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.
A high bar?
This will have an enormous impact on millions of people, its not looking at the minutia of policy, its as big as Scotland becoming independent. There are millions of european immigrants in this country who will suddenly have no right to remain and this will apply to the millions of british people living in europe. Surely it is reasonable to ask how UKIP will deal with this issue as it is a direct result of their policy
It is reasonable to ask UKIP that, but you're asking a random Kipper not the party as a whole. Equating the two is an absurdly high bar. Hence my suggestion to go to the party's official website and policy documents.
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.
If anyone finds that out for Antifrank, can you also find out how many immigrants from the EU are gay Muslims?
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.
In the past? The current political class continues to support unlimited mass immigration.
They may well do, but I think it's going to depend on differential turnout - Labour and UKIP have been close in most recent polls. UKIP has more people who say they'll vote to pollsters; Labour is likely to have the better GOTV operation (if only because of masses of canvass data so we know whom we want to remind). The current odds look plausible but if they shorten further it's probably wise to lay off. I don't think the Tories have any chance of winning this one failing some amazing black swan.
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.
The ECHR has struck down several reforms HMG has tried to make to non-EU immigration, such as requiring people to be aged 21 for a marriage visa in order to prevent forced marriage. We can not leave the ECHR while we are in the EU.
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.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
It is reasonable to ask UKIP that, but you're asking a random Kipper not the party as a whole. Equating the two is an absurdly high bar. Hence my suggestion to go to the party's official website and policy documents.
So, UKIPs main policy (and what they were created for) is to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement. Yet asking how they will enforce the results of this policy is setting too high a bar. UKIP do want is easy don't they?
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 ?
I'm not a Conservative, but I start from the viewpoint that failed asylum seekers should be treated consistently, even if they are young and pretty.
I've always found it fairly odd that people believe we should provide substantially more to those judged not to be facing persecution if they happen to have had the resources to get here, over those in much worse positions in their home country.
Mr. Star, since you are here, please may I ask how business is? As I recall you are in the electrical trade, so I wonder how well you are doing and in particular how well your recruiting of apprentices is going.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
There are no records of 'lawful residence' for EU citizens, and in any case the definition is too vague: what about someone who has been here intermittently?
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
It is reasonable to ask UKIP that, but you're asking a random Kipper not the party as a whole. Equating the two is an absurdly high bar. Hence my suggestion to go to the party's official website and policy documents.
So, UKIPs main policy (and what they were created for) is to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement. Yet asking how they will enforce the results of this policy is setting too high a bar. UKIP do want is easy don't they?
Replacing the political class which engineered unlimited mass immigration against the wishes of the public is the number one priority. If that is achieved I'm sure we'll be able to muddle through.
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.
If immigration was curtailed significantly, those here would gradually integrate into the host culture, although some groups would be slower than others. The problem we have right now is that we add new immigrants faster than existing immigrant communities can integrate, thus causing British people to feel increasingly culturally alienated in their own land.
I hope so, I suspect if things pan out properly, I'll be guest editing the site during the by-election campaign, and I enjoyed doing that during the Eastleigh by-election.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
There are no records of 'lawful residence' for EU citizens, and in any case the definition is too vague: what about someone who has been here intermittently?
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
As they'd be citizens of another country I'm sure some work permit type arrangement could be devised.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
There are no records of 'lawful residence' for EU citizens, and in any case the definition is too vague: what about someone who has been here intermittently?
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
If we could introduce workable immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals, then we can introduce workable immigration controls for EU nationals.
As to the latter, it is for foreign countries to run their immigration policies in their own interests. It's not as if every British citizen living in Australia, Canada, or New Zealand got booted out after 1962.
It is reasonable to ask UKIP that, but you're asking a random Kipper not the party as a whole. Equating the two is an absurdly high bar. Hence my suggestion to go to the party's official website and policy documents.
So, UKIPs main policy (and what they were created for) is to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement. Yet asking how they will enforce the results of this policy is setting too high a bar. UKIP do want is easy don't they?
With all due respect, your comment simply doesn't logically relate to mine at all and I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I posted before you replied. I've already said twice that I think there's nothing wrong with asking UKIP for details of policies and implementation, I just don't think isam is the same as UKIP. If Nigel Farage can't explain it that's one thing, but if isam can't that is not the same.
@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.
Mr. Star, since you are here, please may I ask how business is? As I recall you are in the electrical trade, so I wonder how well you are doing and in particular how well your recruiting of apprentices is going.
Business is great, in fact their is so much construction work around here we only tender around 50% of the quote requests we get.
Working with Eastleigh College we took on four apprentices last August and intend to do the same this year.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
There are no records of 'lawful residence' for EU citizens, and in any case the definition is too vague: what about someone who has been here intermittently?
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
As they'd be citizens of another country I'm sure some work permit type arrangement could be devised.
Quite. As I have said on here umpteen times before the movement of people happened before we became members of the EEC and if we left would still continue. Did Brits own property in France and Spain (and elsewhere) before 1973? Yup, certainly did. Did the French own property here? Yes. Lots of expats own property outside the EU and lots of non-EU people own property here now. The idea that rights of residence is dependent on the EU is a total nonsense and I am sure now being whipped up as a scare story.
They may well do, but I think it's going to depend on differential turnout - Labour and UKIP have been close in most recent polls. UKIP has more people who say they'll vote to pollsters; Labour is likely to have the better GOTV operation (if only because of masses of canvass data so we know whom we want to remind). The current odds look plausible but if they shorten further it's probably wise to lay off. I don't think the Tories have any chance of winning this one failing some amazing black swan.
Mr. Star, since you are here, please may I ask how business is? As I recall you are in the electrical trade, so I wonder how well you are doing and in particular how well your recruiting of apprentices is going.
Business is great, in fact their is so much construction work around here we only tender around 50% of the quote requests we get.
Working with Eastleigh College we took on four apprentices last August and intend to do the same this year.
There was even a decent pay rise this year
Thanks, Mr. Star. It is nice to have some information direct from the "front-line" to balance the statistics.
I wouldn't be so sure - there's a big difference between being near certain not to win and near certain to finish third, even if the top 2 are close together in the betting. The Tories can't win polling at a max of c. 25% but Lab-UKIP or UKIP-Lab swing (or poor polling methodologies) could give them 2nd place on that figure.
Still, I wouldn't put you off the 11/8 isam indicates.
Well, I think Socrates' suggestion was a reasonable one. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for three years or more gets indefinite leave to remain. Anyone who's been lawfully resident for less than that, has to go down the route of applying for work permits, student visas etc.
There are no records of 'lawful residence' for EU citizens, and in any case the definition is too vague: what about someone who has been here intermittently?
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
As they'd be citizens of another country I'm sure some work permit type arrangement could be devised.
Quite. As I have said on here umpteen times before the movement of people happened before we became members of the EEC and if we left would still continue. Did Brits own property in France and Spain (and elsewhere) before 1973? Yup, certainly did. Did the French own property here? Yes. Lots of expats own property outside the EU and lots of non-EU people own property here now. The idea that rights of residence is dependent on the EU is a total nonsense and I am sure now being whipped up as a scare story.
My wife is from New Zealand, I know Im a hypocrite.
I can confirm from personal experience that gaining residence when you are not from the EU is not easy, if she hadn't have married me back in 1994 she would have been deported. She came here on a working holiday visa of 2 years. This situation remains. If you are not from the EU it is not easy at all to get residence in the UK.
The idea that rights of residence is dependent on the EU is a total nonsense and I am sure now being whipped up as a scare story.
That's very odd logic.
It's the opposite of a scare story. The point is that, as you imply, nothing much would change. We'd do a deal: we're not going to chuck any existing resident EU citizens out, our EU friends are not going to chuck out expat Brits, and the free movement of workers (and very probably citizens generally) would in all likelihood continue, with little discernible difference, under the trade agreement we'd sign.
Agreed, much better value than simply betting UKIP at odds on. *If* UKIP win, that will be the sequence, nailed on. If you also back Lab at 6-5 or so, you have something close to a guaranteed arb. (Do your own research etc.!)
@Markfergusonuk If there is a byelection, Ladbrokes odds will be something like;
4/5 Cons 2 UKIP 4 Labour 50 LD
It is impossible for there to be a by election in Newark or anywhere else on May 22nd . section 14 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 came into force on April 6th and now there is a minimum of 25 days excluding weekends/bank holidays between the writ being moved and the by election being held .
They may well do, but I think it's going to depend on differential turnout - Labour and UKIP have been close in most recent polls. UKIP has more people who say they'll vote to pollsters; Labour is likely to have the better GOTV operation (if only because of masses of canvass data so we know whom we want to remind). The current odds look plausible but if they shorten further it's probably wise to lay off. I don't think the Tories have any chance of winning this one failing some amazing black swan.
I'd agree with that. I can envisage the Conservatives finishing second to Labour, but I struggle to see them finishing second to UKIP, given where UKIP draws its votes from at EU elections.
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
Topping's wrong, and so are you.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
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
Topping's wrong, and so are you.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
Whereas other people aren't interested in the problems caused by mass immigration.
oh and as regards the Kippers, I think the point is filtering through here - we are far from this in the real world - that they are a protest party with a strong central message - out of the EU, cap immigration.
Taffy's "if you're not happy with things today..." reducto ad racisum intellectual exercise is interesting but no more than just that.
Even Farage is allowed to be not clear about his policies and rather to indicate a direction of travel which he is doing. The details, like all big ideas will follow. I refuse to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that it is absolutely impossible to control our borders and that we are stuck now and forevermore with unlimited EU immigration (perhaps I misrepresent him..)
If anything his is a huge argument in UKIP's favour and they would be well to pick up on it: "intellectuals say that we can't do anything about immigration but guess what...we can..." (although they might not have any idea how).
UKIP are making themselves heard and there are many bankster-bashing, intellectual elite-despising, leftie liberalers around for them to have a good showing in the euros.
Come GE2015, with their arguments assimilated (and diluted) into the general political discourse, however, I still put them at 3-5%.
"This morning I’m off to London for a session with Professors Curtice, Rallings and Thrasher on this year’s local elections. Hopefully we’ll get the first projections of seat losses and gains. The event is organised the Political Studies Association. I’ll be reporting later."
Looking forward to this. EU elections are getting all the attention, but are very insignificant - Local elections could be much more important...
The idea that rights of residence is dependent on the EU is a total nonsense and I am sure now being whipped up as a scare story.
That's very odd logic.
It's the opposite of a scare story. The point is that, as you imply, nothing much would change. We'd do a deal: we're not going to chuck any existing resident EU citizens out, our EU friends are not going to chuck out expat Brits, and the free movement of workers (and very probably citizens generally) would in all likelihood continue, with little discernible difference, under the trade agreement we'd sign.
Nothing much would change apart from the political class' open borders immigration policy.
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
Topping's wrong, and so are you.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
I'm not wrong. It has never happened.
But my point was the vilification of and sneering at a legitimate political view will enthuse the kippers and is ridiculous.
It wasn't whether that view, if enacted tomorrow morning, would or wouldn't have practical flaws not to say whether it is desirable or not.
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
Topping's wrong, and so are you.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
Whereas other people aren't interested in the problems caused by mass immigration.
*If* UKIP win, that will be the sequence, nailed on.
Agreed, although I thinke the spreads might be narrower than the polls imply. I just don't see what reason there is for labour supporters to turn out this time.
UKIP are doing the 'kick the government' role and Labour's policy on Europe and immigration is basically 'go with the flow' from what I can see.
Mr. Carnyx, no typo, just taking the piss out of those who claim the country would fall into the abyss and hellfire would rain from the skies if we left the undemocratic, unaudited and bloody stupid EU.
[I do think being pro-EU is a legitimate perspective, but the blind faith of the likes of Clegg, which suggests leaving is *not* a valid perspective, irks me significantly].
Mr. Carnyx, no typo, just taking the piss out of those who claim the country would fall into the abyss and hellfire would rain from the skies if we left the undemocratic, unaudited and bloody stupid EU.
[I do think being pro-EU is a legitimate perspective, but the blind faith of the likes of Clegg, which suggests leaving is *not* a valid perspective, irks me significantly].
God's Own Party? Yorkshire First to contest the euro elections
With Cornish people now officially recognised as national minority group, could Tykes try the same? A new political party, Yorkshire First, aims to speak up for God's Own County and fight for the region to have a devolved parliament. Hatty Collier reports
Nothing much would change apart from the political class' open borders immigration policy.
You are conflating two separate things: non-EU immigration, and EU immigration.
Both were out of control under Labour, and I believe that the former is really the one people are upset by (as antifrank rightly points out, it's curious that UKIP go on so much about Islam, which has the square root of b'all to do with EU immigration). The ironic thing is that there is actually no difference between any of the parties, including UKIP, on this: everyone agrees that we should have a points-based system, Even Labour finally got round to accepting this, implementing a perfectly sensible system, but not until the end of their period in government and unfortunately too late. That's history now, but the political class no longer has an open-borders immigration policy in respect of the non-EU countries.
As I've patiently and repeatedly pointed out, as regards EU immigration, we would have to consider what the likely outcome of negotiating a trade agreement with the EU would be. Only the fruitiest of fruitcakes thinks we wouldn't negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, so what would be in that agreement? Well, I can tell you: free movement of workers, very similar to what we already have, would be one thing.
The idea that rights of residence is dependent on the EU is a total nonsense and I am sure now being whipped up as a scare story.
That's very odd logic.
It's the opposite of a scare story. The point is that, as you imply, nothing much would change. We'd do a deal: we're not going to chuck any existing resident EU citizens out, our EU friends are not going to chuck out expat Brits, and the free movement of workers (and very probably citizens generally) would in all likelihood continue, with little discernible difference, under the trade agreement we'd sign.
After an EU referendum, fought on a large part upon immigration, it is inconceivable that the long term deal would include free movement of labour. This was recognised as such by the UK diplomat - incidentally, not a eurosceptic - in the winning Brexit prize entry. Mexico, South Korea and soon (if the EU can overcome French foot dragging) Canada will have free trade with the EU without any free movement of labour. The prospective US deal also has very expansive free trade terms without free movement of labour and, if it falters, it won't be because of the latter.
Mr. Eagles, I predicted that (not that it was a hard prediction. About on a par with Mercedes winning the Constructors' title this year [although a Red Bull comeback is not impossible]).
If Shadsy is going to price UKIP 2/1 to win a Newark by-election, then you're better off going to William Hill and backing UKIP to win a seat before the General Election at 7/2
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
Topping's wrong, and so are you.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Mr. Eagles, I predicted that (not that it was a hard prediction. About on a par with Mercedes winning the Constructors' title this year [although a Red Bull comeback is not impossible]).
Daft sods.
I propose unifying all the four Yorkshire counties and offer myself as Yorkshire's Governor/First Minister
This is a stepping stone on my plan to become the country's first Directly Elected Dictator.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
I'm not wrong. It has never happened.
But my point was the vilification of and sneering at a legitimate political view will enthuse the kippers and is ridiculous.
It wasn't whether that view, if enacted tomorrow morning, would or wouldn't have practical flaws not to say whether it is desirable or not.
What's never happened?
And what sort of sneering? The problem is UKIP's become like a football club, more so than most of the other parties.
This is counter-productive. I am worried about some aspects of mass immigration, as I've expressed in the past. But I have genuine concerns about any controls for a multitude of reasons.
I hope everyone believes me when I say I'm also firmly on the fence about the EU; I've expressed this, and my reasons, many times. Yet the other day I was called a Europhile for having the temerity to disagree with something. It doesn't matter: it's just a label. But that attitude is hardly going to win me over to their side, is it?
If you think I've been sneering at UKIP, then I'm sorry. But I'll continue to question their supporters on things I'd genuinely like to know.
If they can't answer, it's their problem, not mine.
Mr. Gin, after the prequels I'm not confident the sequels will be good.
Mr. Eagles, cretinous Labour and the politically correct bullshit of the Coalition (regarding Cornwall) has led us to this. An English Parliament would help to see off Yorkshire and other limp-wristed assemblies before they get a head of steam.
But that would mean answering the West Lothian Question and giving the English a fair deal by choice instead of necessity.
Mr. Gin, after the prequels I'm not confident the sequels will be good.
Mr. Eagles, cretinous Labour and the politically correct bullshit of the Coalition (regarding Cornwall) has led us to this. An English Parliament would help to see off Yorkshire and other limp-wristed assemblies before they get a head of steam.
But that would mean answering the West Lothian Question and giving the English a fair deal by choice instead of necessity.
Yorkshire will not be limp-wristed, perhaps you're thinking of Lancashire.
. Mexico, South Korea and soon (if the EU can overcome French foot dragging) Canada will have free trade with the EU without any free movement of labour. The prospective US deal also has very expansive free trade terms without free movement of labour and, if it falters, it won't be because of the latter.
You keep saying this, but it is nonsense. Mexico, North Korea and Canada have nothing like the same trade deal and degree of integration with the EU that we have and need. In particular, we would be absolutely desperate to have as much access for our service sector as possible.
As for the Brexit winner's thoughts on this, as I've said before I think it was a truly excellent paper. He laid out the pros and cons, and the likely negotiating points, clearly. But of course he's only one guy, with no big research team, so we can't take it as a definitive statement of what will happen. And, on this particular point, I think he was slightly wrong: he had achieving 'No free movement of people' down as of 'Medium' difficulty in the negotiations; my contention is that that is a misreading; I'd put it as High verging on Impossible, if we also want 'Significant access for services' (which he rightly put as a High priority, Medium to High difficulty). [Page 26]
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
Mr. Gin, after the prequels I'm not confident the sequels will be good.
I thought the Prequels were OK - Well, I enjoyed Attack of the Clones and thought Revenge of the Sith was very good. The Phantom Menace I'll grant you was poor except for the lightsaber fight.
This suggest's Harrison Ford has a "gigantic" role in Episode VII, which will please the fans and should get the ST off to a good start;
Mr. Eagles, 'regional' parliaments/assemblies would be limp-wristed. It'd be ****ing crazy to tear England apart in petty regional rivalries. We've got the perfect example of how devolution done in a cack-handed and short-sighted way leads to division and separation, but some can't see it.
And Scotland, at least, is a coherent nation. The last time Yorkshire had claim to be such the capital city was called Jorvik. England's our kingdom, and long may it remain so.
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
I don't find the questions too complex, I answer them but you don't like the answers
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
Yet another Tory voter who "is not a Conservative"
No wonder they struggle for members - even their own supporters are ashamed of the fact!
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
I don't find the questions too complex, I answer them but you don't like the answers
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
Perhaps I don't like your answers because your answers are not very good, and often irrelevant?
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
I don't find the questions too complex, I answer them but you don't like the answers
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
Perhaps I don't like your answers because your answers are not very good, and often irrelevant?
Ask someone else then
What is the point of expecting detailed answers on policy from someone who you think cant give them?
Do you go into shops that don't sell things you want and moan at them for not having what you are after?
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
Yet another Tory voter who "is not a Conservative"
No wonder they struggle for members - even their own supporters are ashamed of the fact!
Yawn. In the last few years I've voted Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent.
Mr. Eagles, the worst phrase, to broaden it slightly, may well be "I could care less". I first heard it during Shadow Hearts Covenant* and thought I'd misheard. It's just moronic, it sounds like someone intellectually subnormal attempting to be sarcastic.
*Covenant is an interesting game, not least because it starts with a standard disclaimer about any similarity to people/events living or dead being coincidence, and then includes the First World War, Czar Nicholas II and Rasputin.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
I'm not wrong. It has never happened.
But my point was the vilification of and sneering at a legitimate political view will enthuse the kippers and is ridiculous.
It wasn't whether that view, if enacted tomorrow morning, would or wouldn't have practical flaws not to say whether it is desirable or not.
What's never happened?
And what sort of sneering? The problem is UKIP's become like a football club, more so than most of the other parties.
This is counter-productive. I am worried about some aspects of mass immigration, as I've expressed in the past. But I have genuine concerns about any controls for a multitude of reasons.
I hope everyone believes me when I say I'm also firmly on the fence about the EU; I've expressed this, and my reasons, many times. Yet the other day I was called a Europhile for having the temerity to disagree with something. It doesn't matter: it's just a label. But that attitude is hardly going to win me over to their side, is it?
If you think I've been sneering at UKIP, then I'm sorry. But I'll continue to question their supporters on things I'd genuinely like to know.
If they can't answer, it's their problem, not mine.
What's never happened? Me being wrong of course.
I think the issue is that having caught the mood in a way that PR people could only dream of, the Kippers have found themselves thrust front and centre into the political limelight and debate.
I can't imagine that even in his most gin-soaked fantasies NFarage ever imagined that UKIP would command the attention they do right now. Truly it is the zeitgeist.
And therefore the Kippers are in the interesting position of being treated for all the world as though they are a political party. But they are not. They are an NOTA anti-EU pressure group. That is the disconnect. They are striking a chord with their message and indeed and as we all admit, there is more than some substance to it: capping immigration or rather, engendering a debate about immigration.
But they are far far from a political party and the everyday grind of formulating a broad swathe of policies, articulating them and then fighting for them.
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
I don't find the questions too complex, I answer them but you don't like the answers
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
Perhaps I don't like your answers because your answers are not very good, and often irrelevant?
Ask someone else then
What is the point of expecting detailed answers on policy from someone who you think cant give them?
Do you go into shops that don't sell things you want and moan at them for not having what you are after?
Because you espouse it and vocally support it. If you can't answer the questions on a policy you support and shout about, then perhaps, just perhaps, you should try to discover the answers. Who knows, you might even change your opinion slightly.
Knowledge is good.
It would be like people asking me questions on (whisper) HS2 and me saying: "I dunno. I just like it, that's all."
Mr. Gin, after the prequels I'm not confident the sequels will be good.
Mr. Eagles, cretinous Labour and the politically correct bullshit of the Coalition (regarding Cornwall) has led us to this. An English Parliament would help to see off Yorkshire and other limp-wristed assemblies before they get a head of steam.
But that would mean answering the West Lothian Question and giving the English a fair deal by choice instead of necessity.
Yorkshire will not be limp-wristed, perhaps you're thinking of Lancashire.
Well, you should know, don't you live in Manchester? Or did I miss something?
Boris will get what he is bloody given, and like it or lump it....
Not a fan I take it?
I'm a great fan of Boris. He was an inspired choice to take on - and retain - the unlikely mantle of Tory Mayor of London. But if he were next told to get back in to the House at Newark - to stop any UKIP bandwagon in its tracks - he should do as he is told, for the good of the Party.... It's not like Newark is the arse end of nowhere.
If I wanted to know Conservative policy on anything, I would look it up on their website/tweet or email my local MP
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
Again, you seem to be under this rather farcical impression that I am a Conservative member, or even a Conservative. Therefore asking me any such question would be rather silly.
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
I don't find the questions too complex, I answer them but you don't like the answers
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
Perhaps I don't like your answers because your answers are not very good, and often irrelevant?
Ask someone else then
What is the point of expecting detailed answers on policy from someone who you think cant give them?
Do you go into shops that don't sell things you want and moan at them for not having what you are after?
Because you espouse it and vocally support it. If you can't answer the questions on a policy you support and shout about, then perhaps, just perhaps, you should try to discover the answers. Who knows, you might even change your opinion slightly.
Knowledge is good.
It would be like people asking me questions on (whisper) HS2 and me saying: "I dunno. I just like it, that's all."
Except...
I do always answer the questions, and I do understand it, clear as crystal.
It is you who is acting strangely as you repeatedly ask questions of me, when the official policy would be just as easy to find, then argue constantly when you don't like my answers.
You've never been able to show where I have argued inconsistently on immigration, yet you say the answers are irrelevant, incomplete, or whatever.
I think the issue is that having caught the mood in a way that PR people could only dream of, the Kippers have found themselves thrust front and centre into the political limelight and debate.
I can't imagine that even in his most gin-soaked fantasies NFarage ever imagined that UKIP would command the attention they do right now. Truly it is the zeitgeist.
And therefore the Kippers are in the interesting position of being treated for all the world as though they are a political party. But they are not. They are an NOTA anti-EU pressure group. That is the disconnect. They are striking a chord with their message and indeed and as we all admit, there is more than some substance to it: capping immigration or rather, engendering a debate about immigration.
But they are far far from a political party and the everyday grind of formulating a broad swathe of policies, articulating them and then fighting for them.
You being wrong? Of course not, Mr Topping, and I herewith withdraw that scurrilous slur on your good name. ;-)
Actually, I pretty much agree with all of your post.
Mr. Gin, after the prequels I'm not confident the sequels will be good.
Mr. Eagles, cretinous Labour and the politically correct bullshit of the Coalition (regarding Cornwall) has led us to this. An English Parliament would help to see off Yorkshire and other limp-wristed assemblies before they get a head of steam.
But that would mean answering the West Lothian Question and giving the English a fair deal by choice instead of necessity.
Yorkshire will not be limp-wristed, perhaps you're thinking of Lancashire.
Well, you should know, don't you live in Manchester? Or did I miss something?
1) I generally live in Yorkshire
2) I work in Manchester
3) I generally spend two nights in Manchester, (Wednesday and Thursdays)
4) Manchester is in the county of Greater Manchester, something we can blame Ted Heath for.
Boris will get what he is bloody given, and like it or lump it....
Not a fan I take it?
I'm a great fan of Boris. He was an inspired choice to take on - and retain - the unlikely mantle of Tory Mayor of London. But if he were next told to get back in to the House at Newark - to stop any UKIP bandwagon in its tracks - he should do as he is told, for the good of the Party.... It's not like Newark is the arse end of nowhere.
As any fule kno, that is Middlesborough.
You might not end up in the creeks of the Tees estuary if you typed the correctly spelt name into your satnav ... it does have a fine book about it, 'At the works' by Lady Bell ...
Comments
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.
A high bar?
This will have an enormous impact on millions of people, its not looking at the minutia of policy, its as big as Scotland becoming independent. There are millions of european immigrants in this country who will suddenly have no right to remain and this will apply to the millions of british people living in europe. Surely it is reasonable to ask how UKIP will deal with this issue as it is a direct result of their policy
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/58321/patrick-mercer-mp-banned-parliament-six-months
Mr. Star, since you are here, please may I ask how business is? As I recall you are in the electrical trade, so I wonder how well you are doing and in particular how well your recruiting of apprentices is going.
And what about a British citizen who bought a house in another EU country and went to lvie there two years ago? OK for them to be booted out?
They are getting desperate.
As to the latter, it is for foreign countries to run their immigration policies in their own interests. It's not as if every British citizen living in Australia, Canada, or New Zealand got booted out after 1962.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 55s
@Markfergusonuk If there is a byelection, Ladbrokes odds will be something like;
4/5 Cons
2 UKIP
4 Labour
50 LD
Working with Eastleigh College we took on four apprentices last August and intend to do the same this year.
There was even a decent pay rise this year
Mr. Llama, it's sceptics like you who are risking 73 million British jobs, all of which are reliant upon the EU.
Still, I wouldn't put you off the 11/8 isam indicates.
(not that I bet, that said!!)
I can confirm from personal experience that gaining residence when you are not from the EU is not easy, if she hadn't have married me back in 1994 she would have been deported. She came here on a working holiday visa of 2 years. This situation remains. If you are not from the EU it is not easy at all to get residence in the UK.
These SNP types are just awful at predicting how voters will behave!
It's the opposite of a scare story. The point is that, as you imply, nothing much would change. We'd do a deal: we're not going to chuck any existing resident EU citizens out, our EU friends are not going to chuck out expat Brits, and the free movement of workers (and very probably citizens generally) would in all likelihood continue, with little discernible difference, under the trade agreement we'd sign.
UKIP's policies will effect people. It is fair for people to ask for detail on what their policies mean - we've done similar with other parties, for instance on Labour's energy freeze which created a long and lively discussion.
If you cannot answer, or cannot find good answers from the party on such questions, then perhaps there might be a problem?
The fundamental problem is that you aren't interested in probing what putting a stop to mass immigration would mean, and the side effects there might be. I am.
Taffy's "if you're not happy with things today..." reducto ad racisum intellectual exercise is interesting but no more than just that.
Even Farage is allowed to be not clear about his policies and rather to indicate a direction of travel which he is doing. The details, like all big ideas will follow. I refuse to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that it is absolutely impossible to control our borders and that we are stuck now and forevermore with unlimited EU immigration (perhaps I misrepresent him..)
If anything his is a huge argument in UKIP's favour and they would be well to pick up on it: "intellectuals say that we can't do anything about immigration but guess what...we can..." (although they might not have any idea how).
UKIP are making themselves heard and there are many bankster-bashing, intellectual elite-despising, leftie liberalers around for them to have a good showing in the euros.
Come GE2015, with their arguments assimilated (and diluted) into the general political discourse, however, I still put them at 3-5%.
And no I don't want to put any money on it....
Looking forward to this. EU elections are getting all the attention, but are very insignificant - Local elections could be much more important...
Vox Populi, Vox Dei?
But my point was the vilification of and sneering at a legitimate political view will enthuse the kippers and is ridiculous.
It wasn't whether that view, if enacted tomorrow morning, would or wouldn't have practical flaws not to say whether it is desirable or not.
Agreed, although I thinke the spreads might be narrower than the polls imply. I just don't see what reason there is for labour supporters to turn out this time.
UKIP are doing the 'kick the government' role and Labour's policy on Europe and immigration is basically 'go with the flow' from what I can see.
[I do think being pro-EU is a legitimate perspective, but the blind faith of the likes of Clegg, which suggests leaving is *not* a valid perspective, irks me significantly].
With Cornish people now officially recognised as national minority group, could Tykes try the same? A new political party, Yorkshire First, aims to speak up for God's Own County and fight for the region to have a devolved parliament. Hatty Collier reports
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/apr/24/yorkshire-first-new-political-party-euro-elections
Standards Committee can't say when report will be published on Mercer, or whether it's recommending 6 month ban
Both were out of control under Labour, and I believe that the former is really the one people are upset by (as antifrank rightly points out, it's curious that UKIP go on so much about Islam, which has the square root of b'all to do with EU immigration). The ironic thing is that there is actually no difference between any of the parties, including UKIP, on this: everyone agrees that we should have a points-based system, Even Labour finally got round to accepting this, implementing a perfectly sensible system, but not until the end of their period in government and unfortunately too late. That's history now, but the political class no longer has an open-borders immigration policy in respect of the non-EU countries.
As I've patiently and repeatedly pointed out, as regards EU immigration, we would have to consider what the likely outcome of negotiating a trade agreement with the EU would be. Only the fruitiest of fruitcakes thinks we wouldn't negotiate a trade agreement with the EU, so what would be in that agreement? Well, I can tell you: free movement of workers, very similar to what we already have, would be one thing.
That is the reality.
Daft sods.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/ukip-to-win-a-by-election-before-the-next-general-election
Pot-kettle-black news of the day: Saudi Arabia criticises Norway over human rights record http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudi-arabia-criticises-norway-over-human-rights-record-9301796.html … #couldntmakeitup
I wouldn't dream of asking you
Why do you prefer to ask me rather than go straight to source?
As it is, I answered your questions thoroughly on Friday night, but it seems nothing I say is good enough for you
I think you just get a kick out of trying to be a smart arse to be honest
There should be an announcement from Lucasfilm soon (possibly May 4th)
Oh and the geese fly at midnight.
This is a stepping stone on my plan to become the country's first Directly Elected Dictator.
And what sort of sneering? The problem is UKIP's become like a football club, more so than most of the other parties.
This is counter-productive. I am worried about some aspects of mass immigration, as I've expressed in the past. But I have genuine concerns about any controls for a multitude of reasons.
I hope everyone believes me when I say I'm also firmly on the fence about the EU; I've expressed this, and my reasons, many times. Yet the other day I was called a Europhile for having the temerity to disagree with something. It doesn't matter: it's just a label. But that attitude is hardly going to win me over to their side, is it?
If you think I've been sneering at UKIP, then I'm sorry. But I'll continue to question their supporters on things I'd genuinely like to know.
If they can't answer, it's their problem, not mine.
There is a very fast train service London to Newark.
Mr. Eagles, cretinous Labour and the politically correct bullshit of the Coalition (regarding Cornwall) has led us to this. An English Parliament would help to see off Yorkshire and other limp-wristed assemblies before they get a head of steam.
But that would mean answering the West Lothian Question and giving the English a fair deal by choice instead of necessity.
As for the Brexit winner's thoughts on this, as I've said before I think it was a truly excellent paper. He laid out the pros and cons, and the likely negotiating points, clearly. But of course he's only one guy, with no big research team, so we can't take it as a definitive statement of what will happen. And, on this particular point, I think he was slightly wrong: he had achieving 'No free movement of people' down as of 'Medium' difficulty in the negotiations; my contention is that that is a misreading; I'd put it as High verging on Impossible, if we also want 'Significant access for services' (which he rightly put as a High priority, Medium to High difficulty). [Page 26]
It's a shame that Vanilla doesn't have straplines, or I'd put "Not a Conservative" on it.
Feel free to ask me questions when I express an opinion on something; it may even help me clear my own thoughts on matters. I've even been persuaded by reasoned arguments on here in the past, and changed my mind on things.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, and I'm sorry if you find the questions too complex. Again, that's your issue, not mine.
This suggest's Harrison Ford has a "gigantic" role in Episode VII, which will please the fans and should get the ST off to a good start;
http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/star-wars-cast-rumors-oscar-isaac-adam-driver-john-boyega/
And Scotland, at least, is a coherent nation. The last time Yorkshire had claim to be such the capital city was called Jorvik. England's our kingdom, and long may it remain so.
I wouldn't ask you anything because I find you extremely annoying
No wonder they struggle for members - even their own supporters are ashamed of the fact!
Mr. Fett, it's arrogant of you to presume to know Mr. Jessop's political inclinations better than he does.
That and words totes and "well jell" meaning "well jealous"
What is the point of expecting detailed answers on policy from someone who you think cant give them?
Do you go into shops that don't sell things you want and moan at them for not having what you are after?
Get it right.
*Covenant is an interesting game, not least because it starts with a standard disclaimer about any similarity to people/events living or dead being coincidence, and then includes the First World War, Czar Nicholas II and Rasputin.
I think the issue is that having caught the mood in a way that PR people could only dream of, the Kippers have found themselves thrust front and centre into the political limelight and debate.
I can't imagine that even in his most gin-soaked fantasies NFarage ever imagined that UKIP would command the attention they do right now. Truly it is the zeitgeist.
And therefore the Kippers are in the interesting position of being treated for all the world as though they are a political party. But they are not. They are an NOTA anti-EU pressure group. That is the disconnect. They are striking a chord with their message and indeed and as we all admit, there is more than some substance to it: capping immigration or rather, engendering a debate about immigration.
But they are far far from a political party and the everyday grind of formulating a broad swathe of policies, articulating them and then fighting for them.
edited - haha for a wrong spelling
Knowledge is good.
It would be like people asking me questions on (whisper) HS2 and me saying: "I dunno. I just like it, that's all."
As any fule kno, that is Middlesborough.
I do always answer the questions, and I do understand it, clear as crystal.
It is you who is acting strangely as you repeatedly ask questions of me, when the official policy would be just as easy to find, then argue constantly when you don't like my answers.
You've never been able to show where I have argued inconsistently on immigration, yet you say the answers are irrelevant, incomplete, or whatever.
You also do act like a patronising, smart arse.
"Knowledge is good" etc, Jesus
Actually, I pretty much agree with all of your post.
You now vote Tory. Ergo you are now a Tory.
I'd love to know what other definition you have for a Tory, other than someone who actively votes Tory and supports the Conservative Party.
Do the PB Lefties endlessly refuse to be called Labourites? It would be perverse if they did, given they vote Labour.
2) I work in Manchester
3) I generally spend two nights in Manchester, (Wednesday and Thursdays)
4) Manchester is in the county of Greater Manchester, something we can blame Ted Heath for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester
Eussr?