Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
"UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with theieave the EU, it is vital that they maintain open borders with the EU..."
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
This is hardly surprising. Mass immigration is a kind of trickle-up economics. It pushes up property prices, while holding down wages. That's good news for the ASI.
Over and above that, there's always been a divide on the Right between those who feel more affinity with their countrymen than they do with foreigners, and those who feel more affinity with rich and cultured foreigners than they do with their countrymen. UKIP represent the former, the ASI the latter.
Currently involved in a community broadband project, volunteers digging cables and installing fibre broadband to farms, barns and other rural homes and businesses... The cost of connection per home is a small fraction of what BT would charge and no home is left out... even a farm 10km from the nearest other connection that now has 1GBs broadband despite neither mains water nor electricity... Big Society in action...
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
"Mr. Llama, penning in ISIS and enabling forces on the ground to enjoy the best chance of total victory is the aim."
Is it? Was that what was said in the Commons today? Did they also mention what ground troops were going to be doing the heavy lifting?
TBH I am shocked at what has happened to the body politic after Blair. The Government now has to go cap in hand to Parliament not only to "authorise" the use of military force (which is not in its remit) but has to present details of the theatre in which we will deploy and precise methods to be used. I see no moral difference between the use of air strikes and ground forces, and I see no reason why we should not strike in Syria, after all we are enemies of Assad and in any case the Islamic State is effectively a country.
If the watchword is "delenda est res publica islamica" then the House of Commons should have passed a motion that it supports any action to be taken by HM Government to effect the destruction of the Islamic State. No poncing about, you either fight a war or you don't.
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
I don't think they'll go through with it.. Apparently senior bods are at loggerheads
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
Wasn't a core tenet of Thatcherite economic thinking moving taxation from income taxes onto purchase taxes?
He certainly is, Cap'n Doc. He has just got us involved in another war for which there is no plan, no victory conditions, no end point, no exit strategy.
He says it will take "not months but years", which is bonkers.You don't start a war without it looking at least plausible that it will be all over by Christmas. Even the 100 years war didn't start out that way.
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
It's not such a daft idea if immigrants don't get benefits. Just change the law so that you need 18 years' residence to qualify. I strongly suspect that the ASI doesn't support the current welfare state either.
" ... No poncing about, you either fight a war or you don't. "
Surely Parliament has a role in making sure the government takes one of the two options, but if HMG is going for the first than it spells out its war aims and commits the necessary resources to achieve them. It looks to me that Parliament has failed yet again. We are off to war, don't know why, don't know how, don't know when it will stop, don't know how we can win. We will just bomb some places for a few years.
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
Wasn't a core tenet of Thatcherite economic thinking moving taxation from income taxes onto purchase taxes?
More importantly a core tenet was to reduce the size of the state and reduce the tax burden. There is no place for the politics of envy which is what luxury taxes are.
I must agree - I've a soft spot for Kippers in general. This is just IMO daft and feels like something Len McCluskey would approve of. And uncomfortably totalitarian.
I'm pretty libertarian at heart - the notion of a Luxury Tax feels just so wrong. I earned the money - I should be able to spend it freely on what I choose - without some Big Brother clipboard of *anti-aspiration* products.
Just to pick two examples from my own purchasing - I spent £20k on a bathroom. I saved up for it for 4yrs. Would it be taxed as a *luxury*? Or maybe the £30k I spent on decorative plasterwork and lived without heating in exchange except what I could burn from my garden. Who decides what's *obscene* and *unacceptable*?
AFAIC, I earned that money, paid my tax on it - if I chose to spend it on such items - what the Hell has that got to do with some numpty bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder who disapproves of my spending priorities?
This feels just so WRONG for UKIP. I get why they've done it - but it's the exact opposite of what I associate with their brand.
I'd stick Cameron's greeny-AGW stuff in the same bracket for Tories.
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff. ...
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
That's how I see it, I'm glad you said that.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
Last time I looked the UK is a country - like say Germany or France (if that comparison makes my startling statement any easier to comprehend). Its not a supra national trading organisation, one with ideas for an ever closer financial and political union - something which our current PM does not want to take us into. And I agree.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
He certainly is, Cap'n Doc. He has just got us involved in another war for which there is no plan, no victory conditions, no end point, no exit strategy.
He says it will take "not months but years", which is bonkers.You don't start a war without it looking at least plausible that it will be all over by Christmas. Even the 100 years war didn't start out that way.
That's because we are poncing about with a few Tornados, rather than plotting ways of visiting various sorts of brutal and bloody death on them. I reckon if we trained up a Yezidi militia it would account for a few.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff. ...
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
That's how I see it, I'm glad you said that.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
Last time I looked the UK is a country - like say Germany or France (if that comparison makes my startling statement any easier to comprehend). Its not a supra national trading organisation, one with ideas for an ever closer financial and political union - something which our current PM does not want to take us into. And I agree.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
Try harder.
I can't stand you and your smart arse smears so if you genuinely can't understand bad luck
This is hardly surprising. Mass immigration is a kind of trickle-up economics. It pushes up property prices, while holding down wages. That's good news for the ASI.
Over and above that, there's always been a divide on the Right between those who feel more affinity with their countrymen than they do with foreigners, and those who feel more affinity with rich and cultured foreigners than they do with their countrymen. UKIP represent the former, the ASI the latter.
Interesting how globalisation causes downward pressure on workers earnings but upward pressure on executive oligarch earnings.
I've never heard the likes of the ASI call for the mass immigration of executives from low paid countries in order to put downward pressure on executive earnings here.
Instead it seems executives earnings here need to match the highest in the world in order to 'retain talent' or some such drivel.
He certainly is, Cap'n Doc. He has just got us involved in another war for which there is no plan, no victory conditions, no end point, no exit strategy.
He says it will take "not months but years", which is bonkers.You don't start a war without it looking at least plausible that it will be all over by Christmas. Even the 100 years war didn't start out that way.
From my reading, 100 Years' War had at least two distinct phases.
Dear Mr isam - I am perfectly prepared to 'pay the ransom, get our innocent people back, and accept the downside of that' as you suggest. Always provided that you are prepared to 'accept the downside' and drive the next humanitarian taxi to Iraq.
I suspect that if Hugo Boss had been in charge - Oswald wouldn't have had a problem.
I was chatting to someone just last week about the psychology of fashion and he mentioned how sexy Nazis were as an icon - and that saying so made him very unpopular.
I must agree with him. Never felt the same about Mussolini's chaps. Hugo Boss was the best recruit the Nazis ever made. What an enduring image those SS uniforms are in popular culture.
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
Wasn't a core tenet of Thatcherite economic thinking moving taxation from income taxes onto purchase taxes?
More importantly a core tenet was to reduce the size of the state and reduce the tax burden. There is no place for the politics of envy which is what luxury taxes are.
This is hardly surprising. Mass immigration is a kind of trickle-up economics. It pushes up property prices, while holding down wages. That's good news for the ASI.
Over and above that, there's always been a divide on the Right between those who feel more affinity with their countrymen than they do with foreigners, and those who feel more affinity with rich and cultured foreigners than they do with their countrymen. UKIP represent the former, the ASI the latter.
Interesting how globalisation causes downward pressure on workers earnings but upward pressure on executive oligarch earnings.
I've never heard the likes of the ASI call for the mass immigration of executives from low paid countries in order to put downward pressure on executive earnings here.
Instead it seems executives earnings here need to match the highest in the world in order to 'retain talent' or some such drivel.
Excellent comment! It is strange how delicate and sensitive fat cats are, and how totally unable to manage without a very supportive tax and government regime.
Interesting watching the bickering starting on the social media between various UKIP strands. Some are being rather blunt in asking what on earth UKIP are thinking of with the luxury tax and others are then vociferously attacking them. Selected highlights of one FB thread:
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ? Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
Wasn't a core tenet of Thatcherite economic thinking moving taxation from income taxes onto purchase taxes?
More importantly a core tenet was to reduce the size of the state and reduce the tax burden. There is no place for the politics of envy which is what luxury taxes are.
I'm not sure taxing items which some might argue are for people with more money than sense is 'envy politic's' in quite the same way that taxing people who earn fortunes on merit is.
Yes there is a proposed 5% rise in VAT on some items but that is counterbalanced by the proposed scrapping of the 45% income tax rate and the introduction of a 35% rate for those earning between £44 and £55k as well as the increase in the income tax allowance. There is also the proposed scrapping of inheritance tax as well.
I don't think as as an ideological principle a 5% increase in VAT on certain non essential items is something to get too excited about under the circumstances.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff. ...
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
That's how I see it, I'm glad you said that.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
Last time I looked the UK is a country - like say Germany or France (if that comparison makes my startling statement any easier to comprehend). Its not a supra national trading organisation, one with ideas for an ever closer financial and political union - something which our current PM does not want to take us into. And I agree.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
Well its actually your response that is waffle because the EU is far more than a 'trading organisation'. NAFTA is a trading organisation and that doesn't have free movement of Labour.
With regard to proposals for 'luxury' taxes etc. -ie 'how to squeeze more money out of rich Russians', surely what to do is try and get them to pay more tax by doing more taxable activity, rather than increasing the taxes on the activity they already do.
'Damn the rich they are not buying enough shoes and handbags'
Something along those lines, yes. The old upper class used to employ fleets of servants, tailors, couturiers, grooms, gamekeepers etc. This made the money trickle down.
Comments
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
This is hardly surprising. Mass immigration is a kind of trickle-up economics. It pushes up property prices, while holding down wages. That's good news for the ASI.
Over and above that, there's always been a divide on the Right between those who feel more affinity with their countrymen than they do with foreigners, and those who feel more affinity with rich and cultured foreigners than they do with their countrymen. UKIP represent the former, the ASI the latter.
Which part of the country?
http://www.leftfutures.org/2012/08/david-milibands-half-million-in-private-earnings-an-admission-of-retirement/
http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/05/david-milibands-outside-earnings-top-200k/
Original posting (by a well respected UKIP member)
- "So UKIP is the party to penalise the aspirational classes by proposing VAT at 25% on luxury goods .How did such a daft proposal get passed ?
Or did it ?"
Responses
- "Can't say I'm enthusiastic about this, abandoning the flat tax, or about opposing the transatlantic free trade deal."
- " A somewhat misguided attempt to appeal to what your leadership thinks the working class might want? Somewhat out of date, I'd say. The working class has long abandoned the idea of knowing its place."
- "What a load of b******s. Tax luxury goods to the hilt ask people going to food banks if they would like a Mercedes with or without chips. You are an ignorant TOSSER"
I think this is going to be a very silly move by UKIP.
If the watchword is "delenda est res publica islamica" then the House of Commons should have passed a motion that it supports any action to be taken by HM Government to effect the destruction of the Islamic State. No poncing about, you either fight a war or you don't.
Ryder Cup = Tory winning election nights.
" ... No poncing about, you either fight a war or you don't. "
Surely Parliament has a role in making sure the government takes one of the two options, but if HMG is going for the first than it spells out its war aims and commits the necessary resources to achieve them. It looks to me that Parliament has failed yet again. We are off to war, don't know why, don't know how, don't know when it will stop, don't know how we can win. We will just bomb some places for a few years.
I'm pretty libertarian at heart - the notion of a Luxury Tax feels just so wrong. I earned the money - I should be able to spend it freely on what I choose - without some Big Brother clipboard of *anti-aspiration* products.
Just to pick two examples from my own purchasing - I spent £20k on a bathroom. I saved up for it for 4yrs. Would it be taxed as a *luxury*? Or maybe the £30k I spent on decorative plasterwork and lived without heating in exchange except what I could burn from my garden. Who decides what's *obscene* and *unacceptable*?
AFAIC, I earned that money, paid my tax on it - if I chose to spend it on such items - what the Hell has that got to do with some numpty bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder who disapproves of my spending priorities?
This feels just so WRONG for UKIP. I get why they've done it - but it's the exact opposite of what I associate with their brand.
I'd stick Cameron's greeny-AGW stuff in the same bracket for Tories.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
Last time I looked the UK is a country - like say Germany or France (if that comparison makes my startling statement any easier to comprehend). Its not a supra national trading organisation, one with ideas for an ever closer financial and political union - something which our current PM does not want to take us into. And I agree.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
Try harder.
I can't stand you and your smart arse smears so if you genuinely can't understand bad luck
Interesting how globalisation causes downward pressure on workers earnings but upward pressure on executive oligarch earnings.
I've never heard the likes of the ASI call for the mass immigration of executives from low paid countries in order to put downward pressure on executive earnings here.
Instead it seems executives earnings here need to match the highest in the world in order to 'retain talent' or some such drivel.
I was chatting to someone just last week about the psychology of fashion and he mentioned how sexy Nazis were as an icon - and that saying so made him very unpopular.
I must agree with him. Never felt the same about Mussolini's chaps. Hugo Boss was the best recruit the Nazis ever made. What an enduring image those SS uniforms are in popular culture.
So what are you trying to say because its looks like a load of waffle to me.
Well its actually your response that is waffle because the EU is far more than a 'trading organisation'. NAFTA is a trading organisation and that doesn't have free movement of Labour.