yes to EEC
no to EU
[Rep]

Britain has, for centuries, been a great trading nation, and with the entire world. At the same time we have had numerous understandings and treaties assisting us in those enterprises.

But we should not abandon our sovereignty or even compromise it - as we have surely done - and join a federal state without a full referrendum on the subject. The situation we now find ourselves in is one where our politicians have actually acted against the national interest and without and effective and very clear mandate.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
It is clear the two parties will allways have links and when you remove historic background of individuals the parties are allmost identical.

If the BNP did not exist the chances are that supporters would move to UKIP and in many cases the opposite would happen if UKIP did not exist. If it was not for UKIP I may have never joined the BNP and skin colour is not one of my concerns although it is part of my national identity.

I could just as easily support UKIP if I thought it could live up to its nationalist principles without being influenced by confused liberals.

So it is actually good that a party like BNP exists, so that you could join it instead of joining UKIP, without having to present UKIP as a racist party full of members with jail background.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism:
Ive noticed we now have quite a few pro-EO members of the forum so here is a question for everyone.

Should Britain remain within the EU?

I would have thought the answer was self-evident, but as British-Conservatism uses a picture of Enoch Powell, can we assume he himself is anti-EU?

Is pro-EO code for Pro-EU?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by yaro:
So it is actually good that a party like BNP exists, so that you could join it instead of joining UKIP, without having to present UKIP as a racist party full of members with jail background.

People who constantly use the word "racist" are really quite pathetic. No other word for it. History demonstrates that the average Briton dislikes foreigners, and that was largely before completely alien people invaded our kingdom. Are millions of people to be labelled "racist" just because they want their country to remain essentially British?

As for gaolbirds, vast numbers of people are convicted of offences each year in Britain. In fact we gaol more people here than any other country in Europe. Does that mean every single one of them is fundamentally evil? How do you know that without knowing the intricacies of their offence?

Some people are driven through desperation into committing a crime that normally would be furthermost from their mind. Should they be categorised along with common criminals, many of whom come from criminal families and backgrounds? The judge hands out the sentences, not the general public. If the government deems sentences are now 'spent' the individual is entitled by law to the same normality of life as everyone else.

Such sweeping statements as you have made are without any merit.
[Rep]

The English have, traditionally, been rather Xenophobic.

When Edward I expelled the Jews, the English jumped at the opportunity. An English sea-Captain deprived Jewish refugees of all they had in exchange for a passage to France. Then he stranded them on a sandbank and left them all to drown. 'Let Jehovah save you again by parting the waves!' he laughed as he left the wretched Hebrews to perish.

We hear about the London apprentices of mediaeval times launching violent attacks on Flemings, Frenchmen etc. The government reacted severely, riding down the apprentices in the street and hanging them by the score.

Then the Steelyard, London home of the Hanseatic League was invaded and German merchants murdered. Later came the Huguenots, at first welcomed as co-religionists, and then violently attacked. The Gordon Riots against 'Popery' saw embassy chapels sacked and burnt. Again, the army fired on the mob killing many of them.

Scum, all of them. The Duke of Wellington predicted that the English mob would perpetrate atrocities far in excess of the French Revolution. Firm action prevented such an occurrence.

Then came the Jews again and the anti-immigrant British Brothers League was formed. An English nobleman attempted to import German/Austrian/Russian anti-Semitism but the Jews were limited by class and geography to the East End and Upper-class Jewry acted to restrict immigration. Most passed through on their way to America

For the first time England had become less extreme in its xenophobia than the Continent.

But history could repeat itself!
[Rep]

The name says it all.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Gregory Lauder-Frost:
Britain has, for centuries, been a great trading nation, and with the entire world. At the same time we have had numerous understandings and treaties assisting us in those enterprises.

But we should not abandon our sovereignty or even compromise it - as we have surely done - and join a federal state without a full referrendum on the subject. The situation we now find ourselves in is one where our politicians have actually acted against the national interest and without and effective and very clear mandate.

I believe that we ought to remain in the European Union, simply for the same reason you state: to maintain 'our' sovereignty, or at least as much of it as possible. If I offered you a choice between having sovereignty stolen away through global problems/developments, and willingly pooling it in order to better control those same things, which would you choose?

Also, if there is no mandate for the EU, and that is good reason not to support it, do you also ask that the UK have a mandate to exist? I mean, I wouldn't want to put that to the vote...
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smiž:
I believe that we ought to remain in the European Union, simply for the same reason you state: to maintain 'our' sovereignty, or at least as much of it as possible. If I offered you a choice between having sovereignty stolen away through global problems/developments, and willingly pooling it in order to better control those same things, which would you choose?

Also, if there is no mandate for the EU, and that is good reason not to support it, do you also ask that the UK have a mandate to exist? I mean, I wouldn't want to put that to the vote...

Really, its quite simple. Either you believe in a sovereign nation state or you don't. Either we rule ourselves, or we permit ourselves to be ruled by an assembly of foreigners where our MEPs are a distinctly tiny minority. We have always managed to deal with global problems/developments as a sovereign nation, at least where they especially affect us - the British. In my view there are very very few global problems/developments which would affect us in real terms - especially now we do not have an Empire - and none that cannot be addressed in co-operation with other sovereign nations, when the moment comes.

You are supporting a federal state - a new Soviet Bloc (as it is dominated by The Left) - which the British people have not been consulted on as a fundamental issue.
[Rep]

We never voted to join it and the contempt the public are held in is no better than what you see in Zimbabwe and other such states. The sooner we get out, the better.
[Rep]