[Vindictus]

Hahaha. What is it with first world nations and voting in wacko's lately? It's almost like no one is capable of critically looking at parties. That includes you Thork, you dumb racist.

[Rushy]

While Thork himself may be racially motivated I think the issue stands as one of economics. An economy can not sustain a constant influx of migrant workers, US states bordering Mexico are a testimony to that.

I can also see now that a lot of EU nations really don't like the EU functioning as a federal government. They might want to be careful, though. The US had a civil war the last time states decided they don't like the federal government. I wonder if the EU may fracture in a similar manner.

[Vindictus]

I'm woefully under informed on the state of politics involving the UK and the EU, but I only need browse the policy section of UKIP on wikipedia to see that they're a bunch of fucking wacko's.

[Rushy]

I'm woefully under informed on the state of politics involving the UK and the EU, but I only need browse the policy section of UKIP on wikipedia to see that they're a bunch of fucking wacko's.

Sometimes you just need a wacko to get shit done.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's okay, guys. The European Parliament cannot actually accomplish anything UKIP wants to accomplish, and now that they have seats there, they're likely to take a 180-degree turn on their "we'll take power away from EP ourselves" policy. And then the Thorks will get angry and vote Labour like they always should have.

[Ghost of V]

European polls explain how compasses work.

[Rushy]

It's okay, guys. The European Parliament cannot actually accomplish anything UKIP wants to accomplish, and now that they have seats there, they're likely to take a 180-degree turn on their "we'll take power away from EP ourselves" policy. And then the Thorks will get angry and vote Labour like they always should have.

If they don't accomplish anything isn't that technically mission success?

[Pete Svarrior]

If they don't accomplish anything isn't that technically mission success?

From my point of view, yes. Probably not from theirs.

[fappenhosen]

While Thork himself may be racially motivated I think the issue stands as one of economics. An economy can not sustain a constant influx of migrant workers, US states bordering Mexico are a testimony to that

Well that's what UKIP made as an "issue", and one that a raft of others including the tories went along with. The truth is that its mostly bullshit. Net migration hasn't changed that much over the last decade (hovering around 200,000 people). Most migrants are highly qualified and find work once here. There may be migrants who do choose to come just to sponge off the government but they are in the vast minority.

and now that they have seats there, they're likely to take a 180-degree turn on their "we'll take power away from EP ourselves" policy.

Yeah I'm interested to see if they follow through with their threat of mass seppuku.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I voted Green.

The whole UKIP landslide thing needs to be put in perspective, especially in relation to the local elections where their vote share actually dropped from 23% to 17%, they were just better organised in motivating individual seats.

In the EU elections, they are the only mainstream party who are unequivacably anti-EU. The Tories are generally anti-EU but they're far more pro-status quo, Labour have... well, let's be honest, they haven't articulated their Europe platform, LibDems are fiercely pro-EU and anti-referendum, the Greens are pro-EU but also Pro-referendum.

[Pete Svarrior]

I voted Green.

Why do you hate scientific progress?

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I voted Green.

Why do you hate scientific progress?

Their policy of anti-GM crops and vague support for 'alternative' medicine are the only real areas of policy difference between them and I.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nuclear power is the future

[Thork]

I voted Green.

Why do you hate scientific progress?

Their policy of anti-GM crops and vague support for 'alternative' medicine are the only real areas of policy difference between them and I.

Anti-GM is a great policy. GM isn't about improving food. Its about controlling food. Patenting and owning the rights to something as simple as a vegetable. Once they make a small change, they can patent it. Like the suicide seeds sold to Africa that meant they couldn't reseed them the next year and had to buy more. With enough products, seed suppliers will view natural strains as competition and try to remove them altogether.

Money controls governments, food controls its people. GM is abhorrent and should be outlawed.

Where the hell is my tin-foil hat? My head is cold. But yeah, GM is about patents, not science.

[Pete Svarrior]

I hate food security, vote UKIP

Oh Thork, how I value your troll character.

[Thork]

Erm, I love food security. That's why I don't want individual companies owning the rights to food!

[Pete Svarrior]

Erm, I love food security. That's why I don't want individual companies owning the rights to food!

So campaign against patenting GMOs. There's no need to starve the world just because you're upset that someone might make too much money off of it.

[Thork]

Erm, I love food security. That's why I don't want individual companies owning the rights to food!

So campaign against patenting GMOs. There's no need to starve the world just because you're upset that someone might make too much money off of it.

That would be fine. If GM food was 'open-source' I would have no problem with it at all. But that's not why companies like Monsanto have invested $Billions in it.

[Rushy]

The entire patent system in general needs an overhaul. Watching countless companies get patent trolled is just infuriating. Of course the same people who can make these sorts of changes are the people who make money off of them.

[Lemon]

I suppose I should have said this earlier:

The United Kingdom sucks.

Thanks.