"Let's face it, slashing immigration is very much a first step for UKIP. After that, pressure would be ratcheted up to make certain immigrant communities you disapprove of smaller."
That's a remarkable leap. It is based on what exactly?
Perhaps a higher proportion than that. After all, according to Yougov, something like 46% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 will vote UKIP on May 22nd.
"Let's face it, slashing immigration is very much a first step for UKIP. After that, pressure would be ratcheted up to make certain immigrant communities you disapprove of smaller."
That's a remarkable leap. It is based on what exactly?
So, are you arguing that the hidden agenda of anyone who objects to mass immigration is actually mass deportation?
Absolutely not. Isam said he wasn;t happy with the status quo in Britain. That must mean he'd like some people who are already here to leave, because as a UKIP supporter he certainly doesn;t want more coming in.
Suppose there is a referendum and the British people vote to leave the EU, what will UKIP do when it turns out Westminster government is just as - or even more crap - than Brussels?
Not sure why UKIP should be expected to answer that question. If the Westminster government is not to the electorate's liking then the electorate can kick them out. It is quite an old system and one that worked pretty well for many years.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
I just think they need some probing questions, like what should happen to the 400,000 French people who live in London or the 200,000 english people who live in France, should a large proportion of these return home?
I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think that UKIP are proposing forced transfers of population between the UK and France.
Are they proposing forced transfers of Polish people or other eastern Europeans?
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
I am critical of what has been allowed to happen, and I am not happy with the status quo, but I don't think it is fair to force people who have legally come here to leave.
Well if you aren;t happy with the status quo, and you don;t intend to force people to leave, then how on earth do you intend to achieve your aims?
Let's face it, slashing immigration is very much a first step for UKIP. After that, pressure would be ratcheted up to make certain immigrant communities you disapprove of smaller.
Are you actually criticising me for not wanting to send immigrants back to their original country?
How bizarre
You're just projecting your own views on UKIP without any evidence at all to back it up
So, are you arguing that the hidden agenda of anyone who objects to mass immigration is actually mass deportation?
Absolutely not. Isam said he wasn;t happy with the status quo in Britain. That must mean he'd like some people who are already here to leave, because as a UKIP supporter he certainly doesn;t want more coming in.
Why don't you just say what you think rather than guessing at what I do
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
I just think they need some probing questions, like what should happen to the 400,000 French people who live in London or the 200,000 english people who live in France, should a large proportion of these return home?
I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think that UKIP are proposing forced transfers of population between the UK and France.
Are they proposing forced transfers of Polish people or other eastern Europeans?
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
Mr. Star, I presume you are aware that it was possible for British people to go and live in other countries and for foreigners to come and live here prior to 1973. We have expats all over the world and there is no right of free movement governing most of the countries they live in. The French colony in London may be much bigger than it was but its existence owed nothing to, and long pre-dates, our entry into the EEC. Similarly the Polish communities in London and Horsham in Sussex.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
UKIP are gaining votes on the back of being perceived as anti establishment
With every establishment attack the VI rises
Sun's political editor attacks UKIP MEP that is standing against his Dad...
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
I just think they need some probing questions, like what should happen to the 400,000 French people who live in London or the 200,000 english people who live in France, should a large proportion of these return home?
I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think that UKIP are proposing forced transfers of population between the UK and France.
Are they proposing forced transfers of Polish people or other eastern Europeans?
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
If we left the EU, then the same immigration controls that apply to non-EU nationals would apply to EU nationals.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Found it, excerpt from that poll
Ukip is not a rightwing extremist party, but on the doorsteps of voters it is often pushing the same message as the extreme right, and this is reflected in our results. Almost half of the Ukip affiliates in our survey ranked either immigration or Muslims in Britain as the most important issues facing Britain today. Over half (51%) rejected the suggestion that Britain has benefited from diversity.
Almost two-fifths (37%) backed the idea of repatriating immigrants back to their country of origin, and irrespective of whether they had broken the law. Over three-fifths (64%) would feel "bothered a lot" by the presence of an Islamic institution in their community, which is over twice the national average (31%). And 85% of them disagreed with the suggestion that Islam does not pose a danger to the west, while the equivalent figure among the BNP group was only three points higher.
Oh, Richard. You know I did pay attention when you lectured the site about how to conduct a negotiation, and why Cameron wouldn't set out his red lines before starting a negotiation with his European partners.
The Lib Dems now know what is really, really important to Cameron. I know they didn't cover themselves in glory during the last Coalition negotiations, but everyone is capable of learning from past mistakes. They know what Cameron really wants now. Do you have such a low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minster to think that he won't extract a price for it?
And if the Lib Dems are lucky the electoral arithmetic won't rule out a coalition with Labour. How much leverage does Cameron have in that situation?
He has no leverage in that situation, unless the LibDems are keen to play ball with him; it would be up to them.
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
"Let's face it, slashing immigration is very much a first step for UKIP. After that, pressure would be ratcheted up to make certain immigrant communities you disapprove of smaller."
That's a remarkable leap. It is based on what exactly?
Well one Kipper is in favour of that.
Mr. Eagles, I expect one could find a Labour supporter in favour too, and a Conservative and Lib Dem and a MRLP nad for that matter a member of the CPGB. So what? Mr. Taffys is trying to suggest that a wish to control who comes in means a wish to forcibly deport. That is clearly a nonsense. Furthermore, Farage has already said he sees it beyond the pale to retrospectively change anyone's immigration status (see up thread).
It's interesting to think that just as some of us wonder what Shakespeare actually sounded like, in the future, because of Sean Connery, people will ashoom that a Shcottish acshent shounded like thish.
The (Scottish) Good Lady Wife's favourite Conneryism is from some trash medieval thing where he spouts the philosophy on amour that "A man cannot love in schlisssshesssh..."
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Any views on this case from the Conservative frothers ?
Boris was using it to put the boot into the fop. I don't suppose the Cameroons are too bothered though, nor is Clegg and his ostrich faction come to that.
Of course the most hilarious thing about the Cameroon faux outrage over the kipper immigration posters was that Crosby would have done the same kind of thing for the tories if there was no kipper threat. He did the same type of dog whistling for Michael Howard after all.
Probably been mentioned before (but too lazy to scroll all the way through comments), but the binary choice is probably more attractive to the punters.
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
If Scotland votes YES - will UKIP want me repatriated ?
That rather depends on where the mortal remains of ‘The ghost of Harry Flashman’ are interned. To the best of my knowledge, UKIP have now policies regarding exhumation.
If we left the EU, then the same immigration controls that apply to non-EU nationals would apply to EU nationals.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
That's a bit of a bold assumption.
Are you seriously suggesting that there would be no special treatment for EU citizens under the agreement which would be negotiated for access to the Single Market?
Furthermore, there would be the issue of the EU nationals already here. The Brexit prizewinner suggested they would all be given indefinite leave to remain (as would British citizens resident in other EU countries), which seems commonsense to me.
In other words, the UKIP fantasy that we can simply undo EU immigration is just that: fantasy. In the real world, probably little would change.
Any views on this case from the Conservative frothers ?
Dunno about Conservative 'fothers' (are there any?), but sensible Conservatives, like sensible people from any other party, can see the difference between deporting immigrants who have been given the right to stay here and deporting those who haven't.
Oh, Richard. You know I did pay attention when you lectured the site about how to conduct a negotiation, and why Cameron wouldn't set out his red lines before starting a negotiation with his European partners.
The Lib Dems now know what is really, really important to Cameron. I know they didn't cover themselves in glory during the last Coalition negotiations, but everyone is capable of learning from past mistakes. They know what Cameron really wants now. Do you have such a low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minster to think that he won't extract a price for it?
And if the Lib Dems are lucky the electoral arithmetic won't rule out a coalition with Labour. How much leverage does Cameron have in that situation?
He has no leverage in that situation, unless the LibDems are keen to play ball with him; it would be up to them.
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
So he'd have to concede, for the sake of argument, STV?
Oh, Richard. You know I did pay attention when you lectured the site about how to conduct a negotiation, and why Cameron wouldn't set out his red lines before starting a negotiation with his European partners.
The Lib Dems now know what is really, really important to Cameron. I know they didn't cover themselves in glory during the last Coalition negotiations, but everyone is capable of learning from past mistakes. They know what Cameron really wants now. Do you have such a low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minster to think that he won't extract a price for it?
And if the Lib Dems are lucky the electoral arithmetic won't rule out a coalition with Labour. How much leverage does Cameron have in that situation?
He has no leverage in that situation, unless the LibDems are keen to play ball with him; it would be up to them.
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
So he'd have to concede, for the sake of argument, STV?
Don't you get it? Cammie doesn't have any choice in the matter. He would have to ask the leader of the conservative part...oh right!
So he'd have to concede, for the sake of argument, STV?
He wouldn't 'have' to concede anything. As with any other negotiation, it would depend on what he was prepared to concede, the relative strength of the two positions, and what other options the respective parties had.
As I have repeatedly said, I don't believe that the outcome will necessarily be a stable government at all. It is perfectly possible, indeed quite likely projecting forward from current polling, that there will be no viable government after 2015.
Any views on this case from the Conservative frothers ?
Dunno about Conservative 'fothers' (are there any?), but sensible Conservatives, like sensible people from any other party, can see the difference between deporting immigrants who have been given the right to stay here and deporting those who haven't.
So being a sensible Conservative you would have no objection to a UK government informing certain immigrants that they no longer have a right to stay here and asking them to leave ?
So being a sensible Conservative you would have no objection to a UK government informing certain immigrants that they no longer have a right to stay here and asking them to leave ?
Yes I would have a very strong objection, of course, to any arbitrary change of that sort.
If Scotland votes YES - will UKIP want me repatriated ?
That rather depends on where the mortal remains of ‘The ghost of Harry Flashman’ are interned. To the best of my knowledge, UKIP have now policies regarding exhumation.
Perhaps I could dye my hair blonde - look more Aryan ?
"It's interesting to think that just as some of us wonder what Shakespeare actually sounded like ..."
When I was at school there was an argument raging about how the Romans actually spoke Latin and therefore how we should. The "modernists" insisted, for example that "V" should be pronounced as "W" and that a "C" should always be a hard "K" sound, thus "Veni, vidi, vici" would be "Weni, widi, wiki" and "Caesar" should be "Kaesar". Whilst the "traditionalists" held out that the new pronunciation made the language ugly and, anyway, nobody then important in law or medicine, where Latin was still widely used, would understand a word of it. I gave up studying the subject at the first opportunity and have felt much better since but I do sometimes wonder how the debate panned out.
On Topic - I'd say there is a about three times as much business on the Euro elections over the indyref at Ladbrokes at the moment.
Although it has surprised me just how much money we've taken on the referendum already. Based on current levels, it looks like we might end up taking more money on that than we did on the whole of the last General Election. It's attracted a huge amount of punters who never normally bet on politics, whereas the Euros mostly appeals to the more politically savvy.
If Scotland votes YES - will UKIP want me repatriated ?
That rather depends on where the mortal remains of ‘The ghost of Harry Flashman’ are interned. To the best of my knowledge, UKIP have now policies regarding exhumation.
Perhaps I could dye my hair blonde - look more Aryan ?
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Found it, excerpt from that poll
Ukip is not a rightwing extremist party, but on the doorsteps of voters it is often pushing the same message as the extreme right, and this is reflected in our results. Almost half of the Ukip affiliates in our survey ranked either immigration or Muslims in Britain as the most important issues facing Britain today. Over half (51%) rejected the suggestion that Britain has benefited from diversity.
Almost two-fifths (37%) backed the idea of repatriating immigrants back to their country of origin, and irrespective of whether they had broken the law. Over three-fifths (64%) would feel "bothered a lot" by the presence of an Islamic institution in their community, which is over twice the national average (31%). And 85% of them disagreed with the suggestion that Islam does not pose a danger to the west, while the equivalent figure among the BNP group was only three points higher.
If we left the EU, then the same immigration controls that apply to non-EU nationals would apply to EU nationals.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
Furthermore, there would be the issue of the EU nationals already here. The Brexit prizewinner suggested they would all be given indefinite leave to remain (as would British citizens resident in other EU countries), which seems commonsense to me.
In other words, the UKIP fantasy that we can simply undo EU immigration is just that: fantasy. In the real world, probably little would change.
I think it would all depend on how long those nationals had been there. It surely wouldn't include any that had moved to the UK between the date of the referendum outcome and formal exit. I believe UKIP's position is seven years of residence, which seems a bit unfairly long, but maybe about three would be sensible. Of course, those that have been here for less that the time requirement could apply under other categories.
I don't think there is a UKIP belief that we can undo historic EU immigration. Just a belief that we should stop making the situation worse.
And, for the record, several countries have free trade with the EU without having freedom of movement.
On Topic - I'd say there is a about three times as much business on the Euro elections over the indyref at Ladbrokes at the moment.
Although it has surprised me just how much money we've taken on the referendum already. Based on current levels, it looks like we might end up taking more money on that than we did on the whole of the last General Election. It's attracted a huge amount of punters who never normally bet on politics, whereas the Euros mostly appeals to the more politically savvy.
Hi Shadsy
Maybe you could let Mike know how much you are prepared to take from me on markets before he suggests that UKIP supporters don't put their money where their mouth is?
"In other words, the UKIP fantasy that we can simply undo EU immigration is just that: fantasy. In the real world, probably little would change."
I don't see that all, Mr. N.. Most countries in the world run border controls I see no reason why the UK should not do so as well. We did it before, we can do it again. At the base level it only means changing the signs at Passport control.
Suppose there is a referendum and the British people vote to leave the EU, what will UKIP do when it turns out Westminster government is just as - or even more crap - than Brussels?
Vote the bastards out, as you can do in most democratic systems, but can't do in the case of the EU...
I don't see that all, Mr. N.. Most countries in the world run border controls I see no reason why the UK should not do so as well. We did it before, we can do it again. At the base level it only means changing the signs at Passport control.
Of course we could do so, specifying that EU citizens had no special rights of movement here and working here.
And of course, as Mr Farage says, we could negotiate a deal with the EU giving us access to the Single Market, in order to ensure that there would not be a big economic hit.
Oh, Richard. You know I did pay attention when you lectured the site about how to conduct a negotiation, and why Cameron wouldn't set out his red lines before starting a negotiation with his European partners.
The Lib Dems now know what is really, really important to Cameron. I know they didn't cover themselves in glory during the last Coalition negotiations, but everyone is capable of learning from past mistakes. They know what Cameron really wants now. Do you have such a low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minster to think that he won't extract a price for it?
And if the Lib Dems are lucky the electoral arithmetic won't rule out a coalition with Labour. How much leverage does Cameron have in that situation?
He has no leverage in that situation, unless the LibDems are keen to play ball with him; it would be up to them.
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
So he'd have to concede, for the sake of argument, STV?
Given how badly FPTP works for the Tories that might be one concession that Dave and the Tories would be willing to give. Something that would unite the right wing would help them form future governments broadly based on right wing policies and holding onto No. 10. While AV was sub par, STV and full PR with a 5% threshold like Germany would be adequate solutions.
On Topic - I'd say there is a about three times as much business on the Euro elections over the indyref at Ladbrokes at the moment.
Although it has surprised me just how much money we've taken on the referendum already. Based on current levels, it looks like we might end up taking more money on that than we did on the whole of the last General Election. It's attracted a huge amount of punters who never normally bet on politics, whereas the Euros mostly appeals to the more politically savvy.
Hi Shadsy
Maybe you could let Mike know how much you are prepared to take from me on markets before he suggests that UKIP supporters don't put their money where their mouth is?
If you're planning on making up the difference then you can definitely buy the drinks at the PB meetup
Oh, Richard. You know I did pay attention when you lectured the site about how to conduct a negotiation, and why Cameron wouldn't set out his red lines before starting a negotiation with his European partners.
The Lib Dems now know what is really, really important to Cameron. I know they didn't cover themselves in glory during the last Coalition negotiations, but everyone is capable of learning from past mistakes. They know what Cameron really wants now. Do you have such a low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minster to think that he won't extract a price for it?
And if the Lib Dems are lucky the electoral arithmetic won't rule out a coalition with Labour. How much leverage does Cameron have in that situation?
He has no leverage in that situation, unless the LibDems are keen to play ball with him; it would be up to them.
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
So he'd have to concede, for the sake of argument, STV?
Given how badly FPTP works for the Tories that might be one concession that Dave and the Tories would be willing to give. Something that would unite the right wing would help them form future governments broadly based on right wing policies and holding onto No. 10. While AV was sub par, STV and full PR with a 5% threshold like Germany would be adequate solutions.
The obvious conference is an elected Lords. Positive opinion polling, the Conservative party has at least mixed feelings on it etc.
"It's interesting to think that just as some of us wonder what Shakespeare actually sounded like ..."
When I was at school there was an argument raging about how the Romans actually spoke Latin and therefore how we should. The "modernists" insisted, for example that "V" should be pronounced as "W" and that a "C" should always be a hard "K" sound, thus "Veni, vidi, vici" would be "Weni, widi, wiki" and "Caesar" should be "Kaesar". Whilst the "traditionalists" held out that the new pronunciation made the language ugly and, anyway, nobody then important in law or medicine, where Latin was still widely used, would understand a word of it. I gave up studying the subject at the first opportunity and have felt much better since but I do sometimes wonder how the debate panned out.
Eventually the debate about how Latin was pronounced panned out as Italian, I suppose.
Regarding my previous post. I made an error. The UK's contribution increased due to the budget, but not by ten billion. That was an unrelated development. For some reason I can't edit my post.
"In other words, the UKIP fantasy that we can simply undo EU immigration is just that: fantasy. In the real world, probably little would change."
I don't see that all, Mr. N.. Most countries in the world run border controls I see no reason why the UK should not do so as well. We did it before, we can do it again. At the base level it only means changing the signs at Passport control.
In fact, we have a recent historical example. Between 1962 and 1971, successive governments passed legislation that ended the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to settle in the UK. This was achieved relatively smoothly, and without the need for mass deportations.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
- The UK’s gross contribution is likely to fall (as a share of UK GNI) but the net contribution could still increase as more money will be channelled towards the new EU member states – such spending isn’t covered by the UK rebate.
Regarding my previous post. I made an error. The UK's contribution increased due to the budget, but not by ten billion. That was an unrelated development. For some reason I can't edit my post.
You get 6 minutes from posting during which you can edit a post. Once those 6 minutes are up the post is locked forever....
On Topic - I'd say there is a about three times as much business on the Euro elections over the indyref at Ladbrokes at the moment.
Although it has surprised me just how much money we've taken on the referendum already. Based on current levels, it looks like we might end up taking more money on that than we did on the whole of the last General Election. It's attracted a huge amount of punters who never normally bet on politics, whereas the Euros mostly appeals to the more politically savvy.
Why have you taken down so many of the constituency betting markets?
Most of the ones that I think UKIP have a chance in it seems!
I don't see that all, Mr. N.. Most countries in the world run border controls I see no reason why the UK should not do so as well. We did it before, we can do it again. At the base level it only means changing the signs at Passport control.
Of course we could do so, specifying that EU citizens had no special rights of movement here and working here.
And of course, as Mr Farage says, we could negotiate a deal with the EU giving us access to the Single Market, in order to ensure that there would not be a big economic hit.
But we couldn't do both.
Couldn't do both? I'd hate to employ you as a negotiator, if you are going to set limits on what is achievable before setting foot in the room. Why not? And while we are about it could we also insist that the free market in services actually be implemented. The UK is a big player and a big market, lots of negotiating power.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
So, if I understand you correctly, your objection to UKIP is that their immigration policy isn't hardline enough? That they really ought to adopt a policy of forcible repatrattion in order to be intellectually consistent?
UKIP's opponents need to come up with some positive reasons for not voting UKIP, rather than just attacking them. It's the same thing as with the NO campaign in Scotland.
I just think they need some probing questions, like what should happen to the 400,000 French people who live in London or the 200,000 english people who live in France, should a large proportion of these return home?
I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think that UKIP are proposing forced transfers of population between the UK and France.
Are they proposing forced transfers of Polish people or other eastern Europeans?
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
If we left the EU, then the same immigration controls that apply to non-EU nationals would apply to EU nationals.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
So in all likeliness a large majority of French people would have to leave this country and a large number of english people would have to leave France, the same would apply to Spanish, German etc and those English people living in these countries. This is why UKIP need to be challenged more of what their policies will mean in the real world and just being popular as anti immigration party does have other policy implications.
As an anecdote I went for dinner at a restaurant called the Food Factory in Southampton on Sunday night. Its a massive place and there were 12 workers on the restaurant floor all of whom were not English. Without immigration who would be working at this restaurant and would it even be open?
I speak as someone who is disturbed by the changing culture of this country due to immigration but I always like to look at the other implications of policies. Could this country survive without significant immigration? Why are their 900k+ unemployed young english people in this country yet europeans can get a job here easily.
I think UKIP will try to keep it simple by keep appealing to the deep down "racist" views that exist (I include myself in this) that immigration is bad. The key question is what effects would leaving the EU have and could we survive without immigration. I dont accept the some immigration of the great and good would be allowed as frankly where would this country be without foreign labour doing low paid "unskilled" jobs.
Suppose there is a referendum and the British people vote to leave the EU, what will UKIP do when it turns out Westminster government is just as - or even more crap - than Brussels?
Vote the bastards out, as you can do in most democratic systems, but can't do in the case of the EU...
Sure you can, if we all vote for the greens or the pirates or the populist right their representatives will end up in charge of the member states, the EU Parliament and the Commission.
Couldn't do both? I'd hate to employ you as a negotiator, if you are going to set limits on what is achievable before setting foot in the room. Why not? And while we are about it could we also insist that the free market in services actually be implemented. The UK is a big player and a big market, lots of negotiating power.
I'm not negotiating, I'm giving you my opinion as to what the outcome would be, which is that (in this respect at least) the outcome would be similar to the case of Switzerland.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I actually think about what the outcome might be, and I don't (like the Kippers) fool myself into the Salmond-like idiocy of thinking that we can ignore the prioirities of the other side and assume we can automatically cherry-pick the bits we like.
Your point about the free market in services is an interesting one, though. I rather think that that is what the negotiation would principally be about - and we would be absolutely desperate to get as many concessions on that as possible. In return, I believe we'd end up, inter alia, conceding some form of free movement of workers, if not of all citizens.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
@Another_Richard - I'm generally in favour of deporting people who have come to this country illegally, that said, that girl isn't my top 10,000 people I'd like to see deported, she should have been allowed to stay.
@Isam - It was a poll of more than just UKIP supporters, but people inclined to vote UKIP, such as those cuddly BNPers that Neil Hamilton has welcomed, here's the full report
@Flash, use the European Convention on Human Rights to argue against your deportation to Scotland. Say it is a cruel and unusual punishment to be forcibly removed from England to Scotland. (Before any Scots get annoyed, Scotland is lovely, but England is lovelier)
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
I refer you to @Topping's post on Friday about the ridiculous interrogation of UKIP supporters over every detail of UKIP policy
In case you wasn't sure, I am not a UKIP politician, merely a poster on a messageboard who would like a stop to mass immigration. The party that seems to share my views are UKIP, hence I support them.
If you want to know the finer detail of every UKIP policy, ask a UKIP politician or go to their website. I've said what I think
So in all likeliness a large majority of French people would have to leave this country and a large number of english people would have to leave France, the same would apply to Spanish, German etc and those English people living in these countries. This is why UKIP need to be challenged more of what their policies will mean in the real world and just being popular as anti immigration party does have other policy implications.
As an anecdote I went for dinner at a restaurant called the Food Factory in Southampton on Sunday night. Its a massive place and there were 12 workers on the restaurant floor all of whom were not English. Without immigration who would be working at this restaurant and would it even be open?
I speak as someone who is disturbed by the changing culture of this country due to immigration but I always like to look at the other implications of policies. Could this country survive without significant immigration? Why are their 900k+ unemployed young english people in this country yet europeans can get a job here easily.
I think UKIP will try to keep it simple by keep appealing to the deep down "racist" views that exist (I include myself in this) that immigration is bad. The key question is what effects would leaving the EU have and could we survive without immigration. I dont accept the some immigration of the great and good would be allowed as frankly where would this country be without foreign labour doing low paid "unskilled" jobs.
From 1962 to 1997, after ending free migration from the Commonwealth, the economy achieved quite reasonable rates of economic growth (averaging the whole period of 35 years) when immigration was running at far lower levels than it is at present. I see no reason in principle why that could not be achieved in the future.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
Salmond row over praise for Putin deepens Michael Settle UK Political Editor THE row over Alex Salmond's admiration for certain aspects of Vladimir Putin's leadership has intensified with senior politicians lining up to condemn the First Minister's "gross error of judgment".
He was called on to apologise to the people of Ukraine.
The condemnation, which overshadowed the SNP leader's keynote speech on Europe, coincided with publication by the UK Government of its latest referendum factsheet, showing how Scotland "can do more, reach further and aim higher on the international stage as part of the UK".
Yes, all those war criminals like Blair , Murphy , etc and Lord Robertson desperate for Russia to join NATO. UK supports the nastiest regimes around the world. What is it they say about people in glasshouses and all because Alex said he was not as bad a politician as our pygmy politicians thought.
Salmond under fire over ban threat to EU fleets Magnus Gardham Political Editor ALEX Salmond has sailed into a fresh storm after stepping up his threat to ban EU fishing fleets from Scottish waters if his proposals for an independent Scotland's membership of the bloc were not accepted swiftly. The First Minister said boats would not be allowed to fish in Scottish waters - or even pass through en route to Norwegian grounds - unless an independent Scotland joined the EU on favourable terms.
I wonder what he'll use for a navy ?
Presumably it's a given that the Royal Navy will be summoned and will be there as soon as it can be.
2 days 'rapid response' from Portsmouth to NE Scotland?
How long is it going to take to get to NE Scotland from the Clyde? At 14 knots?
You could walk quicker than our RN fast response would get here.
@Another_Richard - I'm generally in favour of deporting people who have come to this country illegally, that said, that girl isn't my top 10,000 people I'd like to see deported, she should have been allowed to stay.
@Isam - It was a poll of more than just UKIP supporters, but people inclined to vote UKIP, such as those cuddly BNPers that Neil Hamilton has welcomed, here's the full report
@Flash, use the European Convention on Human Rights to argue against your deportation to Scotland. Say it is a cruel and unusual punishment to be forcibly removed from England to Scotland. (Before any Scots get annoyed, Scotland is lovely, but England is lovelier)
That is a link to a channel 4 page no longer exists
You made it seem as though you meant UKIP supporters...
TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles • Posts: 8,529 12:45PM • edited 12:50PM There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
How will they prove residency on their return?
Exactly!
Just how you will enforce this policy and the implications of it have not been thought through
Salmond row over praise for Putin deepens Michael Settle UK Political Editor THE row over Alex Salmond's admiration for certain aspects of Vladimir Putin's leadership has intensified with senior politicians lining up to condemn the First Minister's "gross error of judgment".
He was called on to apologise to the people of Ukraine.
The condemnation, which overshadowed the SNP leader's keynote speech on Europe, coincided with publication by the UK Government of its latest referendum factsheet, showing how Scotland "can do more, reach further and aim higher on the international stage as part of the UK".
Yes, all those war criminals like Blair , Murphy , etc and Lord Robertson desperate for Russia to join NATO. UK supports the nastiest regimes around the world. What is it they say about people in glasshouses and all because Alex said he was not as bad a politician as our pygmy politicians thought.
They were 'praising' long before Russian involvement in the Ukraine.
Eck revealed his love for hero Vlad, after the death squads moved in to meddle.
@Another_Richard - I'm generally in favour of deporting people who have come to this country illegally, that said, that girl isn't my top 10,000 people I'd like to see deported, she should have been allowed to stay.
@Isam - It was a poll of more than just UKIP supporters, but people inclined to vote UKIP, such as those cuddly BNPers that Neil Hamilton has welcomed, here's the full report
@Flash, use the European Convention on Human Rights to argue against your deportation to Scotland. Say it is a cruel and unusual punishment to be forcibly removed from England to Scotland. (Before any Scots get annoyed, Scotland is lovely, but England is lovelier)
That is a link to a channel 4 page no longer exists
You made it seem as though you meant UKIP supporters...
TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles • Posts: 8,529 12:45PM • edited 12:50PM There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
How will they prove residency on their return?
Exactly!
Just how you will enforce this policy and the implications of it have not been thought through
Maybe the Frenchman will be treated as an Australian/African/Indian is now?
Just so as we are clear UKIP's much trumpeted central plank immigration policy seems to be (from what their advocates say).
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
Give up mate, you are completely mugging yourself
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
So all those that are here on the leaving the EU day can stay but full immigration controls will apply to everyone else after this date?
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
How will they prove residency on their return?
Exactly!
Just how you will enforce this policy and the implications of it have not been thought through
Immigration controls were not unworkable, when they were introduced for Commonwealth nationals. I see no reason why they should be unworkable if they were introduced for EU nationals.
I refer you to @Topping's post on Friday about the ridiculous interrogation of UKIP supporters over every detail of UKIP policy
In case you wasn't sure, I am not a UKIP politician, merely a poster on a messageboard who would like a stop to mass immigration. The party that seems to share my views are UKIP, hence I support them.
If you want to know the finer detail of every UKIP policy, ask a UKIP politician or go to their website. I've said what I think
You have just summed up my issues with UKIP. You wont to stop mass immigration as do I, but you and UKIP politicians alike will not address what this aim/goal will mean in practice from the position that we are now in and what effect it will have on peoples lives and most importantly how this policy will be enforced.
Its easy to have a popular policy, if you ask 100 English people if they agree with mass immigration how many will say they do?
How you develop procedures which address the implications of your policy is what being in Government is about.
For the record, I think its perfectly legitimate to have concerns about the numbers of people coming here and the effect on British society. I can sympathize with people who feel frightened/disenfranchised/out of pocket/denied access to services or housing by the huge influx from abroad.
Voting UKIP might stop the situation getting any worse in some of these respects, but it won;t change the country or the neighbourhood back into what it was. Nothing can do that.
You can punish our leaders for what they have done in the past if you want, but from what I've read today that will be pretty fruitless, because the country and the neighbourhood is going to stay pretty much the same.
Couldn't do both? I'd hate to employ you as a negotiator, if you are going to set limits on what is achievable before setting foot in the room. Why not? And while we are about it could we also insist that the free market in services actually be implemented. The UK is a big player and a big market, lots of negotiating power.
I'm not negotiating, I'm giving you my opinion as to what the outcome would be, which is that (in this respect at least) the outcome would be similar to the case of Switzerland.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I actually think about what the outcome might be, and I don't (like the Kippers) fool myself into the Salmond-like idiocy of thinking that we can ignore the prioirities of the other side and assume we can automatically cherry-pick the bits we like.
Your point about the free market in services is an interesting one, though. I rather think that that is what the negotiation would principally be about - and we would be absolutely desperate to get as many concessions on that as possible. In return, I believe we'd end up, inter alia, conceding some form of free movement of workers, if not of all citizens.
You saw it here first.
Well, the free market in services has only been an acclaimed goal of the EU for how long? Hasn't happened yet, why would that be? We certainly can't ignore the priorities of the other side, but it seems they can ignore ours. Maybe we would concede some form of free movement (though I am damned if I can see why), but let us extract a beneficial deal.
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Immigration controls were not unworkable, when they were introduced for Commonwealth nationals. I see no reason why they should be unworkable if they were introduced for EU nationals.
How will they work for the millions of european immigrants already here?
I refer you to @Topping's post on Friday about the ridiculous interrogation of UKIP supporters over every detail of UKIP policy
In case you wasn't sure, I am not a UKIP politician, merely a poster on a messageboard who would like a stop to mass immigration. The party that seems to share my views are UKIP, hence I support them.
If you want to know the finer detail of every UKIP policy, ask a UKIP politician or go to their website. I've said what I think
You have just summed up my issues with UKIP. You wont to stop mass immigration as do I, but you and UKIP politicians alike will not address what this aim/goal will mean in practice from the position that we are now in and what effect it will have on peoples lives and most importantly how this policy will be enforced.
Its easy to have a popular policy, if you ask 100 English people if they agree with mass immigration how many will say they do?
How you develop procedures which address the implications of your policy is what being in Government is about.
Does every Lib Dem voter have to be able to explain in detail the party's policies and implementation plans? Or Tories on the internet? I think you're setting an absurdly high bar. Go to their website and read their working group reports or whatever on actual policies, don't claim that since a random Kipper can't answer all your questions the party must have no depth.
I see no reason why they should be unworkable if they were introduced for EU nationals. Agreed.
Except Europeans already here might need some kind of ' Post secession dispensation document (PSDD???) in order to function as they do now - foreign passport but free movement.
Out of interest, how many immigrants from the EU are Muslim? I ask because UKIP voters seem very exercised about this particular cohort of immigrants, yet leaving the EU would seem to make no difference to their right to come and stay here.
Salmond row over praise for Putin deepens Michael Settle UK Political Editor THE row over Alex Salmond's admiration for certain aspects of Vladimir Putin's leadership has intensified with senior politicians lining up to condemn the First Minister's "gross error of judgment".
He was called on to apologise to the people of Ukraine.
The condemnation, which overshadowed the SNP leader's keynote speech on Europe, coincided with publication by the UK Government of its latest referendum factsheet, showing how Scotland "can do more, reach further and aim higher on the international stage as part of the UK".
Yes, all those war criminals like Blair , Murphy , etc and Lord Robertson desperate for Russia to join NATO. UK supports the nastiest regimes around the world. What is it they say about people in glasshouses and all because Alex said he was not as bad a politician as our pygmy politicians thought.
They were 'praising' long before Russian involvement in the Ukraine.
Eck revealed his love for hero Vlad, after the death squads moved in to meddle.
Surely not - the interview was before the intervention, but published in May, which presumably explains your misapprehension?
[edit: I was thinking of the May issue of the publication in question, I can only assume ...]
Comments
That's a remarkable leap. It is based on what exactly?
Heterosexuals have differing opinions too
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-comment-from-a-young-gay-man/
The original article
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/standing-up-for-homosexual-rights/
When UKIP storm the 2015 General Election, I hope Farage makes Roger Helmer Equalities Minister.
Absolutely not. Isam said he wasn;t happy with the status quo in Britain. That must mean he'd like some people who are already here to leave, because as a UKIP supporter he certainly doesn;t want more coming in.
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
How bizarre
You're just projecting your own views on UKIP without any evidence at all to back it up
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/standing-up-for-homosexual-rights/
No I don;t see how you can be 'unhappy with the status quo' and yet not want to send anyone home.
No I'd like UKIP supporters to tell the nation what they think. There's a huge difference between stopping immigration and wanting to reverse it.
And if you don';t want to reverse immigration then you must be pretty happy with things as they are.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
Ukip is not a rightwing extremist party, but on the doorsteps of voters it is often pushing the same message as the extreme right, and this is reflected in our results. Almost half of the Ukip affiliates in our survey ranked either immigration or Muslims in Britain as the most important issues facing Britain today. Over half (51%) rejected the suggestion that Britain has benefited from diversity.
Almost two-fifths (37%) backed the idea of repatriating immigrants back to their country of origin, and irrespective of whether they had broken the law. Over three-fifths (64%) would feel "bothered a lot" by the presence of an Islamic institution in their community, which is over twice the national average (31%). And 85% of them disagreed with the suggestion that Islam does not pose a danger to the west, while the equivalent figure among the BNP group was only three points higher.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/12/ukip-far-right-bnp
Benedict Brogan ✔ @benedictbrogan
Fascinating. @Nigel_Farage tells @BBCNormanS #Ukip victim of establishment entryism
My point is a very simple one: when Cameron says he won't be PM in any government which doesn't hold a referendum by the end of 2017, he's not bluffing or laying out a negotiating position, he is stating the reality of the situation. He frankly wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
So I don't think it's a question of 'extracting a price': you can only extract a price for something where there's a choice for the other side to accept the price or not accept it. In this case, Cameron wouldn't have such a choice. It would be a deal-breaker straightaway.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/26/yashika-bageerathi-student-to-be-deported-to-mauritius-with-family-4678717/
Any views on this case from the Conservative frothers ?
Of course the most hilarious thing about the Cameroon faux outrage over the kipper immigration posters was that Crosby would have done the same kind of thing for the tories if there was no kipper threat. He did the same type of dog whistling for Michael Howard after all.
Are you seriously suggesting that there would be no special treatment for EU citizens under the agreement which would be negotiated for access to the Single Market?
Furthermore, there would be the issue of the EU nationals already here. The Brexit prizewinner suggested they would all be given indefinite leave to remain (as would British citizens resident in other EU countries), which seems commonsense to me.
In other words, the UKIP fantasy that we can simply undo EU immigration is just that: fantasy. In the real world, probably little would change.
LOL
As I have repeatedly said, I don't believe that the outcome will necessarily be a stable government at all. It is perfectly possible, indeed quite likely projecting forward from current polling, that there will be no viable government after 2015.
When I was at school there was an argument raging about how the Romans actually spoke Latin and therefore how we should. The "modernists" insisted, for example that "V" should be pronounced as "W" and that a "C" should always be a hard "K" sound, thus "Veni, vidi, vici" would be "Weni, widi, wiki" and "Caesar" should be "Kaesar". Whilst the "traditionalists" held out that the new pronunciation made the language ugly and, anyway, nobody then important in law or medicine, where Latin was still widely used, would understand a word of it. I gave up studying the subject at the first opportunity and have felt much better since but I do sometimes wonder how the debate panned out.
Although it has surprised me just how much money we've taken on the referendum already. Based on current levels, it looks like we might end up taking more money on that than we did on the whole of the last General Election. It's attracted a huge amount of punters who never normally bet on politics, whereas the Euros mostly appeals to the more politically savvy.
That's nonsense
37% of UKIP supporters in March 2012 when UKIP were polling about 6%?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Very misleading to quote that now
I don't think there is a UKIP belief that we can undo historic EU immigration. Just a belief that we should stop making the situation worse.
And, for the record, several countries have free trade with the EU without having freedom of movement.
Maybe you could let Mike know how much you are prepared to take from me on markets before he suggests that UKIP supporters don't put their money where their mouth is?
I don't see that all, Mr. N.. Most countries in the world run border controls I see no reason why the UK should not do so as well. We did it before, we can do it again. At the base level it only means changing the signs at Passport control.
And of course, as Mr Farage says, we could negotiate a deal with the EU giving us access to the Single Market, in order to ensure that there would not be a big economic hit.
But we couldn't do both.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/william-hague-ukip-would-be-a-disaster-for-the-london-economy-9296218.html
"People said you could never cut the EU budget but we did, saving British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds a year."
How are you saving British taxpayers hundreds of millions when the British contribution jumped by ten billion?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10499092/Britains-EU-contribution-to-jump-by-10bn-as-taxpayers-carry-burden-of-ailing-eurozone.html
"People said we could never get out of eurozone bail-outs, but we did."
So I guess the seven billion we contributed to Ireland's bail-out was a figment of my imagination then?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/nov/22/ireland-bailout-uk-lends-seven-billion
I used to think Hague was one of the more honest Tories. Not any more. He show he's as deceitful as Cameron is on EU matters with that column.
pic.twitter.com/6QZQdKltsp
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/uk-european-election/most-votes
1. Stop net immigration to the UK from inside and outside the EU.
2. Sound a bit miffed about the current number of immigrants already here, ('Oh dear..... the country today....its not great is it?' ) but not actually do anything about them because it would be unfair to ask immigrants who have already settled here to leave.
And to the charge of being intolerant I simply say to Ukippers that if you want people to vote for you in their droves on your number one priority policy, you might actually want to tell them what it is.
- The UK’s gross contribution is likely to fall (as a share of UK GNI) but the net contribution could still increase as more money will be channelled towards the new EU member states – such spending isn’t covered by the UK rebate.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Article/Page/en/LIVE?id=9905&page=FlashAnalysis#
Most of the ones that I think UKIP have a chance in it seems!
UKIP don't want to repatriate immigrants, we are not the BNP.
Apologies
Are they proposing forced transfers of Polish people or other eastern Europeans?
If we leave the EU (which is their policy) what rights would the French People have to reside in this country (and the English in France)?
If we left the EU, then the same immigration controls that apply to non-EU nationals would apply to EU nationals.
So, my assumption is that in order to work here, EU nationals would need to obtain work permits. To study here, they'd need to obtain student visas.
So in all likeliness a large majority of French people would have to leave this country and a large number of english people would have to leave France, the same would apply to Spanish, German etc and those English people living in these countries. This is why UKIP need to be challenged more of what their policies will mean in the real world and just being popular as anti immigration party does have other policy implications.
As an anecdote I went for dinner at a restaurant called the Food Factory in Southampton on Sunday night. Its a massive place and there were 12 workers on the restaurant floor all of whom were not English. Without immigration who would be working at this restaurant and would it even be open?
I speak as someone who is disturbed by the changing culture of this country due to immigration but I always like to look at the other implications of policies. Could this country survive without significant immigration? Why are their 900k+ unemployed young english people in this country yet europeans can get a job here easily.
I think UKIP will try to keep it simple by keep appealing to the deep down "racist" views that exist (I include myself in this) that immigration is bad. The key question is what effects would leaving the EU have and could we survive without immigration. I dont accept the some immigration of the great and good would be allowed as frankly where would this country be without foreign labour doing low paid "unskilled" jobs.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I actually think about what the outcome might be, and I don't (like the Kippers) fool myself into the Salmond-like idiocy of thinking that we can ignore the prioirities of the other side and assume we can automatically cherry-pick the bits we like.
Your point about the free market in services is an interesting one, though. I rather think that that is what the negotiation would principally be about - and we would be absolutely desperate to get as many concessions on that as possible. In return, I believe we'd end up, inter alia, conceding some form of free movement of workers, if not of all citizens.
You saw it here first.
Absolutely 100% not. I'm very happy with freedom of movement, and with the current situation in general.
I'm simply trying to find out what UKIP immigration policy actually IS, from what its own adherents tell me.
Maybe, just maybe in the months leading up to leaving the EU we will get a huge influx of immigrants
What will happen when those who are here but not British citizens e.g. a Frenchman go home for Christmas. Will they be allowed back in to remain indefinitely or will they have to go through immigration controls?
@Another_Richard - I'm generally in favour of deporting people who have come to this country illegally, that said, that girl isn't my top 10,000 people I'd like to see deported, she should have been allowed to stay.
@Isam - It was a poll of more than just UKIP supporters, but people inclined to vote UKIP, such as those cuddly BNPers that Neil Hamilton has welcomed, here's the full report
http://tinyurl.com/BNPisUKIPForPussies
@Flash, use the European Convention on Human Rights to argue against your deportation to Scotland. Say it is a cruel and unusual punishment to be forcibly removed from England to Scotland. (Before any Scots get annoyed, Scotland is lovely, but England is lovelier)
In case you wasn't sure, I am not a UKIP politician, merely a poster on a messageboard who would like a stop to mass immigration. The party that seems to share my views are UKIP, hence I support them.
If you want to know the finer detail of every UKIP policy, ask a UKIP politician or go to their website. I've said what I think
You made it seem as though you meant UKIP supporters...
TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles • Posts: 8,529
12:45PM • edited 12:50PM
There was a poll a couple of years ago that had nearly 40% of UKIP supporters in favour of forced repatriation of immigrants, even if they hadn't broken the law.
Just how you will enforce this policy and the implications of it have not been thought through
Eck revealed his love for hero Vlad, after the death squads moved in to meddle.
http://tinyurl.com/BNPisUKIPForPussies
Read the report, it'll make sense.
I also recommend this book, has made for fascinating reading
http://tinyurl.com/obn4gvl
Nigel Farage says in last few weeks he believes people have joined UKIP with intention of damaging party
I refer you to @Topping's post on Friday about the ridiculous interrogation of UKIP supporters over every detail of UKIP policy
In case you wasn't sure, I am not a UKIP politician, merely a poster on a messageboard who would like a stop to mass immigration. The party that seems to share my views are UKIP, hence I support them.
If you want to know the finer detail of every UKIP policy, ask a UKIP politician or go to their website. I've said what I think
You have just summed up my issues with UKIP. You wont to stop mass immigration as do I, but you and UKIP politicians alike will not address what this aim/goal will mean in practice from the position that we are now in and what effect it will have on peoples lives and most importantly how this policy will be enforced.
Its easy to have a popular policy, if you ask 100 English people if they agree with mass immigration how many will say they do?
How you develop procedures which address the implications of your policy is what being in Government is about.
Voting UKIP might stop the situation getting any worse in some of these respects, but it won;t change the country or the neighbourhood back into what it was. Nothing can do that.
You can punish our leaders for what they have done in the past if you want, but from what I've read today that will be pretty fruitless, because the country and the neighbourhood is going to stay pretty much the same.
Immigration controls were not unworkable, when they were introduced for Commonwealth nationals. I see no reason why they should be unworkable if they were introduced for EU nationals.
How will they work for the millions of european immigrants already here?
Agreed.
Except Europeans already here might need some kind of ' Post secession dispensation document (PSDD???) in order to function as they do now - foreign passport but free movement.
*ducks*
[edit: I was thinking of the May issue of the publication in question, I can only assume ...]