeking as most UKIP supporters seem to be. You mentioned elsewhere the sacrifices you made with seemingly little back up - that strikes me as typical of the UKIP mentality.

__________________
"You think you are combatting prejudice but you are at war with nature". Edmund Burke.

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-98-1127.html

progcon.org

"It is too late for us to do anything about Lisbon."

It not be too late until it has been ratified by all member states.

For a group that has made such a fuss about this being the "last treaty" due to its self-amending nature, to be focussing on a post-Lisbon strategy rather than in preventing it coming to pass in the first place seems to be vanity politics at its worst.

Such an approach will clearly create eu-funded careers for many ukippers and the handful of eusceptic Tory MEP's for years to come, capitalising on the small but useful protest vote, but it will not deliver the stated goals.

I don't doubt that ukippers have the best of intentions, but your strategy is, imho, clearly going to make things easier, not harder for the EU.

Geoffrey Collier

Raymond Finch: When discussing the chronology of the EU. it is important to see the 1959 Stocholm Agreement as, step number one. It was in 1959 that the European Free Trade Agreement (Area) came into being. This result from 'quick footwork' following the 1956 Suez Crisis, but we were too late for the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The symbolism of the Stockholm Agreement is plain for all to see, and that was the intention.

People like Christina who I am sure is a lovely lady, just do not undersatnd the true situation. On all the available eveidence, currently available, the Tories should win the next election. When they have finished their term, we will be even deeper into Europe than now, and the Tories will be takingg credit for having had Turkey admitted. They are so cynical, they may even arrange the admission date for 2015, as an act of atonement for having attacked them a century earlier. That should really please Boris Johnson, whose paternal muslim grandfather came that area.

Optimism must become a notifiable illness if we are to have chance of survival.

jim h

Progcon,
Cameron has promised nothing of the sort , if the Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified if and when the Conservatives form the next Government he has said then a referendum will take place in the UK . If it has been ratified then he has indicated he will look at ways to do something about it but he has not promised a referendum.
Two further observations :-
Cameron made one and only one promise when he was elected leader that the Conservatives would leave the EPP within weeks not only are they still members but since then more Conservative MEPs voted in favour of an EU Pariament resolution which said the democratic vote of the Irish people would not be recognised than voted against the resolution and tens of thousands of pounds was given by the Conservative Party ( remember MEPs are not individually elected they represent their Party and their actions are, therefore ,done in the name of their Party) via the EPP to support the YES campaign and nothing was given to the NO campaign.
In this country Brown will not resign and his potential challengers will be warned off because the EU would view it as a total disaster as the Lisbon Treaty has not yet been ratified.His resignation would more than likely mean a general election which the Conservatives would probably win and then if Cameron was true to his word then a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would take place. However the relevance of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty needs to be considered in the context that it gets us no further forward in getting out of the EU and probably puts the cause back since many voters will think they have done their Eurosceptic duty and will go back to sleep again.
Re 5 year plan asked for by Progcon I dont have one but as sure as hell there is no alternative than to keep plugging away the UKIP message. If next year UKIP does not succeed in holding its own in the EU elections then the cause is finished since the playing field for general elections is so different from the EU election that we will not make a breakthrough into our Parliament. The EU elections focus on the EU and not domestic politics and proportional representation works in our favour.

progcon.org

Um Jim, you have disagreed then explained exactly what I wrote:

#1 Cameron has pledged a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been fully ratified by the time the Tories come to power. He has also said that he will campaign for a no vote.

#2 If it has already been ratified by the time the Tories come to power, as is likely right now, they will do ****** all. We know that. Given a chance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Euro adopted under a Cameron government. Please don't mistake me as a Cameron cheerleader.

We all know he is playing politics and does not expect nor really want #1 to happen.

However, the rod he has created, is that at this very moment in time, the treaty has yet to be ratified by all member countries and he has made a clear pledge. If it could be ably shown that the mere announcement by Cameron that he is going to change his position and offer a referendum even if the treaty has already been ratified by 2010, it could in effect kill the treaty now because the EU would have been put on notice by the Tories, and other countries who are yet to ratify may well hold back until then, and certainly won't feel as bullied by the EU to steamroll through the process.

I know it is a subtle difference, but this is the application of intention, not ifs and whens. To date, Tories have simply discussed how difficult/impossible it would be to have a post-ratification referendum and have deliberately ignored the fact that simply announcing their *intention* to do so, based on their poll lead could actually stop the ratification being completed before they come to office, thus obliging them to carry through on their pledge.

Of course Cameron does not want this. Of course he is not to be trusted on the EU. However, the goal is to slow down the ratification process to ensure Cameron is forced to deliver his pledge. This could be done by publicly showing that other countries would hold off ratification until 2010 if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote.

It's a big ask, but finding all possible ways to stop ratification before 2010 will deliver the referendum. Agreed?

Imagine if we could get one or more leaders in others countries to state that they would hold off ratifying the treaty if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote. Such a body of evidence could corner Cameron into taking a lead, as to duck away from it when other European leaders look to him to take a lead would make him look weak and dishonest and could affect his chance of becoming pm.

It is not too late. It is a difficult call, but if we can slow down the ratification process outside the UK until 2010 we will absolutely get our referendum.

Bob FM

GC do you ever stop with the history lessons. Some of us want to live in the real, here and now.

mrabody

I would say that actual progress is being made. First of all, consider the opinion polls? The British public is far less accepting of the EU that it was even five years ago. All three of the establishment parties felt it necessary in 2005 to promise a Referendum on the EU Constitution.

Nope. I'm in full agreement with you there. In fact I've said it time and again.

"I'm sorry, but there is only way out at this time. UKIP needs to become strong enough to win seats on local and county councils, and in Westminister. Only when it starts costing the three establishment parties seats and threatens to cost them the opportunity to form government may we see a change in attitude."

No need to apologise as I 100% agree with you. It is the *only* way to achieve the goal of EU withdrawal. We are in agreement.[/quote]

Next years Euro elections are important if for no other reason than that it has been some time since we last tasted electoral success. The troops are getting restive and need to achieve some sort of electoral victory to be inspired. Furthermore, it looks quite likely that next year's County Council elections will be scheduled to coincide with the Euros. You have just agreed that we need to elect local and county councillors if we want to get into Westminster, so wouldn't it make sense to campaign for County Council seats in conjunction with the Euro elections which are where UKIP polls most strongly?

At the moment UKIP doesn't have funds to get members elected to either Brussels or Westminster. However I wager that it would be easier to find donors welling to open their wallets for next years elections than it will be
to find them for the next Westminster elections when most of the big donors will be lining up to donate to soon-to-be Prime Minister Cameron. However, success breeds success and if we do well next year then it is possible that we will be able to find some funding for 2010. I do know that if we just sat out next year's election everyone will conclude that it is because we are a busted flush and then nobody will open their wallets to offer UKIP donations - unless you are suggesting that you have the cash to fund a general election campaign?

Yup, I agree completely with your assessment of our current electoral capabilities. As I have previously stated, if I get elected as an MEP I will devote as much of my time, and income as possible to boosting the membership in the Southeast Region and improving our electoral prospects. But in your originating post on this thread you criticized me and other MEPs candidates (presumably Ray Finch) who have also promised this.

So if you think that with 16,000 members and no big donors at the moment, we are incapable of doing anything, why are you complaining about those of us who have a plan to try and rectify this problem, even if it means we need to become MEPs. Yes, Ray's plan and my plan involve getting elected as MEPs but what choice do we have. We both are family men with children and need to earn some sort of income. I don't think my present employer, or Ray's would take kindly to us spending two or three days a week trooping around the country, meeting with different Southeast branches committees, leafleting, canvassing etc. So unless you are prepared to pay my salary to do all this, and indeed donate funds to branches to assist them in starting membership recruitment schemes, or training sessions for their PPCs and branch officers, I will just have to try and become an MEP.

And as for using EU money - better it be used by people like Ray and I than by some Tory MEP to fund an extension on his country mansion.

I believe I have a solution to turn the current situation around. I know others who think as I do in regions outside the Southeast who are also seeking to become MEPs for the exact same reasons. If elected will our proposed solutions work? Maybe or maybe not. But at least we are offering a solution. If you don't like it, then you should come up with a better one.

But wouldn't failure on UKIP's part in next year's Euro elections likely cause the collapse of the party and clear the decks for this Referendum Party part II that you proposed earlier in this thread.

I'm sorry but I can't figure out what your problem is with us contesting the Euro elections. First you complain that we shouldn't be using EU money to fund the party and criticize those MEP wannabes who are proposing to help build the party into a more formidable electoral force if elected as MEPs. Then you suggest that UKIP should fold up tent in favour of a new version of the Referendum Party. Then you complain that UKIP isn't competitive nationally and suggest that we have no solutions despite having read the platforms of people like Ray and I who believe we do have (partial) solutions to these problems but of course our solutions require us to be elected as MEPs which you are opposed to. Then you complain claim to be worried that UKIP will do poorly in next year's Euro elections despite the fact that you have already called for the creation of a brand new party. You appear to be arguing in circles.

michael mcgough

Would somebody please confirm twhich countries still need to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.A search revealed that Italy was the 24th of the 27 to sign up.

I believe the 3 to be Ireland,Czech Republic and Sweden although in an article dated 31 july in the Int'l Herald Tribune they say only 23 have ratified,presumably Poland being the 4th.