Danny Alexander has called on Scottish ministers to produce "realistic analysis" of the cost of independence.
It comes as the Treasury prepares to publish detailed findings on the financial impact of a "Yes" vote....
.....Treasury officials have also analysed the Scottish government's white paper and said they had "attempted to produce many of the calculations that were missing".
LOL, more fiddled numbers and also what happened to the faux outrage that SNP were spending taxpayers money on the white paper whilst NO were ar a disadvantage. How many 10's of millions have Westminster wasted preparing dodgy financial numbers to try and fool the Scottish public. I could save them a fortune , there will be multiple huge black holes , we will be penniless and many billions short on all areas, without England's generosity we would all be living in caves at present and we should damn well show some respect and get voting no if we do not want disaster.
4 way debates are the most popular option amongst Tory and Labour voters. No option of a 3 way debate involving Cameron/Miliband/Farage and excluding Clegg.
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
UKIPs message is only negative to those who disagree with it. For those of us who agree with it - particularly with regard to leaving the EU and reforging links with the rest of the World, with reforming the tax system and with improving education - it is an extremely positive message.
Come back to me when you can tell me whether UKIP's policy this week is to break all links with the EU, to join the EEA, to join EFTA or simply to moan that they don't like people who smell of garlic.
Ditto a coherent explanation of immigration. Irish immigrants, it seems we learn this week, are OK. But whether all immigration is to be stopped, immigrants who write their names in non-Latin alphabets are to be stopped, immigrants whose surname ends in a U are to be stopped or only those immigrants whose name is on a list handwritten by Nigel Farage remains wholly unclear.
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA. I happen to disagree with that but to try and pretend it is somehow a big secret is just another one of your nasty little Eurofanatic tricks. Of course their policy might make it harder for you to sit beside your swimming pool in your Hungarian holiday home but I am not sure we should consider that a great loss to the country.
(And before anyone gets on their high horse, last week I linked to an article where a local Conservative politician said something much less controversial and got suspended).
And yesterday I linked to an article where a Conservative councillor said something far more controversial and vile, received a police caution for it, and is still a Conservative councillor.
Whilst I wouldn't have expressed myself that way, I can see why someone would be pissed off by Lenny Henry's demand for ethnic quotas in the media.
Yes, but it should be argued in the same way you would any other call for positive discrimination, whether it on the basis of sex, sexuality or income. Not in the rather brain-dead way Henwood did.
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
It is easier to cry discrimination to try and get up the greasy pole than to work hard at it. When some people reach their limit and do not like it they try the old discrimination card too easily, which does not help people who really are discriminated against.
Yes, but it should be argued in the same way you would any other call for positive discrimination, whether it on the basis of sex, sexuality or income. Not in the rather brain-dead way Henwood did.
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
You are falling headlong into the establishment trap and your comments crystalise why the establishment parties are losing so much ground to UKIP and almost wholly confused as to why. Someone articulate, learned and well educated might well put it as you do. Most of our establishment being articuate, learned and well educated would agree.
Go to a pub, a building site or a white van and it would be put as Henwood put it and your way of putting it would go straight over their heads and either not be understood or dismissed as wordy woffle. Henwood's comments might be crude but in syntax terms they are to the point and easily understood.
There are rather more people in the in the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category than in the "articulate, learned and well educated" category and they are increasingly feeling that the "articulate, learned and well educated category" are conspiring against them for the benefit of the "articulate, learned and well educated category" and that (to bring the EU into it) the "articulate, learned and well educated category" prefer and have more in common with the "articulate, learned and well educated category" in other EU countries than with the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category in their own country.
I admit I am quite unusual having been in both categories (left comprehensive school, started work cleaning lavatories later went to college day release for four years, then university and am now a chartered professional), however it does enable me to see clearly what is happening here.
I'm on both categories as well, as I've said on here passim (privately and state educated, worked on building sites and as a techie). I'm not sure some of the people I've known in the past would quite like being described in the manner you do above.
It would make an interesting campaigning slogan: "Vote UKIP, because you're too thick to understand a simple argument."
@SeanT - "But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides.
It's tragic."
It is Alex Salmond whose name will written into the history books as the man who lead Scotland to independence and cast off the yoke of English tyranny, - I don't think he is much concerned with what comes after.
For sure. Salmond doesn't give a hoot. I'm just pointing out a mood that is now noticeable in England - already - and we have five more months of Anglophobic abuse to come. This will be very significant, for both countries, should Scotland opt for divorce. The atmosphere will be poisonous.
You've been reading the DT too much (though you are rather more sensible than most of it). Anglophobic abuse? Criticism of Tories, Westminster, etc., yes, but that is not the same thing.
It does worry me though that the southerners are seemingly being fed nonsense by the media. I was talking to a friend yesterday who has impeccable socialist-democratic roots (Co-op movement, mining area, etc.) and he was commenting how his sister, now an émigré in the Home Counties, had had great difficulty understanding that indy was not an ethnic nationalist movement but one for independent self-determination.
“Lunacy of the town that turned Green: A ban on bacon butties. Traffic-calming sheep. Transgender toilets. Sounds like a send-up? In fact, it's the all-too-real story of how Britain's loopiest party took over Brighton...” - http://tinyurl.com/pzqlc9j
Unfortunately the Mail does not go into great detail as to how ‘bacon butties’ would be banned, but - I fear civil wars have been started for less…!
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
UKIPs message is only negative to those who disagree with it. For those of us who agree with it - particularly with regard to leaving the EU and reforging links with the rest of the World, with reforming the tax system and with improving education - it is an extremely positive message.
Come back to me when you can tell me whether UKIP's policy this week is to break all links with the EU, to join the EEA, to join EFTA or simply to moan that they don't like people who smell of garlic.
Ditto a coherent explanation of immigration. Irish immigrants, it seems we learn this week, are OK. But whether all immigration is to be stopped, immigrants who write their names in non-Latin alphabets are to be stopped, immigrants whose surname ends in a U are to be stopped or only those immigrants whose name is on a list handwritten by Nigel Farage remains wholly unclear.
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA. I happen to disagree with that but to try and pretend it is somehow a big secret is just another one of your nasty little Eurofanatic tricks. Of course their policy might make it harder for you to sit beside your swimming pool in your Hungarian holiday home but I am not sure we should consider that a great loss to the country.
So you disagree on their main policy and have no answer on their current main angle of attack. That's one hell of a positive vote.
To hide your embarrassment, you resort to ad hominem which is not only gratuitous but simply wrong-headed. I would have far more to fear from Hungary leaving the EU than Britain.
Mr. G, and if some wanted to revive the Kingdom of the Rock? Any land can be divided up, but it often doesn't make sense and people can (and do) have multiple identities.
I don't see the advantage for Scotland or the UK in separation.
The Islam remarks are merely clumsy: he is inarticulately expressing what many others have said, that modern Islam evinces some of the qualities of the far right - this is why intellectuals have coined the term "Islamofascism", which makes exactly the same point only in a nicer and more acceptable way, if you are a liberal who likes to police the way poor people talk.
The idea that it is illegitimate to criticise religions, even in the most strident terms, is a high road to tyranny. It was one of our greatest Prime Ministers, William Ewart Gladstone who wrote of Romanism that:
The Rome of the Middle Ages claimed universal monarchy. The modern Church of Rome has abandoned nothing, retracted nothing. Is that all ? Far from it... [The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance: a political expostulation, (London, 1874), p. 11]
@SeanT - "But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides.
It's tragic."
It is Alex Salmond whose name will written into the history books as the man who lead Scotland to independence and cast off the yoke of English tyranny, - I don't think he is much concerned with what comes after.
For sure. Salmond doesn't give a hoot. I'm just pointing out a mood that is now noticeable in England - already - and we have five more months of Anglophobic abuse to come. This will be very significant, for both countries, should Scotland opt for divorce. The atmosphere will be poisonous.
Bad losers as ever , cannot accept that people just want to make their own decisions. However money as ever will ensure they are kept in their cages , when they realise they will be skint if they follow their natural nastiness it will ensure they shut up and get on with doing a deal.
Thankyou for so effortlessly proving my point. The English are "bad losers" with a "natural nastiness"?
It's stuff like this, and people like you, which will ensure any divorce, should it happen, will be cruelly unpleasant for both sides - but, given the disparity in wealth and power, it will likely be worse for the Scots.
We must pray that wiser counsel prevails, and the calm majority of non psychotic Scots vote NO.
You need to read your own posts now and again. You were the one pontificating about English anger , ex friends , make them pay etc. You do not ever hear that type of opinion coming from the YES campaign in Scotland. The view is always that we will remain friends , work closely together as now and both prosper. Do you spot the difference between my optimistic view and your psychopathic loser viewpoint. Mine full of hope and well being , yours full of hatred and wish for violence and revenge.
I think this puts more pressure on Labour than on the Tories or UKIP. They will be expected to win as the main opposition party. If they don't questions will be asked of Ed M all over again, and with Dave finally pre-empting cheap Labour policies on gambling there won't be an easy way back for Ed like there was with the stupid energy price freeze.
If the contest is held in the summer I could see the Tories holding on to it with a muted swing to Labour/UKIP. The feelgood factor will help them hold on.
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
For those of us who agree with it - particularly with regard to leaving the EU.......with reforming the tax system and with improving education
YouGov, as Nick Palmer pointed out, asked voters:
Political parties have policies on a wide range of issues and many people do not agree with the party they vote for on EVERY single issue. Imagine there was not a political party that you agreed with on everything - look at the list of issues below, would you only ever vote for a party you agreed with on that issue, or would you vote for a party that you disagreed with on that issue if you agreed with them on other, more important, issues?
UKIP supporters are more worried about Immigration (orders of magnitude more than anyone else) and the NHS than Europe (also orders of magnitude more than anyone else) - which is closely matched by 'pensions' as a concern. They're not fussed much by either taxes or education.
Overall, voter's priorities are the NHS (Lab +60) and the Economy (Con +59) with Welfare, taxes and immigration distant joint thirds....
Mr. G, and if some wanted to revive the Kingdom of the Rock? Any land can be divided up, but it often doesn't make sense and people can (and do) have multiple identities.
I don't see the advantage for Scotland or the UK in separation.
MD, I on the other hand see many advantages for Scotland being independent and many drawbacks of staying in the union.
I hope the spat between the UKIP candidate and Lenny Henry takes off. I reckon there's a deep well of people who would find Henry's demands stomach-churning. So, the more attention that's drawn to them the better as far as UKIP is concerned:
I hope the spat between the UKIP candidate and Lenny Henry takes off. I reckon there's a deep well of people who would find Henry's demands stomach-churning. So, the more attention that's drawn to them the better as far as UKIP is concerned:
Was suspended and then reinstated as a Tory councillor.
Just three from a couple of minutes search. If any of them had been UKIP there would have been an outcry and claims that they are representative of the party as a whole.
@SeanT - "But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides.
It's tragic."
It is Alex Salmond whose name will written into the history books as the man who lead Scotland to independence and cast off the yoke of English tyranny, - I don't think he is much concerned with what comes after.
For sure. Salmond doesn't give a hoot. I'm just pointing out a mood that is now noticeable in England - already - and we have five more months of Anglophobic abuse to come. This will be very significant, for both countries, should Scotland opt for divorce. The atmosphere will be poisonous.
Bad losers as ever , cannot accept that people just want to make their own decisions. However money as ever will ensure they are kept in their cages , when they realise they will be skint if they follow their natural nastiness it will ensure they shut up and get on with doing a deal.
Thankyou for so effortlessly proving my point. The English are "bad losers" with a "natural nastiness"?
It's stuff like this, and people like you, which will ensure any divorce, should it happen, will be cruelly unpleasant for both sides - but, given the disparity in wealth and power, it will likely be worse for the Scots.
We must pray that wiser counsel prevails, and the calm majority of non psychotic Scots vote NO.
You need to read your own posts now and again. You were the one pontificating about English anger , ex friends , make them pay etc. You do not ever hear that type of opinion coming from the YES campaign in Scotland. The view is always that we will remain friends , work closely together as now and both prosper. Do you spot the difference between my optimistic view and your psychopathic loser viewpoint. Mine full of hope and well being , yours full of hatred and wish for violence and revenge.
Salmond's jealousy of and loathing for London is on the record. Your man is a hatemonger.
"ALEX Salmond has attacked London as the “dark star of the economy, inexorably sucking in resources, people and energy”."
Did he describe New York as a dark star on his recent Manhattan jolly?
Danny Alexander has called on Scottish ministers to produce "realistic analysis" of the cost of independence.
It comes as the Treasury prepares to publish detailed findings on the financial impact of a "Yes" vote....
.....Treasury officials have also analysed the Scottish government's white paper and said they had "attempted to produce many of the calculations that were missing".
Yes, but it should be argued in the same way you would any other call for positive discrimination, whether it on the basis of sex, sexuality or income. Not in the rather brain-dead way Henwood did.
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
You are falling headlong into the establishment trap and your comments crystalise why the establishment parties are losing so much ground to UKIP and almost wholly confused as to why. Someone articulate, learned and well educated might well put it as you do. Most of our establishment being articuate, learned and well educated would agree.
Go to a pub, a building site or a white van and it would be put as Henwood put it and your way of putting it would go straight over their heads and either not be understood or dismissed as wordy woffle. Henwood's comments might be crude but in syntax terms they are to the point and easily understood.
There are rather more people in the in the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category than in the "articulate, learned and well educated" category and they are increasingly feeling that the "articulate, learned and well educated category" are conspiring against them for the benefit of the "articulate, learned and well educated category" and that (to bring the EU into it) the "articulate, learned and well educated category" prefer and have more in common with the "articulate, learned and well educated category" in other EU countries than with the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category in their own country.
I admit I am quite unusual having been in both categories (left comprehensive school, started work cleaning lavatories later went to college day release for four years, then university and am now a chartered professional), however it does enable me to see clearly what is happening here.
I'm on both categories as well, as I've said on here passim (privately and state educated, worked on building sites and as a techie). I'm not sure some of the people I've known in the past would quite like being described in the manner you do above.
It would make an interesting campaigning slogan: "Vote UKIP, because you're too thick to understand a simple argument."
Headlong into another establishment trap. What on earth makes you think that people who are "articuate, learned and well educated" are more intelligent than people who are not?
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
UKIPs message is only negative to those who disagree with it. For those of us who agree with it - particularly with regard to leaving the EU and reforging links with the rest of the World, with reforming the tax system and with improving education - it is an extremely positive message.
Come back to me when you can tell me whether UKIP's policy this week is to break all links with the EU, to join the EEA, to join EFTA or simply to moan that they don't like people who smell of garlic.
Ditto a coherent explanation of immigration. Irish immigrants, it seems we learn this week, are OK. But whether all immigration is to be stopped, immigrants who write their names in non-Latin alphabets are to be stopped, immigrants whose surname ends in a U are to be stopped or only those immigrants whose name is on a list handwritten by Nigel Farage remains wholly unclear.
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA. I happen to disagree with that but to try and pretend it is somehow a big secret is just another one of your nasty little Eurofanatic tricks. Of course their policy might make it harder for you to sit beside your swimming pool in your Hungarian holiday home but I am not sure we should consider that a great loss to the country.
So you disagree on their main policy and have no answer on their current main angle of attack. That's one hell of a positive vote.
To hide your embarrassment, you resort to ad hominem which is not only gratuitous but simply wrong-headed. I would have far more to fear from Hungary leaving the EU than Britain.
Nope I just answered your rather bigoted questions. That you don't like the answers says far more about you than I.
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
UKIPs message is only negative to those who disagree with it. For those of us who agree with it - particularly with regard to leaving the EU and reforging links with the rest of the World, with reforming the tax system and with improving education - it is an extremely positive message.
Come back to me when you can tell me whether UKIP's policy this week is to break all links with the EU, to join the EEA, to join EFTA or simply to moan that they don't like people who smell of garlic.
Ditto a coherent explanation of immigration. Irish immigrants, it seems we learn this week, are OK. But whether all immigration is to be stopped, immigrants who write their names in non-Latin alphabets are to be stopped, immigrants whose surname ends in a U are to be stopped or only those immigrants whose name is on a list handwritten by Nigel Farage remains wholly unclear.
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA. I happen to disagree with that but to try and pretend it is somehow a big secret is just another one of your nasty little Eurofanatic tricks. Of course their policy might make it harder for you to sit beside your swimming pool in your Hungarian holiday home but I am not sure we should consider that a great loss to the country.
So you disagree on their main policy and have no answer on their current main angle of attack. That's one hell of a positive vote.
To hide your embarrassment, you resort to ad hominem which is not only gratuitous but simply wrong-headed. I would have far more to fear from Hungary leaving the EU than Britain.
Nope I just answered your rather bigoted questions. That you don't like the answers says far more about you than I.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
(And before anyone gets on their high horse, last week I linked to an article where a local Conservative politician said something much less controversial and got suspended).
And yesterday I linked to an article where a Conservative councillor said something far more controversial and vile, received a police caution for it, and is still a Conservative councillor.
Whilst I wouldn't have expressed myself that way, I can see why someone would be pissed off by Lenny Henry's demand for ethnic quotas in the media.
Yes, but it should be argued in the same way you would any other call for positive discrimination, whether it on the basis of sex, sexuality or income. Not in the rather brain-dead way Henwood did.
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
It is easier to cry discrimination to try and get up the greasy pole than to work hard at it.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
"Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
Since we've already found out this morning that one of UKIP's most aggressive posters on pb disagrees with the detail of UKIP's main policy this week, the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
You are falling headlong into the establishment trap and your comments crystalise why the establishment parties are losing so much ground to UKIP and almost wholly confused as to why. Someone articulate, learned and well educated might well put it as you do. Most of our establishment being articuate, learned and well educated would agree.
Go to a pub, a building site or a white van and it would be put as Henwood put it and your way of putting it would go straight over their heads and either not be understood or dismissed as wordy woffle. Henwood's comments might be crude but in syntax terms they are to the point and easily understood.
There are rather more people in the in the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category than in the "articulate, learned and well educated" category and they are increasingly feeling that the "articulate, learned and well educated category" are conspiring against them for the benefit of the "articulate, learned and well educated category" and that (to bring the EU into it) the "articulate, learned and well educated category" prefer and have more in common with the "articulate, learned and well educated category" in other EU countries than with the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category in their own country.
I admit I am quite unusual having been in both categories (left comprehensive school, started work cleaning lavatories later went to college day release for four years, then university and am now a chartered professional), however it does enable me to see clearly what is happening here.
I'm on both categories as well, as I've said on here passim (privately and state educated, worked on building sites and as a techie). I'm not sure some of the people I've known in the past would quite like being described in the manner you do above.
It would make an interesting campaigning slogan: "Vote UKIP, because you're too thick to understand a simple argument."
Headlong into another establishment trap. What on earth makes you think that people who are "articuate, learned and well educated" are more intelligent than people who are not?
That's what you were implying.
And I'd never say that: in fact, I'm on the record as saying that learned people can be utterly daft: witness Tim-nice-but-Dim or the silly professor memes.
You said the simple argument I gave above 'would go over their heads." You're the one treating them with contempt.
Scotland vote Yes, Cam resigns, someone with more grit is put in his place, there is a tack to firmer "Conservative values" govt in the run up to GE2015, which speeds the return of the Kippers and emboldens and revitalises the Tory base.
Not sure BoJo is the guy but he might be. In any case it would be someone who has learnt to tone down the "conciliatory" approach.
Win-win for a large minority of Tories.
(Not including me but if I had to I could live with it.)
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Every party's political philosophy could be (falsely) simplified to sound stupid. Like left wing parties: everything is the fault of poverty, which is caused by rich people. If we simply take money off rich people then we will solve all our problems and everything will be great.
I believe this arguing tactic is called "debating a straw man".
I hope the spat between the UKIP candidate and Lenny Henry takes off. I reckon there's a deep well of people who would find Henry's demands stomach-churning. So, the more attention that's drawn to them the better as far as UKIP is concerned:
It's the number one most read story on the BBC website at the moment, so it appears that you have your wish.
Yes, all good. However, in the run up to election, I feel the BBC should give greater scrutiny to Henry's demands if their report is to be understood correctly. Simply reporting that Henry said 'there should be more BAME people in the creative industries' is underplaying it. Henry has called for quotas, ring-fenced money etc. And these weren't casual throw-away comments of the type that appear on twitter. They were made in a lecture to BAFTA, which was no doubt received with applause from the fawning luvvies who put Henry on the stage.
So let the debate rumble on and the truth will out eventually even if the BBC doesn't want to report it.
"Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
Since we've already found out this morning that one of UKIP's most aggressive posters on pb disagrees with the detail of UKIP's main policy this week, the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
A meaningless comment there Antifrank since I have always consistently said that I support UKIP only because of their anti-EU stance. Unlike you I am not a hypocrite about these things and am clear and honest where I disagree with UKIP. To try and hold me up as a typical example of their support is utterly stupid - and of course exactly what I would expect from you.
Was suspended and then reinstated as a Tory councillor.
Just three from a couple of minutes search. If any of them had been UKIP there would have been an outcry and claims that they are representative of the party as a whole.
Some of those are bad, yes. Particularly the "may as well legalise marriage with animals", who was suspended from the party immediately - I absolutely condemn that. But you can hardly say that those articles show that there was not an outcry and the oxygen of publicity.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Even I admit to being a little fascinated with Farage. The Gallic name, the German wife, the privileged youth spent on the playing fields of Dulwich, the City wideboy and political trougher who wanted to free the City from burdensome 'red tape' now turned into an authentic voice of the dispossessed, the angry and disillusioned.
The Islam remarks are merely clumsy: he is inarticulately expressing what many others have said, that modern Islam evinces some of the qualities of the far right - this is why intellectuals have coined the term "Islamofascism", which makes exactly the same point only in a nicer and more acceptable way, if you are a liberal who likes to police the way poor people talk.
The idea that it is illegitimate to criticise religions, even in the most strident terms, is a high road to tyranny. It was one of our greatest Prime Ministers, William Ewart Gladstone who wrote of Romanism that:
The Rome of the Middle Ages claimed universal monarchy. The modern Church of Rome has abandoned nothing, retracted nothing. Is that all ? Far from it... [The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance: a political expostulation, (London, 1874), p. 11]
I'm all for criticising religions, and especially the culture around religions, but comparing Islam to the Third Reich is more than a little off in my mind.
I see Plebgate continues to rumble on. I must confess that I'd feel more sympathy for this officer who says Mitchell has libelled him by saying he is a liar, were it not for the case that even if the PC is correct about that being untrue, it is categorically true that the PC was aware of the lies from colleagues that appeared in the press and played a major part in Mithell being forced out, and apparently didn't speak out about that because it took over a year before it was confirmed.
"Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
Since we've already found out this morning that one of UKIP's most aggressive posters on pb disagrees with the detail of UKIP's main policy this week, the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
One guy on a political forum, who has a preference for UKIP over the other parties but is by no means their core vote, disagrees with the details but agrees with the main thrust of the major party. Therefore the party is "an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message".
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
Was suspended and then reinstated as a Tory councillor.
Just three from a couple of minutes search. If any of them had been UKIP there would have been an outcry and claims that they are representative of the party as a whole.
Was suspended and then reinstated as a Tory councillor.
Just three from a couple of minutes search. If any of them had been UKIP there would have been an outcry and claims that they are representative of the party as a whole.
Some of those are bad, yes. Particularly the "may as well legalise marriage with animals", who was suspended from the party immediately - I absolutely condemn that. But you can hardly say that those articles show that there was not an outcry and the oxygen of publicity.
You miss the point JJ.
In all those cases, whatever the initial outcry and temporary suspension, the Tory party waited for things to calm down and then allowed them to carry on as elected Tory representatives. As I said at the start, that is what this is about, not what idiotic things people say but how their party then deals with it. UKIP sack them and yet you use it as a stick to beat the party. The Tories do not and yet you try and excuse the party.
"Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
Since we've already found out this morning that one of UKIP's most aggressive posters on pb disagrees with the detail of UKIP's main policy this week, the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
Oh dear! Richard_Tyndall has always disagreed with some parts of UKIP policy, but he, like me agree that the Lab/Lib/Con parties have run this country into a cul de sac, which those parties and our so called professional elite have no idea how to get out of. Or, it seems, even wanting to.
It's quite obvious that you, for one, will follow Cammo and Co to perdition and beyond.
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides.
It certainly seems possible. Even those who are not exactly vocal supporters of the Union may well add their calls that rUK not give an inch in the negotiations, and anyone promising that will be the case will be quite popular initially at least; I am certain in the aftermath of the successful Yes vote I will be inclined to think along the same lines. We can only hope that the bureaucrats organising the technical details, and those directing them, keep a clear enough head that neither sides shoots itself in the foot through hot headed hurt/glory following the vote.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
I wonder how many businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day from locations outside the EU creating wealth by the bucket load? Given that we have a balance of trade surplus with the rest of the world and a large deficit with the EU I know which group I would be more concerned about upsetting.
The idea that ending uncontrolled immigration from the EU is going to mean these people cannot do business here is just fanciful and frankly infantile.
Even I admit to being a little fascinated with Farage. The Gallic name, the German wife, the privileged youth spent on the playing fields of Dulwich, the City wideboy and political trougher who wanted to free the City from burdensome 'red tape' now turned into an authentic voice of the dispossessed, the angry and disillusioned.
Where will Mr Farage head next?
What sort of surname do you need to be born with to be allowed to speak credibly for the disadvantaged? I often argue for improving the well-being of those on lower incomes, and need to check I'm not speaking beyond my last name.
the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
What are UKIP's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
May I rephrase just a little bit?
What are Labour's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
Sunday mornings are usually a good time on this site and this week has proved no exception. The massed ranks of PBers from all shades of opinion decrying UKIP whilst at the same time trying to push the message that UKIP is just a protest movement has been a joy to behold.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Scotland vote Yes, Cam resigns, someone with more grit is put in his place
1) The polling says Cameron shouldn't resign 2) The polling says Cameron is more popular than the alternatives.....
Events, dear Carlotta, events.
I agree with the polling. But then Scotland hasn't voted YES now. Should it, then I am in the "really should resign" camp as I have mentioned many times and then, in several ways, an obstacle to "true Toryism" is overcome.
Of course I think it is misguided and have many times expressed my frustration both at the moronic back-bench Tory rebels and at those frustrated with the Cons being in a coalition.
But that is probably too nuanced a view for those who blame Cam for not winning an OM in the first place.
@SeanT - "But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides.
It's tragic."
It is Alex Salmond whose name will written into the history books as the man who lead Scotland to independence and cast off the yoke of English tyranny, - I don't think he is much concerned with what comes after.
For sure. Salmond doesn't give a hoot. I'm just pointing out a mood that is now noticeable in England - already - and we have five more months of Anglophobic abuse to come. This will be very significant, for both countries, should Scotland opt for divorce. The atmosphere will be poisonous.
Bad losers as ever , cannot accept that people just want to make their own decisions. However money as ever will ensure they are kept in their cages , when they realise they will be skint if they follow their natural nastiness it will ensure they shut up and get on with doing a deal.
Thankyou for so effortlessly proving my point. The English are "bad losers" with a "natural nastiness"?
It's stuff like this, and people like you, which will ensure any divorce, should it happen, will be cruelly unpleasant for both sides - but, given the disparity in wealth and power, it will likely be worse for the Scots.
We must pray that wiser counsel prevails, and the calm majority of non psychotic Scots vote NO.
You need to read your own posts now and again. You were the one pontificating about English anger , ex friends , make them pay etc. You do not ever hear that type of opinion coming from the YES campaign in Scotland. The view is always that we will remain friends , work closely together as now and both prosper. Do you spot the difference between my optimistic view and your psychopathic loser viewpoint. Mine full of hope and well being , yours full of hatred and wish for violence and revenge.
Salmond's jealousy of and loathing for London is on the record. Your man is a hatemonger.
"ALEX Salmond has attacked London as the “dark star of the economy, inexorably sucking in resources, people and energy”."
Did he describe New York as a dark star on his recent Manhattan jolly?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
I imagine it's exactly the same as what applies to current non-EU visitors to the UK.
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
What are UKIP's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
The massed ranks of PBers from all shades of opinion decrying UKIP whilst at the same time trying to push the message that UKIP is just a protest movement has been a joy to behold.
And the rotters are quoting polling data now too!
Serious Party: 20%, Protest Party: 57% (lowest apart from UKIP is Con on 65% Protest Party))
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU. And since we will be able to have better control on the numbers of people entering the country I would anticipate that those currently traveling from outside the EU to do business may well find it easier as we won't have the sorts of stupid gimmicks that Cameron has been forced to resort to with limiting numbers of legitimate RoW visitors to make up for his utter inability to do anything about EU migration.
Scotland vote Yes, Cam resigns, someone with more grit is put in his place
1) The polling says Cameron shouldn't resign 2) The polling says Cameron is more popular than the alternatives.....
Of course I think it is misguided and have many times expressed my frustration both at the moronic back-bench Tory rebels and at those frustrated with the Cons being in a coalition.
Just as well the Tory party 'only ever panics in a crisis' eh.......
Yes, but it should be argued in the same way you would any other call for positive discrimination, whether it on the basis of sex, sexuality or income. Not in the rather brain-dead way Henwood did.
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
I admit I am quite unusual having been in both categories (left comprehensive school, started work cleaning lavatories later went to college day release for four years, then university and am now a chartered professional), however it does enable me to see clearly what is happening here.
I'm on both categories as well, as I've said on here passim (privately and state educated, worked on building sites and as a techie). I'm not sure some of the people I've known in the past would quite like being described in the manner you do above.
It would make an interesting campaigning slogan: "Vote UKIP, because you're too thick to understand a simple argument."
Headlong into another establishment trap. What on earth makes you think that people who are "articuate, learned and well educated" are more intelligent than people who are not?
That is down to him thinking he is real smart and anybody he counts less educated/smart than him is inferior. Typical smarmy Tory view, do not do as I do do as I say, I know best.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Ah, the Let's Do The Show Right Here school of policy-making.
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Ah, the Let's Do The Show Right Here school of policy-making.
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
As opposed to the clear, detailed policy guidance from the current Prime Minister of how his renegotiation policy would look?
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Every party's political philosophy could be (falsely) simplified to sound stupid. Like left wing parties: everything is the fault of poverty, which is caused by rich people. If we simply take money off rich people then we will solve all our problems and everything will be great.
I believe this arguing tactic is called "debating a straw man".
Just as the right wing parties think that if they rob the poor and give it all to a few rich people and tell them it is their own fault , immigrant's , big boys that ran away , they think everything will be great.
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Every party's political philosophy could be (falsely) simplified to sound stupid. Like left wing parties: everything is the fault of poverty, which is caused by rich people. If we simply take money off rich people then we will solve all our problems and everything will be great.
I believe this arguing tactic is called "debating a straw man".
Just as the right wing parties think that if they rob the poor and give it all to a few rich people and tell them it is their own fault , immigrant's , big boys that ran away , they think everything will be great.
"Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
Since we've already found out this morning that one of UKIP's most aggressive posters on pb disagrees with the detail of UKIP's main policy this week, the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
A meaningless comment there Antifrank since I have always consistently said that I support UKIP only because of their anti-EU stance. Unlike you I am not a hypocrite about these things and am clear and honest where I disagree with UKIP. To try and hold me up as a typical example of their support is utterly stupid - and of course exactly what I would expect from you.
Richard, you know you have them on the run on here when they have to start sneering at you.
the likelihood that UKIP will attract a positive vote is remote.
What are UKIP's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
The massed ranks of PBers from all shades of opinion decrying UKIP whilst at the same time trying to push the message that UKIP is just a protest movement has been a joy to behold.
And the rotters are quoting polling data now too!
Serious Party: 20%, Protest Party: 57% (lowest apart from UKIP is Con on 65% Protest Party))
Absolutely, Ms. Vance, so if UKIP is just a protest party why all the excitement and demands for detailed policies and so forth. Why if Farage is just a figurehead for a protest movement does it matter what school he went to? We have actually had posts on here this morning saying how the media should attack UKIP. If its just a protest movement then it will be a flash in the pan, so why all the fuss? Could it be fear?
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Ah, the Let's Do The Show Right Here school of policy-making.
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
So how exactly do you suggest controlling immigration whilst remaining within the EU? Oh sorry I forgot, you don't care as long as you can sit by your Hungarian swimming pool and have your cheap Eastern European labour in London.
Point of order OGH, Patrick Mercer is an independent MP, not a Conservative MP. He resigned the party whip. That may or may not make a marginal difference to any by election.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU.
But that varies enormously from:
-No Visa, to -Electronic Visa Waiver, to -Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'hasn't been thought through'?
I'm all for criticising religions, and especially the culture around religions, but comparing Islam to the Third Reich is more than a little off in my mind.
So is a magisterial work like Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957) 'a little off' because it demonstrated the origins of the temporal eschatologies and ideologies of both National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism in the chiliastic sects of medieval Europe? There are plenty of legitimate comparisons to be made concerning the ideologies of National Socialism and those of several religions. In any event, should members of the public really be forced to use strictly accurate historical comparisons in political speech? Cameron and Miliband rarely do so, but of course their inaccuracy serves a good cause so no doubt is excusable. Perhaps Petrarch was right when he claimed that 'it is better to will the good than to know the truth'...
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU.
But that varies enormously from:
-No Visa, to -Electronic Visa Waiver, to -Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'isn't been thought through'?
While we're discussing arrangements different to the status quo, would you be able to tell me what powers could be repatriated under your party's proposals? That seems to be a slightly bigger issue than whether visa waivers are electronic or not.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Ah, the Let's Do The Show Right Here school of policy-making.
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
As opposed to the clear, detailed policy guidance from the current Prime Minister of how his renegotiation policy would look?
Worth reading Today's YOUGov on that.....in a nutshell, people say 'yes they will vote for a Cammo renegotiation'.....but 'they don't think he's going to renegotiate enough'......voters, eh?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU.
But that varies enormously from:
-No Visa, to -Electronic Visa Waiver, to -Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'isn't been thought through'?
Are you saying that our current entry conditions haven't been thought through?
I'm working on a little theory that UKIP will poll a little under half it's Euro score at the GE, double the turnout with no ral reason for protest that haven't already lodged a protest at the 'dead' Euros. If UKIP come home as I expect in first with about 28%, they are in for a double figure GE result, maybe 11-12% on the cusp of a seat or two.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU.
But that varies enormously from:
-No Visa, to -Electronic Visa Waiver, to -Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'isn't been thought through'?
Nope. You should file it under 'varies depending on circumstance'. Just like every other party.
Or are you suggesting the Tory party are wrong to have so many different ways of dealing with visitors from other countries?
Of course the one you miss out from your list is 'no control whatsoever and who knows who is here' which is the current Tory policy when it comes to EU migration.
You also miss out 'randomly restrict visitors from particular countries for no good reason except to appear to be doing something because we can't control EU migration' which is another Tory classic.
Point of order OGH, Patrick Mercer is an independent MP, not a Conservative MP. He resigned the party whip. That may or may not make a marginal difference to any by election.
True but I believe that if there were a by-election it would still count as a Tory defence.
But you didn't answer my second question about immigration, presumably because you don't know - and you're supposed to be one of UKIP's intellectuals. And you made it clear that you actually disagree with this week's version of UKIP's policy (I expect it will change again before the next election, possibly more than once).
You didn't ask a question. You made a wrongheaded and garbled comment that was pretty incomprehensible and utterly unrepresentative of anything Farage or UKIP have said.
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
In words that even UKIP voters can understand:
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration. Until that happens arguing about what the criteria would be is pretty pointless since we have no control at all.
Ah, the Let's Do The Show Right Here school of policy-making.
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
So how exactly do you suggest controlling immigration whilst remaining within the EU? Oh sorry I forgot, you don't care as long as you can sit by your Hungarian swimming pool and have your cheap Eastern European labour in London.
I'm a firm fan of immigration. It has huge benefits for Britain.
It's an oddity that Kippers are obsessed by EU immigration, yet there are roughly as many Ghanaians in Britain as Romanians. This is something that Britain could control much more strictly right now, but doesn't. Why not? Because immigration is a really good thing. Those of us that are not xenophobes realise that the lump of labour fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
What's UKIP's policy for non-EU migration? They can formulate one of those right now. Indeed, if immigration is their supporters' number one concern, you'd think it would be vital. Better get smoking, Nigel.
You seem very concerned about my Hungarian swimming pool. You seem to think that it adds to the point that you're trying to make. The only point it makes to me is that it illustrates that you're a bit of a tit if you think that ad hominem enhances your argument.
Worth reading Today's YOUGov on that.....in a nutshell, people say 'yes they will vote for a Cammo renegotiation'.....but 'they don't think he's going to renegotiate enough'......voters, eh?
So David Cameron's policy guidance has been farmed out to those who answer YouGov polls? It sounds like he should let us know what the visa requirements should be:
David Cameron has made it clear that prior to any referendum vote he wants to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU. Sky's survey makes it clear what voters want.
Top of the list, mentioned by 65% of respondents, was a desire to see control over immigration between EU countries returned to the UK. Greater control over employment law was mentioned by another 40%.
@SeanT - But what happens after a YES, when the Scots need to negotiate with England and get a good deal? The English will be in no mood to accommodate their ex friends in the north. Quite the opposite. A very hard bargain will be driven. Storing up decades of acrimony on both sides. It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
Every party's political philosophy could be (falsely) simplified to sound stupid. Like left wing parties: everything is the fault of poverty, which is caused by rich people. If we simply take money off rich people then we will solve all our problems and everything will be great.
I believe this arguing tactic is called "debating a straw man".
Just as the right wing parties think that if they rob the poor and give it all to a few rich people and tell them it is their own fault , immigrant's , big boys that ran away , they think everything will be great.
I think you are unwittingly endorsing my point.
If that is that all 3 unionist parties are lying toadies and line their own nests whilst lying through their teeth , then yes. The Scottish National Party ( note not nationalist ) can hardly blame themselves to date given that Westminster have all the power. Anyone could rightly claim that it would not be hard to do a better job than the current effete politicians that run the UK. Hence the terror on here re Farage who does not need policies given that most people know he could not have worse ones.
Initially by leaving the EU so we can actually have some control over immigration.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
It's amazing that New York and Singapore manage to be major international business hubs, with all those foreign businessmen refusing to go there because they're not in the EU.
Its got nowt to do with 'the EU' and everything to do with 'immigration policy' - I need a visa to travel to the US (done online) and get an entry permit when I arrive in Singapore.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
For those from inside the current EU I suspect that post Brexit it will be exactly the same as for those who currently visit from outside of the EU.
But that varies enormously from:
-No Visa, to -Electronic Visa Waiver, to -Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'isn't been thought through'?
Are you saying that our current entry conditions haven't been thought through?
No, they have, based on historical connections and assumed risk.
The 'hasn't been though through' is that simply positing 'it'll be the same as for current non-EU visitors' isn't much of a policy....
No visas for the Belgians, full Visas for the Dutch, and electronic waivers for the Danes?
I'm all for criticising religions, and especially the culture around religions, but comparing Islam to the Third Reich is more than a little off in my mind.
So is a magisterial work like Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957) 'a little off' because it demonstrated the origins of the temporal eschatologies and ideologies of both National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism in the chiliastic sects of medieval Europe? There are plenty of legitimate comparisons to be made concerning the ideologies of National Socialism and several religions. In any event, should members of the public really be forced to use strictly accurate historical comparisons in political speech? Cameron and Miliband rarely do so, but of course their inaccuracy serves a good cause so no doubt is excusable. Perhaps Petrarch was right when he claimed that 'it is better to will the good than to know the truth'...
I've never read the book. But the tweeter was not attempting to make a scholarly or magisterial work.
Islam reminds me of the 3rd Reich Strength through violence against the citizens."
Point of order OGH, Patrick Mercer is an independent MP, not a Conservative MP. He resigned the party whip. That may or may not make a marginal difference to any by election.
True but I believe that if there were a by-election it would still count as a Tory defence.
Yes, agreed. If he goes in disgrace, the fact he had already left the Tories might be enough for them to cling on.
Worth reading Today's YOUGov on that.....in a nutshell, people say 'yes they will vote for a Cammo renegotiation'.....but 'they don't think he's going to renegotiate enough'......voters, eh?
So David Cameron's policy guidance has been farmed out to those who answer YouGov polls?
No, that voters, like you, believe Cameron will probably not achieve what they want in a renegotiation - but will vote for it anyway.
I'm a firm fan of immigration. It has huge benefits for Britain.
It's an oddity that Kippers are obsessed by EU immigration, yet are roughly as many Ghanaians in Britain as Romanians. This is something that Britain could control much more strictly right now, but doesn't. Why not? Because immigration is a really good thing. Those of us that are not xenophobes realise that the lump of labour fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
What's UKIP's policy for non-EU migration? They can formulate one of those right now. Indeed, if immigration is their supporters' number one concern, you'd think it would be vital. Better get smoking, Nigel.
You seem very concerned about my Hungarian swimming pool. You seem to think that it adds to the point that you're trying to make. The only point it makes to me is that it illustrates that you're a bit of a tit if you think that ad hominem enhances your argument.
No I just like to point out what a hypocrite you are.
UKIPs policy for non EU and EU migration is the same. Control. There is no objection to managed migration and the reason they don't harp on about the number of Ghanaians here is because we have a control over that number and as a country are clearly comfortable with that. The same cannot be said for migration from EU countries over which we have no control.
A level playing field for all migration would be an excellent place to start. We could then use that to target those areas of our economy that would benefit and also to support those migrants who are have valid reasons for coming to Britain.
Cars are a wonderful thing and benefit our economy. We would not be without them. But a car with no brakes or ability to steer is no good to anyone.
You want all cars to have an accelerator but no brakes or steering.... or at least you want that for EU cars whilst the cars from everywhere else have proper controls.
Worth reading Today's YOUGov on that.....in a nutshell, people say 'yes they will vote for a Cammo renegotiation'.....but 'they don't think he's going to renegotiate enough'......voters, eh?
So David Cameron's policy guidance has been farmed out to those who answer YouGov polls? It sounds like he should let us know what the visa requirements should be:
David Cameron has made it clear that prior to any referendum vote he wants to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU. Sky's survey makes it clear what voters want.
Top of the list, mentioned by 65% of respondents, was a desire to see control over immigration between EU countries returned to the UK. Greater control over employment law was mentioned by another 40%.
And therein lies Cameron's problem. The one over-riding thing that people apparently want him to renegotiate is one of the most basic things he can do absolutely nothing about as it is a fundamental principle of the EU.
Worth reading Today's YOUGov on that.....in a nutshell, people say 'yes they will vote for a Cammo renegotiation'.....but 'they don't think he's going to renegotiate enough'......voters, eh?
So David Cameron's policy guidance has been farmed out to those who answer YouGov polls?
No, that voters, like you, believe Cameron will probably not achieve what they want in a renegotiation - but will vote for it anyway.
I feel your pain......
If the public is given enough time to properly digest the renegotiations, with all the pluses and minuses to come out after Cameron's initial fanfare, then I am confident they will vote to leave the EU. If there's a rushed vote based on a short term bounce on opinion polls then it's more marginal, but there will certainly be buyer's remorse down the line.
Now, without skirting around the question any more, please can you tell me what renegotiations do you think are likely from David Cameron? You seem to be a stickler for detail, so what will the changes be to:
- Freedom of movement - The Common Agricultural Policy - The ability to negotiate our own trade deals?
Here is an example of our ethical , honest government. This is what is fuelling UKIP.
pic.twitter.com/YlWzVI3B2M
Very naughty, Mr. G., but very funny and so true. Thanks for sharing.
Hurst, the Lib Dems do seem to be very easily led into dropping their principles and stating that when they said black previously they actually meant white. Hard to see how anyone could vote for them nowadays as you have no clue when they will do an 180 degree turn if it gets them cash/power. No principles is a major crime in my book.
Comments
Well said, and as a token gesture of solidarity with my fellow Brightonians (sp?) I shall raid the fridge for a pack of streaky toot sweet.
@Paul_Mid_Beds. – no probs young man, - sausage fingers on a Sunday morning is to be expected ; )
It would make an interesting campaigning slogan:
"Vote UKIP, because you're too thick to understand a simple argument."
It does worry me though that the southerners are seemingly being fed nonsense by the media. I was talking to a friend yesterday who has impeccable socialist-democratic roots (Co-op movement, mining area, etc.) and he was commenting how his sister, now an émigré in the Home Counties, had had great difficulty understanding that indy was not an ethnic nationalist movement but one for independent self-determination.
To hide your embarrassment, you resort to ad hominem which is not only gratuitous but simply wrong-headed. I would have far more to fear from Hungary leaving the EU than Britain.
I don't see the advantage for Scotland or the UK in separation.
Do you spot the difference between my optimistic view and your psychopathic loser viewpoint. Mine full of hope and well being , yours full of hatred and wish for violence and revenge.
If the contest is held in the summer I could see the Tories holding on to it with a muted swing to Labour/UKIP. The feelgood factor will help them hold on.
Political parties have policies on a wide range of issues and many people do not agree with the party they vote for on EVERY single issue. Imagine there was not a political party that you agreed with on everything - look at the list of issues below, would you only ever vote for a party you agreed with on that issue, or would you vote for a party that you disagreed with on that issue if you agreed with them on other, more important, issues?
UKIP Voters net: (OA)
Immigration: +72 (+20)
NHS: +46 (+42)
Europe: +42 (+6)
Pensions: +38 (+14)
Welfare: +32 (+20)
Economy: +27 (+35)
Taxes: +19 (+18)
Education: +10 (+13)
UKIP supporters are more worried about Immigration (orders of magnitude more than anyone else) and the NHS than Europe (also orders of magnitude more than anyone else) - which is closely matched by 'pensions' as a concern. They're not fussed much by either taxes or education.
Overall, voter's priorities are the NHS (Lab +60) and the Economy (Con +59) with Welfare, taxes and immigration distant joint thirds....
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/home/diversify/lenny-henry-bbc-must-ring-fence-funds-for-bame-shows/5068716.article
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/12/tory-councillor-suspended-gay-marriage-tweet
Still a Tory councillor
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/03/14/bristol-pride-blasts-mayor-appointment-councillor-made-anti-gay-jibe-ian-mckellen/
Still a Tory councillor and earlier this year their nomination for Lord Mayor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8595606.stm
Was suspended and then reinstated as a Tory councillor.
Just three from a couple of minutes search. If any of them had been UKIP there would have been an outcry and claims that they are representative of the party as a whole.
"ALEX Salmond has attacked London as the “dark star of the economy, inexorably sucking in resources, people and energy”."
Did he describe New York as a dark star on his recent Manhattan jolly?
I think this counts as 'correcting your homework'..........
It's tragic.
It's nationalism. You see it with UKIP, you see it with the SNP, you see it with countless other nationalist parties across the world: "Things are crap and it's someone else's fault. If only we could get rid of them, everything would be great."
If only Scotland hadn't been in the Union.......
Come back when you have a more coherent idea of you actually want to say and I will try and answer the question as simply as possible to you can understand it.
How Do UKIP Propose That Immigration Should Be Managed?
Criticisms like this are surely much more effective than calling someone's opinions Vile.
Farage should be challenged far more on the kind of place England would become if he ever came to power.
And I'd never say that: in fact, I'm on the record as saying that learned people can be utterly daft: witness Tim-nice-but-Dim or the silly professor memes.
You said the simple argument I gave above 'would go over their heads." You're the one treating them with contempt.
Not sure BoJo is the guy but he might be. In any case it would be someone who has learnt to tone down the "conciliatory" approach.
Win-win for a large minority of Tories.
(Not including me but if I had to I could live with it.)
I believe this arguing tactic is called "debating a straw man".
So let the debate rumble on and the truth will out eventually even if the BBC doesn't want to report it.
What are UKIP's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
2) The polling says Cameron is more popular than the alternatives.....
Where will Mr Farage head next?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/predicting-hamilton-rosberg-tussle.html
I'm all for criticising religions, and especially the culture around religions, but comparing Islam to the Third Reich is more than a little off in my mind.
You have to love the logic on here sometimes.
I wonder how many foreign businessmen fly in and out of Britain every day, creating wealth by the bucket load, that wouldn;t be able to under a UKIP government.
Wait three months for a visa? b8llocks to that I'll place my order in Belgium..
In all those cases, whatever the initial outcry and temporary suspension, the Tory party waited for things to calm down and then allowed them to carry on as elected Tory representatives. As I said at the start, that is what this is about, not what idiotic things people say but how their party then deals with it. UKIP sack them and yet you use it as a stick to beat the party. The Tories do not and yet you try and excuse the party.
It's quite obvious that you, for one, will follow Cammo and Co to perdition and beyond.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27176527
Meanwhile:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:news.bbc.co.uk+brexit+prize&oq=site:news.bbc.co.uk+brexit+prize&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.8201j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The idea that ending uncontrolled immigration from the EU is going to mean these people cannot do business here is just fanciful and frankly infantile.
GE VI Scotland
Rare SNP crossover: SNP 36; LAB 29
GE VI
LD 2010 Split: Cons:12; LAB:34; LD:32; UKIP:10; GREEN:9
EURO VI
2010 Voters Split:
CONS: Con:46; UKIP 46
LAB: Lab:69; UKIP:17; GREEN:6
LD: Con:6; Lab:21; LD:29; UKIP: 24; GREEN:17
What are Labour's economic policies? Social policies? Justice? Law and order? Energy? Role of the state? Welfare?
I haven't the foggiest and I thought I was interested in politics.
Sunday mornings are usually a good time on this site and this week has proved no exception. The massed ranks of PBers from all shades of opinion decrying UKIP whilst at the same time trying to push the message that UKIP is just a protest movement has been a joy to behold.
Do we know what UKIP's policy on 'visitors' is?
Can't recall whether he wanted controls on cash leaving the country though!
I agree with the polling. But then Scotland hasn't voted YES now. Should it, then I am in the "really should resign" camp as I have mentioned many times and then, in several ways, an obstacle to "true Toryism" is overcome.
Of course I think it is misguided and have many times expressed my frustration both at the moronic back-bench Tory rebels and at those frustrated with the Cons being in a coalition.
But that is probably too nuanced a view for those who blame Cam for not winning an OM in the first place.
cuckoo cuckoo alert
Serious Party: 20%,
Protest Party: 57% (lowest apart from UKIP is Con on 65% Protest Party))
It's just as well that Nigel Farage is a smoker, because he's going to need those fag packets for sketching out policy.
-No Visa, to
-Electronic Visa Waiver, to
-Visa
Depending on the country.......
Should we file this under 'hasn't been thought through'?
If UKIP come home as I expect in first with about 28%, they are in for a double figure GE result, maybe 11-12% on the cusp of a seat or two.
Or are you suggesting the Tory party are wrong to have so many different ways of dealing with visitors from other countries?
Of course the one you miss out from your list is 'no control whatsoever and who knows who is here' which is the current Tory policy when it comes to EU migration.
You also miss out 'randomly restrict visitors from particular countries for no good reason except to appear to be doing something because we can't control EU migration' which is another Tory classic.
It's an oddity that Kippers are obsessed by EU immigration, yet there are roughly as many Ghanaians in Britain as Romanians. This is something that Britain could control much more strictly right now, but doesn't. Why not? Because immigration is a really good thing. Those of us that are not xenophobes realise that the lump of labour fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
What's UKIP's policy for non-EU migration? They can formulate one of those right now. Indeed, if immigration is their supporters' number one concern, you'd think it would be vital. Better get smoking, Nigel.
You seem very concerned about my Hungarian swimming pool. You seem to think that it adds to the point that you're trying to make. The only point it makes to me is that it illustrates that you're a bit of a tit if you think that ad hominem enhances your argument.
David Cameron has made it clear that prior to any referendum vote he wants to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU. Sky's survey makes it clear what voters want.
Top of the list, mentioned by 65% of respondents, was a desire to see control over immigration between EU countries returned to the UK. Greater control over employment law was mentioned by another 40%.
http://news.sky.com/story/1099378/eu-immigration-tops-list-of-uk-concerns
Anyone could rightly claim that it would not be hard to do a better job than the current effete politicians that run the UK. Hence the terror on here re Farage who does not need policies given that most people know he could not have worse ones.
The 'hasn't been though through' is that simply positing 'it'll be the same as for current non-EU visitors' isn't much of a policy....
No visas for the Belgians, full Visas for the Dutch, and electronic waivers for the Danes?
pic.twitter.com/YlWzVI3B2M”
"I'm a firm fan of immigration"
Of course you are, possibly because you are wealthy enough to be unaffected by any of the downsides.
I feel your pain......
https://www.gov.uk/business-visitor-visa
UKIPs policy for non EU and EU migration is the same. Control. There is no objection to managed migration and the reason they don't harp on about the number of Ghanaians here is because we have a control over that number and as a country are clearly comfortable with that. The same cannot be said for migration from EU countries over which we have no control.
A level playing field for all migration would be an excellent place to start. We could then use that to target those areas of our economy that would benefit and also to support those migrants who are have valid reasons for coming to Britain.
Cars are a wonderful thing and benefit our economy. We would not be without them. But a car with no brakes or ability to steer is no good to anyone.
You want all cars to have an accelerator but no brakes or steering.... or at least you want that for EU cars whilst the cars from everywhere else have proper controls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27156775
Had to cross check the date.
Now, without skirting around the question any more, please can you tell me what renegotiations do you think are likely from David Cameron? You seem to be a stickler for detail, so what will the changes be to:
- Freedom of movement
- The Common Agricultural Policy
- The ability to negotiate our own trade deals?
If you work through the application tree (business, 6 months or less):
USA: No visa
UAE: Visa