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.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
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."
Gladstone, who did of course die before the advent of Nazi totalitarianism, argued with force that "Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith... no one can become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another' (op. cit., p. 6). The comparison to the Third Reich may be ill judged, historically inaccurate and offensive, as most historical analogies used by politicians are. The liberty to condemn religions, however, must be preserved, especially if it is the policy of a given religion, or sects thereof, to suppress by force of arms the criticism of its superstitions.
Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
I'm surprised a person as bright as you is struggling with this. It is not that Ghanaians, as an aggregate group, are better than Romanians. It is just that the Ghanaians that are on the edge of the points criteria are better than Romanians that would score very poorly on the same basis. Is that this difficult?
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.
Thats a good theory. but not as good as: 1. UKIP will fade and disappear down to 2/3% after the EU election. 2. UKIP is only a protest movement that is sure to fade. 3. UKIP is a racist and fascist party and will be found out and implode.
There are others on similar themes. All of them are wrong.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
“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…!
Labour wants to change the devolution settlement to allow the Scottish parliament to increase the top rates of tax. Miliband is adamant Labour won’t sign off on any devolution deal that would encourage Scotland to undercut the rest of the UK.
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.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Richard had answered you, re Ghanaians, before you even put the question. It's obvious that you don't know how to read comments correctly.
Pubs open in 20 minutes. So I am off (takes me that long to walk up the hill these days). My thanks to all for an enjoyable discussion this morning.
One final thought on immigration and travel. Before 1973 it was perfectly possible to travel within Europe for business or pleasure and even to go and live in another European country.
Labour wants to change the devolution settlement to allow the Scottish parliament to increase the top rates of tax. Miliband is adamant Labour won’t sign off on any devolution deal that would encourage Scotland to undercut the rest of the UK.
It is just bollocks and gives Scotland nothing. You will note he does not want to give powers to reduce the top rates of tax. So happy to give away a meaningless power that would disadvantage the country but not one that could benefit it. Surprise surprise , responsibility without power the great Labour plan
“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…!
I believe it was in schools only
Council canteens:
Then there was its manifesto pledge for ‘Meat-free Mondays’, which would have banned bacon rolls and beef pies from council-run staff canteens. It led to complaints from manual workers and the proposal was ditched.
Pubs open in 20 minutes. So I am off (takes me that long to walk up the hill these days). My thanks to all for an enjoyable discussion this morning.
One final thought on immigration and travel. Before 1973 it was perfectly possible to travel within Europe for business or pleasure and even to go and live in another European country.
Ever thought of getting one of those electric motorised bikes?
Having a look through comparable countries, I would imagine the vast majority of EU countries would not need a business visa, with a question mark of the Balkans (Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria).
Labour wants to change the devolution settlement to allow the Scottish parliament to increase the top rates of tax. Miliband is adamant Labour won’t sign off on any devolution deal that would encourage Scotland to undercut the rest of the UK.
How does that square with 'devomax'?
Labour still proves itself incapable of resolving the dilemma that dogged the party in the 1960s and 1970s. How is the principle of national economic planning compatible with devolution? The Bevanite position, of course, was that socialism was incompatible with devolution, and that nationalism was a species of chauvinism. As George Thomas argued, devolution was no more, and no less than 'sheer treason'. It is the legacy of these divisions which lead Miliband to the absurd position of contemplating the conferral on the Scottish Parliament of the power to raise, but not to reduce the additional rate of income tax.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
Interesting. You pretend to read my mind to understand why I hold the views that I do.
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
Interesting. You pretend to read my mind to understand why I hold the views that I do.
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
But there you go.
Try answering the points Antifrank. Or of course accept that you have utterly lost the argument.
Anyone who thinks that Lenny Henry is not English is - obviously - not very bright: Anyone questioning his bigotry should be allowed to speak.
Look at the Census and you will find that the media is awash with BAME faces: Only recently have we seen the surge of Southern Asians on Al-Beeb. If we could have a few more East-Asians (can you clone Moriko Oy?) then ethnicity will be rebalanced.
Sadly this will not happen: Ethnics === 'blacks'. Mr Henry is not the brightest it seems....
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.
If rules are causing problems in many countries there is no reason why they cannot be changed. Political pressure in countries could ensure that change can be made.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
Interesting. You pretend to read my mind to understand why I hold the views that I do.
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
But there you go.
Try answering the points Antifrank. Or of course accept that you have utterly lost the argument.
I am not holding my breath in either case.
Do we have agreement that you are not going to try mind-reading any further? Because you're rubbish at it and it only demeans you. If so, then I will come back to what you please to call your argument.
What will happen to those Brits who want to emigrate to EU countries? Retirees to Spain, Portugal etc. Presumably for a start their Health Insurance costs will rise considerably. Then, will they be able to get there as easily as they can now?
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA.
Is it? I thought that paper was exploring options, albeit much less competently than the Brexit winner, but, if you are right, why on earth is Farage still trying to have his cake and eat it by citing Norway and Switzerland as models?
Or has the policy been reversed since the Clegg/Farage debate?
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
Interesting. You pretend to read my mind to understand why I hold the views that I do.
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
But there you go.
Try answering the points Antifrank. Or of course accept that you have utterly lost the argument.
I am not holding my breath in either case.
Do we have agreement that you are not going to try mind-reading any further? Because you're rubbish at it and it only demeans you. If so, then I will come back to what you please to call your argument.
I am of course not 'mind reading'. Simply drawing attention to your uncritical Eurofanaticism and postulating some reasonable explanations for it. Since you do the same for various politicians you disagree with on a regular basis I assume you accept it as a valid debating tool. If you do not then feel free to disagree. It won't change my extremely low opinion of you.
@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?
The terminology may be infelicitous, but he doese have an argument that the UK is heavily weighted towards London. This reflects our small size and our unitary history.
A fair comparable would be complaining that Albany suffers because of the presence of New York City. They are closer in size than the UK and the USA.
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.
If rules are causing problems in many countries there is no reason why they cannot be changed. Political pressure in countries could ensure that change can be made.
Freedom of movement is one of the founding principles of the EU. I see absolutely no way that will ever change.
“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…!
I believe it was in schools only
Council canteens:
Then there was its manifesto pledge for ‘Meat-free Mondays’, which would have banned bacon rolls and beef pies from council-run staff canteens. It led to complaints from manual workers and the proposal was ditched.
Schools, they would have had a case.....
Cheers for clearing that up – I find even contemplating the enforced vegetarianism on working adults (for one day of the week admittedly) chilling and demonstrates the mind boggling level of meddling in people’s lives to which the Greens would stoop.
Since you can't identify for me UKIP's policy on non-EU migration. Why are Ghanaians more welcome than Romanians? Why are they less harmful to the country?
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
Neither is more welcome than the other. We control one and not the other, That is the basic point. Once we can control Romanian or any other EU immigration in the same way we control that from other countries then we will be able to treat everyone equally.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
Interesting. You pretend to read my mind to understand why I hold the views that I do.
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
But there you go.
Try answering the points Antifrank. Or of course accept that you have utterly lost the argument.
I am not holding my breath in either case.
Do we have agreement that you are not going to try mind-reading any further? Because you're rubbish at it and it only demeans you. If so, then I will come back to what you please to call your argument.
I am of course not 'mind reading'. Simply drawing attention to your uncritical Eurofanaticism and postulating some reasonable explanations for it. Since you do the same for various politicians you disagree with on a regular basis I assume you accept it as a valid debating tool. If you do not then feel free to disagree. It won't change my extremely low opinion of you.
Since we've now established that you're a hypocrite and a man too small to apologise when he has been unable to make good his smear, I think we can leave the conversation at this point.
Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and I expect the same is true in reverse.
@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."
SO, an unusually crap post from you.
In what way?
SNP - Westminster is holding Scotland back. Let's get rid of Westminster and everything will be much better.
UKIP - The EU is holding the UK back. Let's get rid of the EU and everything will be much better.
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
Since we've now established that you're a hypocrite and a man too small to apologise when he has been unable to make good his smear, I think we can leave the conversation at this point.
Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and I expect the same is true in reverse.
There was no smear. All the points are stated were true and valid. You are a hypocrite and all I have done this morning is used exactly the same tactics on you as you use on others. If you don't like it then tough. Perhaps you should try arguing from points of fact rather than your own small minded bigotries.
Freedom of movement is one of the founding principles of the EU. I see absolutely no way that will ever change.
On that you are right. There will be no change in that aspect in the renegotiation, except probably a tightening up of the rules on benefits payments (where Cameron will get lots of support from Germany and some other countries).
Equally, though, it is cloud-cuckoo land to think that, if we leave the EU, a trade deal with the EU can be agreed without agreeing substantially the same freedom of movement. That is one of the massive holes in UKIP's immigration position (the other is that people are actually much more worried about historic non-EU immigration, which has already happened, and where even Labour finally got round, at the end of the 13 years, to putting in place a sensible points-based system).
Since we've now established that you're a hypocrite and a man too small to apologise when he has been unable to make good his smear, I think we can leave the conversation at this point.
Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and I expect the same is true in reverse.
There was no smear. All the points are stated were true and valid. You are a hypocrite and all I have done this morning is used exactly the same tactics on you as you use on others. If you don't like it then tough. Perhaps you should try arguing from points of fact rather than your own small minded bigotries.
You described me as a hypocrite. Your evidence for doing so was your unsubstantiated inference of my thought process.
You do so again with no evidence. Repeated assertions do not make something true.
I'm off to do something more useful with my time. You could do too, by getting yourself a new moral compass.
@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."
SO, an unusually crap post from you.
In what way?
SNP - Westminster is holding Scotland back. Let's get rid of Westminster and everything will be much better.
UKIP - The EU is holding the UK back. Let's get rid of the EU and everything will be much better.
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
Nope. It is not a case of saying 'everything will be better'. In both instances it is a case of saying that at present we (be it Scotland within the UK or the UK within the EU) do not have the powers to try and make it better since they are held by someone else.
There are no promises that all will be well just because of independence, simply a recognition that lack of control over ones own affairs makes it far more difficult to even try to improve anything.
@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."
SO, an unusually crap post from you.
[snip]
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
As Gordon Brown once said (repeatedly in fact) it all started in America...!
Since we've now established that you're a hypocrite and a man too small to apologise when he has been unable to make good his smear, I think we can leave the conversation at this point.
Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and I expect the same is true in reverse.
Auntie: You are embarrassing yourself. Take a day off son....
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.
Thats a good theory. but not as good as: 1. UKIP will fade and disappear down to 2/3% after the EU election. 2. UKIP is only a protest movement that is sure to fade. 3. UKIP is a racist and fascist party and will be found out and implode.
There are others on similar themes. All of them are wrong.
UKIP will fade away when the reason for their rise fades away. That reason being parliament being unable to tack policy towards public opinion because it has tied its hands by voluntarily submitting itself to a higher authority.
It dosen't actually need the UK to leave the EU to change this, just for the UK to pass laws which contradict EU directives, declare that UK law takes primacy over EU/ECJ or ECHR law therefore any rulings or compensation awards for the UK breaking such EU laws are null and void and challenge the EU to do anything about it (they will huff and puff and eventually come to a settlement because they can't afford for the UK to leave)
UKIPs current policy as articulated in their recent paper is to leave the EU and not to join EFTA or the EEA.
Is it? I thought that paper was exploring options, albeit much less competently than the Brexit winner, but, if you are right, why on earth is Farage still trying to have his cake and eat it by citing Norway and Switzerland as models?
Or has the policy been reversed since the Clegg/Farage debate?
As I said to Robert at the time I thought the paper was very poor. But on the section on the EEA it did highlight the problems (as the authors saw them) with membership and the conclusion I drew was that the overall recommendation was not to be a member. Bear in mind Switzerland is not a member of the EEA.
As I said to Robert at the time I thought the paper was very poor. But on the section on the EEA it did highlight the problems (as the authors saw them) with membership and the conclusion I drew was that the overall recommendation was not to be a member. Bear in mind Switzerland is not a member of the EEA.
So are you saying that you don't actually know whether UKIP's policy is to remain in the EEA and/or in EFTA? (I don't know the answer to that - it's a question I've been asking for five years and I've never got a coherent answer).
FWIW my own view would be that leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA would be the worst of all worlds.
@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."
SO, an unusually crap post from you.
In what way?
SNP - Westminster is holding Scotland back. Let's get rid of Westminster and everything will be much better.
UKIP - The EU is holding the UK back. Let's get rid of the EU and everything will be much better.
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
Nope. It is not a case of saying 'everything will be better'. In both instances it is a case of saying that at present we (be it Scotland within the UK or the UK within the EU) do not have the powers to try and make it better since they are held by someone else.
There are no promises that all will be well just because of independence, simply a recognition that lack of control over ones own affairs makes it far more difficult to even try to improve anything.
Not sure I agree with that. The SNP state clearly that Scotland will be more successful, wealthier and more egalitarian once free of Westminster.
UKIP focuses very strongly on issues such as immigration holding down the wages of British workers. There is at least a suggestion in doing so that if there were less immigration wages would increase, isn't there?
What will happen to those Brits who want to emigrate to EU countries? Retirees to Spain, Portugal etc. Presumably for a start their Health Insurance costs will rise considerably. Then, will they be able to get there as easily as they can now?
Given the demographics there must be quite a few UKIP supporters clustered in non-UK regions already. Farage should try putting up a candidate for the Euros in Andalusia.
Freedom of movement is one of the founding principles of the EU. I see absolutely no way that will ever change.
On that you are right. There will be no change in that aspect in the renegotiation, except probably a tightening up of the rules on benefits payments (where Cameron will get lots of support from Germany and some other countries).
Equally, though, it is cloud-cuckoo land to think that, if we leave the EU, a trade deal with the EU can be agreed without agreeing substantially the same freedom of movement. That is one of the massive holes in UKIP's immigration position (the other is that people are actually much more worried about historic non-EU immigration, which has already happened, and where even Labour finally got round, at the end of the 13 years, to putting in place a sensible points-based system).
Both Mexico and South Korea have agree free trade agreements with the EU without freedom of movement, and one with Canada is in the works (if the EU ever bothers to get round to finalising it).
What evidence do you have that people are much more worried about historic non-EU immigration?
As for it having "already happened", non-EU immigration is still happening at a quarter million a year.
As I said to Robert at the time I thought the paper was very poor. But on the section on the EEA it did highlight the problems (as the authors saw them) with membership and the conclusion I drew was that the overall recommendation was not to be a member. Bear in mind Switzerland is not a member of the EEA.
So are you saying that you don't actually know whether UKIP's policy is to remain in the EEA and/or in EFTA? (I don't know the answer to that - it's a question I've been asking for five years and I've never got a coherent answer).
FWIW my own view would be that leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA would be the worst of all worlds.
My reading from their recent policy document is that they are moving in the direction of no membership of any of them.
Personally I am on the other side from you on that one. I think membership of the EFTA (and probably the EEA) would be a very good position to be in. The costs are greatly reduced, the exposure to EU meddling is much reduced and many of the areas we consider to be most important and contentious including fisheries and agricultural policy, legal policy and the social chapter would not be applicable.
What will happen to those Brits who want to emigrate to EU countries? Retirees to Spain, Portugal etc. Presumably for a start their Health Insurance costs will rise considerably. Then, will they be able to get there as easily as they can now?
Given the demographics there must be quite a few UKIP supporters clustered in non-UK regions already. Farage should try putting up a candidate for the Euros in Andalusia.
"...assuming you could maintain your standard of living".
A ridiculous assumption that would not hold in the vast majority of cases.
@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."
SO, an unusually crap post from you.
In what way?
SNP - Westminster is holding Scotland back. Let's get rid of Westminster and everything will be much better.
UKIP - The EU is holding the UK back. Let's get rid of the EU and everything will be much better.
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
SO, you miss the point completely. Independence is so that Scotland can make its own decisions, Westminster making decisions for London can never be to the benefit of Scotland. So your point is ludicrous. If came to you and asked you to give me all your money and to let me decide how it was to be spent , do you believe that would be better for you. It is particularly bad that despite how Scotland votes we do not get the government we voted for , that is not democracy it is a dictatorship.
Good tweet from Janan Ganesh: Ukip is only dodgy in the way all populists end up being dodgy. Save the moral panic for those Conservatives who actually admire this shower
“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…!
I believe it was in schools only
Council canteens:
Then there was its manifesto pledge for ‘Meat-free Mondays’, which would have banned bacon rolls and beef pies from council-run staff canteens. It led to complaints from manual workers and the proposal was ditched.
Schools, they would have had a case.....
It's a bit silly, but within their remit to order whatever food they want for their staff canteens
As I said to Robert at the time I thought the paper was very poor. But on the section on the EEA it did highlight the problems (as the authors saw them) with membership and the conclusion I drew was that the overall recommendation was not to be a member. Bear in mind Switzerland is not a member of the EEA.
So are you saying that you don't actually know whether UKIP's policy is to remain in the EEA and/or in EFTA? (I don't know the answer to that - it's a question I've been asking for five years and I've never got a coherent answer).
FWIW my own view would be that leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA would be the worst of all worlds.
You've repeatedly linked a video of Farage saying they would use the EEA as a holding position to negotiate our own deal.
"The UKIP answer is this: there is absolutely nothing to fear from leaving the European Union, because on D+1 we would find ourselves part of the European Economic Area and with a free trade deal. And we should use our membership of the EEA as a holding position, from which we can negotiate, as the European Union's biggest export market in the world, as good a deal - my goodness me, if Switzerland can have one, we can have an even better one."
There is nothing as blind as a man who will not see.
What will happen to those Brits who want to emigrate to EU countries? Retirees to Spain, Portugal etc. Presumably for a start their Health Insurance costs will rise considerably. Then, will they be able to get there as easily as they can now?
Given the demographics there must be quite a few UKIP supporters clustered in non-UK regions already. Farage should try putting up a candidate for the Euros in Andalusia.
I think that there are UKIP candidates in Gibraltar.
What will happen to those Brits who want to emigrate to EU countries? Retirees to Spain, Portugal etc. Presumably for a start their Health Insurance costs will rise considerably. Then, will they be able to get there as easily as they can now?
Given the demographics there must be quite a few UKIP supporters clustered in non-UK regions already. Farage should try putting up a candidate for the Euros in Andalusia.
"...assuming you could maintain your standard of living".
A ridiculous assumption that would not hold in the vast majority of cases.
The article suggest that many people believed their standard of living would be better if they moved to a different EU country. (I.e not UK)
That particularly applies, according to some acquaintances, to those who move to Bulgaria, and certainly applies to a relative who has moved to Italy.
Comments
Or is it, far more likely, just that Mr Farage has spotted a bandwagon to jump on?
And I ask you politely either to make good your accusation that I'm a hypocrite or to apologise.
I won't hold my breath for either.
1. UKIP will fade and disappear down to 2/3% after the EU election.
2. UKIP is only a protest movement that is sure to fade.
3. UKIP is a racist and fascist party and will be found out and implode.
There are others on similar themes. All of them are wrong.
You seem to think we should be able to control migration from non EU countries but should not do so from EU countries. Teensy bit of bigotry slipping in there perhaps? What do you have against Ghanaians that they should be controlled whilst Romanians are not?
Oh and you are a hypocrite because you pretend there is some great public interest reason for your Eurofanaticism when in fact it is just because it makes it easier for you to sit by your Hungarian pool and moan about Ghanaians.
I believe it was in schools only
Labour wants to change the devolution settlement to allow the Scottish parliament to increase the top rates of tax. Miliband is adamant Labour won’t sign off on any devolution deal that would encourage Scotland to undercut the rest of the UK.
How does that square with 'devomax'?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2614162/James-Forsyth-If-Ed-Miliband-save-Union-save-himself.html#ixzz3058ZNd3C
One final thought on immigration and travel. Before 1973 it was perfectly possible to travel within Europe for business or pleasure and even to go and live in another European country.
Then there was its manifesto pledge for ‘Meat-free Mondays’, which would have banned bacon rolls and beef pies from council-run staff canteens. It led to complaints from manual workers and the proposal was ditched.
Schools, they would have had a case.....
Having a look through comparable countries, I would imagine the vast majority of EU countries would not need a business visa, with a question mark of the Balkans (Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria).
It seems we have different definitions of hypocrisy. I'd define a hypocrite as someone who has regularly complained about utterly irrelevant personal information about himself being used against him to attempt to discredit an argument who then tries to do just that to someone else.
But there you go.
I am not holding my breath in either case.
Look at the Census and you will find that the media is awash with BAME faces: Only recently have we seen the surge of Southern Asians on Al-Beeb. If we could have a few more East-Asians (can you clone Moriko Oy?) then ethnicity will be rebalanced.
Sadly this will not happen: Ethnics === 'blacks'. Mr Henry is not the brightest it seems....
:ability-trumps-pantones:
Or has the policy been reversed since the Clegg/Farage debate?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614158/STOP-Its-not-late-nonsensical-HS2-train-One-harshest-critics-50bn-rail-link-delivers-plea-fellow-MPs.html
A fair comparable would be complaining that Albany suffers because of the presence of New York City. They are closer in size than the UK and the USA.
Your opinion of me is of no interest to me, and I expect the same is true in reverse.
SNP - Westminster is holding Scotland back. Let's get rid of Westminster and everything will be much better.
UKIP - The EU is holding the UK back. Let's get rid of the EU and everything will be much better.
Nationalism is negative and is all about blaming some "foreign" force for things being bad. If that "foreign" force is removed, things will improve.
Equally, though, it is cloud-cuckoo land to think that, if we leave the EU, a trade deal with the EU can be agreed without agreeing substantially the same freedom of movement. That is one of the massive holes in UKIP's immigration position (the other is that people are actually much more worried about historic non-EU immigration, which has already happened, and where even Labour finally got round, at the end of the 13 years, to putting in place a sensible points-based system).
You do so again with no evidence. Repeated assertions do not make something true.
I'm off to do something more useful with my time. You could do too, by getting yourself a new moral compass.
There are no promises that all will be well just because of independence, simply a recognition that lack of control over ones own affairs makes it far more difficult to even try to improve anything.
It dosen't actually need the UK to leave the EU to change this, just for the UK to pass laws which contradict EU directives, declare that UK law takes primacy over EU/ECJ or ECHR law therefore any rulings or compensation awards for the UK breaking such EU laws are null and void and challenge the EU to do anything about it (they will huff and puff and eventually come to a settlement because they can't afford for the UK to leave)
FWIW my own view would be that leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA would be the worst of all worlds.
UKIP focuses very strongly on issues such as immigration holding down the wages of British workers. There is at least a suggestion in doing so that if there were less immigration wages would increase, isn't there?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-european-are-the-british/#.U1zncclUtTc
Given the demographics there must be quite a few UKIP supporters clustered in non-UK regions already. Farage should try putting up a candidate for the Euros in Andalusia.
What evidence do you have that people are much more worried about historic non-EU immigration?
As for it having "already happened", non-EU immigration is still happening at a quarter million a year.
Personally I am on the other side from you on that one. I think membership of the EFTA (and probably the EEA) would be a very good position to be in. The costs are greatly reduced, the exposure to EU meddling is much reduced and many of the areas we consider to be most important and contentious including fisheries and agricultural policy, legal policy and the social chapter would not be applicable.
A ridiculous assumption that would not hold in the vast majority of cases.
of Scotland. So your point is ludicrous. If came to you and asked you to give me all your money and to let me decide how it was to be spent , do you believe that would be better for you. It is particularly bad that despite how Scotland votes we do not get the government we voted for , that is not democracy it is a dictatorship.
"The UKIP answer is this: there is absolutely nothing to fear from leaving the European Union, because on D+1 we would find ourselves part of the European Economic Area and with a free trade deal. And we should use our membership of the EEA as a holding position, from which we can negotiate, as the European Union's biggest export market in the world, as good a deal - my goodness me, if Switzerland can have one, we can have an even better one."
There is nothing as blind as a man who will not see.
That particularly applies, according to some acquaintances, to those who move to Bulgaria, and certainly applies to a relative who has moved to Italy.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4
Nigel Farage is a phoney. Scrutinise him and he'll crumble | Me in this morning's Observer
Marco Giannangeli @marcogiann
Tories launch most scathing attack on Ukip to date. COMMENT by Grant Shapps: Vote Tory if you want EU reform http://shr.gs/OlpeQOa
Mariella Frostrup ✔ @mariellaf1
@LouiseMensch I'd like world peace and Christmas every Sunday-both as likely as "reformed,professional, non-racist UKIP"!
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch
.@craigawoodhouse exposes some devastating side by side UKIP-BNP posters in his @TheSunNewpaper piece today