Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens.
SO, I'm not a kipper but I have a degree of sympathy for a newish party trying to break the stale mould politics we have; in the long term it can only be a good thing. However if I was a committed kipper I'd respecftully tell you, Nick P, Richard N and all the other died in the wool party men to go boil your heads for turnips.
We have team red with no policies, team blue with policies they ignore and team yellow operating by change by the day policies all getting on their high horses and demanding to know things they themselves won't do. I'd say the customary response involves two words, three Fs and one meaning. The big parties are in the poo because they take their core vote for granted and now they've been called out. It's a long overdue adjustment and if the kippers are sensible they'll sit tight say nothing and let Nick Plamer and co play the Marie Antoinette card, it can only help the anti politics theme.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
Yup. There is an assumption that Kippers are the BNP-lite, that Tories are racists and on and on. Only Labout voters are pure and moral and without flaws. Pfft.
I wish the Left just packed it in - it's demeaning and frankly repellent.
So when people on the left specifically state they do not think that UKIP voters are racist what you are saying is that you do not believe them. Thus, you *want* left wingers to believe that UKIP voters are racist.
Mr SO - you paddle in the waters of Intellectual Property definitions and engage with angels on pin-heads on PB - anyone who thinks discussing an issue with you on a broad level is wasting their time as you reduce it to micro points.
I've seen you do it dozens of times and its boring and adds nothing. Forgive me for not indulging you here.
Having looked at Lewis Duckworth's comments from last night I do wonder why he was not called out by more people. They are vile. Not that I believe they should be deleted or anything like that. They should be up there for all time for all to see.
I thought personal attacks on other posters were disallowed?
But now that you've brought it up, you always used to accuse me of being partisan when 'calling out' posters, and even laughingly claimed that I was trying to be a moral arbiter. In that spirit, it's a shame that you never seem to call out posters whose political beliefs you share when they say outrageous or nasty things.
You're one of the more pleasant and thoughtful posters on here, but your post made me laugh for its sheer lack of self-awareness.
I did not say Lewis Duckworth was vile I said his post was, which it was.
If you are referring to Tim I have called him out on occcasion - as he will attest, I am sure.
I'd be interested to see examples. I won't go into details, but there have been terrible comments in recent months from several left-leaning posters that got nary a murmur from any of the left-leaning posters.
For instance, repeated calls of 'Tory Scum'. For another example see a few posts back.
Good morning all. First time in a long time I awoke past 10am. Talk about prompting: I want to Mike to put a donate button up again as I'd like to pay for like unlike buttons to be reinstalled. I feel it adds spice to the blog.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens.
SO, I'm not a kipper but I have a degree of sympathy for a newish party trying to break the stale mould politics we have; in the long term it can only be a good thing. However if I was a committed kipper I'd respecftully tell you, Nick P, Richard N and all the other died in the wool party men to go boil your heads for turnips.
We have team red with no policies, team blue with policies they ignore and team yellow operating by change by the day policies all getting on their high horses and demanding to know things they themselves won't do. I'd say the customary response involves two words, three Fs and one meaning. The big parties are in the poo because they take their core vote for granted and now they've been called out. It's a long overdue adjustment and if the kippers are sensible they'll sit tight say nothing and let Nick Plamer and co play the Marie Antoinette card, it can only help the anti politics theme.
I agree. But as I am not a member of any of the big parties, this is an internet politics chat site and a claim has been made that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home I thought I would ask what the policy is. If it is the case that actually UKIP does not know what it wants to do in this area, then fair enough. But there is no harm in asking.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
Yup. There is an assumption that Kippers are the BNP-lite, that Tories are racists and on and on. Only Labout voters are pure and moral and without flaws. Pfft.
I wish the Left just packed it in - it's demeaning and frankly repellent.
So when people on the left specifically state they do not think that UKIP voters are racist what you are saying is that you do not believe them. Thus, you *want* left wingers to believe that UKIP voters are racist.
I don't think New Labour are racist against white English people.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
Yup. There is an assumption that Kippers are the BNP-lite, that Tories are racists and on and on. Only Labout voters are pure and moral and without flaws. Pfft.
I wish the Left just packed it in - it's demeaning and frankly repellent.
So when people on the left specifically state they do not think that UKIP voters are racist what you are saying is that you do not believe them. Thus, you *want* left wingers to believe that UKIP voters are racist.
Mr SO - you paddle in the waters of Intellectual Property definitions and engage with angels on pin-heads on PB - anyone who thinks discussing an issue with you on a broad level is wasting their time as you reduce it to micro points.
I've seen you do it dozens of times and its boring and adds nothing. Forgive me for not indulging you here.
In other words, I am correct.
Your lack of self-awareness is epic - I will bookmark your post for amusement value. I can imagine you arguing at home about who left the top off the toothpaste and thinking you've won by noting how many turns of the lid were employed.
Clue - it isn't about the details - its the sentiment behind the observation.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
Right so a party with absolutely no policies and which brazenly says it won't have any in case they get attacked is now asking others to produce policies ?
No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens.
SO, I'm not a kipper but I have a degree of sympathy for a newish party trying to break the stale mould politics we have; in the long term it can only be a good thing. However if I was a committed kipper I'd respecftully tell you, Nick P, Richard N and all the other died in the wool party men to go boil your heads for turnips.
We have team red with no policies, team blue with policies they ignore and team yellow operating by change by the day policies all getting on their high horses and demanding to know things they themselves won't do. I'd say the customary response involves two words, three Fs and one meaning. The big parties are in the poo because they take their core vote for granted and now they've been called out. It's a long overdue adjustment and if the kippers are sensible they'll sit tight say nothing and let Nick Plamer and co play the Marie Antoinette card, it can only help the anti politics theme.
I agree. But as I am not a member of any of the big parties, this is an internet politics chat site and a claim has been made that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home I thought I would ask what the policy is. If it is the case that actually UKIP does not know what it wants to do in this area, then fair enough. But there is no harm in asking.
I'm sorry SO, this is a bit silly of you. We' don't talk about labour 'wanting to send people home' because clearly that would be silly. The same is true of UKIP as I have seen no position raised by them which would get close to that either.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
Yup. There is an assumption that Kippers are the BNP-lite, that Tories are racists and on and on. Only Labout voters are pure and moral and without flaws. Pfft.
I wish the Left just packed it in - it's demeaning and frankly repellent.
So when people on the left specifically state they do not think that UKIP voters are racist what you are saying is that you do not believe them. Thus, you *want* left wingers to believe that UKIP voters are racist.
Mr SO - you paddle in the waters of Intellectual Property definitions and engage with angels on pin-heads on PB - anyone who thinks discussing an issue with you on a broad level is wasting their time as you reduce it to micro points.
I've seen you do it dozens of times and its boring and adds nothing. Forgive me for not indulging you here.
In other words, I am correct.
Your lack of self-awareness is epic - I will bookmark your post for amusement value. I cam imagine you arguing at home about who left the top of the toothpaste and thinking you've won by noting how many turns of the lid were employed.
You can imagine what you like. I am afraid you cannot blame me if you make claims which you are subsequently unable to support.
Where are all these PBers calling UKP voters racist? Where are all these lefties doing it?
I see Cameron's EU referendum question is "Should the UK remain in the European Union?"
There seems to be a complete double standard for Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. On the same basis, the fair question would be "Should the UK become independent of the European Union?"
Whatever the wording, the "yes" should be to the proposed change happening. This is what the Scottish independence vote was. This is what the AV referendum was. Clearly, David Cameron is trying to rig the deck on this one. No wonder eurosceptics don't trust him.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Although she's often regarded as a bit of a joke, she can sometimes be quite thoughtful (and she did give the perhaps best speech of the whole of the last parliament, on the 42-day detention proposal).
There does seem to be some interesting thinking going on in at least some Labour circles. Just not right at the top.
Memo tto Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Doesn't mention sending anyone anywhere here... Don't know how up to date this is
@Socrates The wording really isn't very important in practice. By the time any vote took place (which it won't, of course), everyone would know what the vote was about. Few voters indeed would be undergoing a Damascene conversion in the polling booth on the strength of the question.
The same is true of the Scottish independence referendum.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Well said, it's the same re Stafford - its all nothing/isolated issues according to some - what a load of piffle. Anyone with eyes can see it and attempting to mitigate such horrors for Party purposes is frankly revolting.
I see Cameron's EU referendum question is "Should the UK remain in the European Union?"
There seems to be a complete double standard for Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. On the same basis, the fair question would be "Should the UK become independent of the European Union?"
Whatever the wording, the "yes" should be to the proposed change happening. This is what the Scottish independence vote was. This is what the AV referendum was. Clearly, David Cameron is trying to rig the deck on this one. No wonder eurosceptics don't trust him.
alternatively Camerons question was made up on the back of a fag packet within the last 48 hours, and was thus poorly worded? you'd have to cite cock-up as being more likely than conspiracy?
"No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens. "
What do you mean by "sending immigrants back"? The current immigration system sends immigrants back all the time, on student visas, on working visas etc. UKIP would no doubt have a similar system for EU immigrants: some could stay, and some would be sent back. Why is this supposed to be so unpleasantly awful? I have never heard any of the main parties criticise the existing system.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Why would Farage's wife have to go? She is married to a British citizen. If UKIP is saying all the millions of Romanians and Bulgarians they are predicting will come here can stay then don't you think they should share that information with their voters, as well as the rest of us?
Paris calling... The lady (actually Portugese, so not utterly intolerable) ...
Bored in Paris doesn't seem to be making much progress in integrating. Does he support the French cricket team? Does he know the date of the battle of Tours? Perhaps he'll even want to marry another Brit? Should someone who so dislikes his host country not be sent back?
(Just trying on the UKIP mindset on for size...)
You do know Nigel Farage is married to a Continental lady? Just checking!
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Why would Farage's wife have to go? She is married to a British citizen. If UKIP is saying all the millions of Romanians and Bulgarians they are predicting will come here can stay then don't you think they should share that information with their voters, as well as the rest of us?
The UKIP policy would be that EU citizens that have been here for seven years would be entitled to apply for permanent leave to remain, providing certain criteria are met. The rest would be able to apply under the existing system. Depending when we left, I can't imagine this covering that many Romanians and Bulgarians.
When have UKIP said that "millions" of them would be coming here anyway?
"No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens. "
What do you mean by "sending immigrants back"? The current immigration system sends immigrants back all the time, on student visas, on working visas etc. UKIP would no doubt have a similar system for EU immigrants: some could stay, and some would be sent back. Why is this supposed to be so unpleasantly awful? I have never heard any of the main parties criticise the existing system.
I am not saying it is awful. I am trying to find out what the UKIP position is. Logically, I would have thought that the plan would be to remove quite a number of EU immigrants post-withdrawal as their presence here has been identified as a key reason for British citizens having low wages, no jobs etc. If UKIP does not plan to do anything about those already here, then presumably all they can promise is that withdrawal will save the UK from further influxes some time in the future.
alternatively Camerons question was made up on the back of a fag packet within the last 48 hours, and was thus poorly worded? you'd have to cite cock-up as being more likely than conspiracy?
Cant be true - Michael Green / Grant Shapps said they'd been working on it for months. You surely dont think he's capable of lying?
Um. I seem to have incensed some people, so I should confirm that my tease of Bored in Paris was a JOKE, which he himself has taken in good part (and his post about the intolerable French that I was replying to was also not, I suspect, intended to be entirely serious). The bit about the French cricket team might have been a clue. Sheesh.
As for UKIP, my uncle's a UKIP member, my closest friend is a UKIP supporter, I liked my UKIP opponent in 2010 and I think they are genuinely trying to avoid having candidates who have racist views. I disagree with them on nearly everything, but I'm much less hostile than many others. The fact that they appear to be nicking a larger part of the Tory vote is an endearing factor.
And I'm not Danish, as our Italian friend Moniker (ALERT: that's another joke) appears to believe.I was born in London, though I lived in Denmark for 15 years from when I was 12.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Why would Farage's wife have to go? She is married to a British citizen. If UKIP is saying all the millions of Romanians and Bulgarians they are predicting will come here can stay then don't you think they should share that information with their voters, as well as the rest of us?
Oh look ok, you win I give in, I can't cope with your hair splitting any longer.
I don't think they are intending to send people that are legally in the uk back where they came from. The only party that does say that is the BNP I think.
Vote labour, agree with Nick Palmer, it doesn't matter to me
"No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens. "
What do you mean by "sending immigrants back"? The current immigration system sends immigrants back all the time, on student visas, on working visas etc. UKIP would no doubt have a similar system for EU immigrants: some could stay, and some would be sent back. Why is this supposed to be so unpleasantly awful? I have never heard any of the main parties criticise the existing system.
I am not saying it is awful. I am trying to find out what the UKIP position is. Logically, I would have thought that the plan would be to remove quite a number of EU immigrants post-withdrawal as their presence here has been identified as a key reason for British citizens having low wages, no jobs etc. If UKIP does not plan to do anything about those already here, then presumably all they can promise is that withdrawal will save the UK from further influxes some time in the future.
As mentioned, those resident for seven years would be entitled to permanent LTR, subject to a few other criteria. Those that do not qualify for that system, and do not qualify under other parts of our immigration system would be expected to return back to their own countries of their own accord.
I see Cameron's EU referendum question is "Should the UK remain in the European Union?"
There seems to be a complete double standard for Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. On the same basis, the fair question would be "Should the UK become independent of the European Union?"
Whatever the wording, the "yes" should be to the proposed change happening. This is what the Scottish independence vote was. This is what the AV referendum was. Clearly, David Cameron is trying to rig the deck on this one. No wonder eurosceptics don't trust him.
alternatively Camerons question was made up on the back of a fag packet within the last 48 hours, and was thus poorly worded? you'd have to cite cock-up as being more likely than conspiracy?
On today's economic figures: the management summary is that the UK is doing better than any other large European country, but not as well as the US (although there are some worrying signs that the the US is running out of steam). That's pretty damned good in the circumstances.
The employment figures are also quite encouraging; we're certainly avoiding the worst, as the economy rebalances away from excessive dependence on the public sector. Osborne's path through the minefield remains well-judged.
Of course tim is right that the squeeze on living standards remains a problem. Unfortunately that's pretty inevitable as we come slowly out of a debt crisis.
@Socrates The wording really isn't very important in practice. By the time any vote took place (which it won't, of course), everyone would know what the vote was about. Few voters indeed would be undergoing a Damascene conversion in the polling booth on the strength of the question.
The same is true of the Scottish independence referendum.
Unfortunately, people in general tend to be susceptible to all sorts of biases even when they have views on a matter. The pro-EU lot already have the status quo bias working in their favour, it is unreasonable - and inconsistent with other proposed changes - for them to have the affirmation bias too.
Memo to Nick Palmer - do not try any kind of humour, however gentle, that may in any way be construed as negative by UKIP supporters. It only serves to demonstrate that you are part of an arrogant, out-of-touch, leftie, urban, anti-British elite; and in no way serves to show that quite a few UKIP supporters on PB are just a tiny bit prickly and sensitive.
Constantly insinuating that non racist people are racist and want to send people back where they came when theyve said no such thing is not all that funny and is misrepresentative.
You said yesterday that Labour messed up on immigration, would you like to be smeared as a racist on the back of it?
Nick is not insinuating that. He was making a joke. He has stated specifically on a number of occasions he does not think UKIP voters are racist. It seems, however, that some UKIP supporters on here want to believe that some people on the left think they are racist. It's a strange one. It's like the claim that no-one was allowed to talk about immigration before 2010 without being called a racist, when in fact everyone was talking about immigration. In any case, even if all of the above is wrong, why would UKIP supporters actually *care* what an effete, anti-British, metropolitan, elite, out-of-touch member of the leftie establishment thinks about them in the first place?
Has UKIP got a policy on the post-withdrawal residency status of EU citizens who are currently resident in the UK and who will continue to come here between now and our withdrawal?
I'm sorry I don't want to argue with you, it must be annoying, but Nick Palmer always plants the seed of racism/crossover with BNP whenever he posts about ukip.
I do care what people think of me, why should I want people, whoever they are or vote for to think I'm a racist, or that I dislike foreigners. I don't base the people I like solely on who they vote for! Wouldn't know who most people I knock about with do.
As for that policy question, I don't know you will have to look that up yourself.
I'd suggest that you are looking for reasons to be insulted by Nick and so are seeing things that are not there. But we will have to agree to disagree. On the policy issue, how do you know that UKIP does not want to send immigrants home if you do not know what their policy is?
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...." "Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
Why would Farage's wife have to go? She is married to a British citizen. If UKIP is saying all the millions of Romanians and Bulgarians they are predicting will come here can stay then don't you think they should share that information with their voters, as well as the rest of us?
Oh look ok, you win I give in, I can't cope with your hair splitting any longer.
I don't think they are intending to send people that are legally in the uk back where they came from. The only party that does say that is the BNP I think.
Vote labour, agree with Nick Palmer, it doesn't matter to me
Don't reply please, you give me a headache
Sam - you are going to have to get used to people asking you questions about what UKIP believes in. The party has a level of support that justifies it.
If Socrates is correct, it seems as if UKIP will expect at least some of those EU migrants who have settled here perfectly legally to leave this country once we withdraw from the EU.
You're left with a choice between the wording being the product of months of consideration by people determined to give a boost to the 'in' campaign or it was a slapdash copy and paste job that they pulled together one afternoon.
Remember Grant Shapps / Michael Green said they took months over it and he is very truthful.
Um. I seem to have incensed some people, so I should confirm that my tease of Bored in Paris was a JOKE, which he himself has taken in good part (and his post about the intolerable French that I was replying to was also not, I suspect, intended to be entirely serious). The bit about the French cricket team might have been a clue. Sheesh.
As for UKIP, my uncle's a UKIP member, my closest friend is a UKIP supporter, I liked my UKIP opponent in 2010 and I think they are genuinely trying to avoid having candidates who have racist views. I disagree with them on nearly everything, but I'm much less hostile than many others. The fact that they appear to be nicking a larger part of the Tory vote is an endearing factor.
And I'm not Danish, as our Italian friend Moniker (ALERT: that's another joke) appears to believe.I was born in London, though I lived in Denmark for 15 years from when I was 12.
Nick, why are you bothering? People will believe what they want to believe.
As the site's technical administrator, I'd just like to say that if I receive sufficient bribesdonations, then I'm happy to reinstate the like/dislike buttons.
I was having an interesting conversation with someone last night on EuroNCAP. This is a safety rating for cars that has, by any objective measure, been a massive success and which must have saved some lives.
Euro NCAP is more strenuous than the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval, and is often a consideration for people when buying cars. Manufacturers take it very seriously.
NCAP was developed in Britain from 1997, and was later taken up by the EC (the British scheme was itself modelled on an American scheme).
If we were not part of the EU, would NCAP have been taken up in such a manner by most of Europe? Would it's position have been critically weakened, particularly as it is a voluntary test that manufacturers do not need to submit their new cars to? They would surely be less likely to go to the cost of submitting cars to a voluntary test that is only applicable to one country.
I postulated that NCAP (and indeed the Whole Vehicle Type Approval) are examples of benefits of working together with the other European countries. My friend disagreed, and said that NCAP would have been taken up by European countries anyway.
"No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens. "
What do you mean by "sending immigrants back"? The current immigration system sends immigrants back all the time, on student visas, on working visas etc. UKIP would no doubt have a similar system for EU immigrants: some could stay, and some would be sent back. Why is this supposed to be so unpleasantly awful? I have never heard any of the main parties criticise the existing system.
I am not saying it is awful. I am trying to find out what the UKIP position is. Logically, I would have thought that the plan would be to remove quite a number of EU immigrants post-withdrawal as their presence here has been identified as a key reason for British citizens having low wages, no jobs etc. If UKIP does not plan to do anything about those already here, then presumably all they can promise is that withdrawal will save the UK from further influxes some time in the future.
As mentioned, those resident for seven years would be entitled to permanent LTR, subject to a few other criteria. Those that do not qualify for that system, and do not qualify under other parts of our immigration system would be expected to return back to their own countries of their own accord.
If we were remaining a part of the EEA (even as a short-term measure), presumably they would be allowed to stay assuming they were gainfully employed or able to support themselves.
Longer-term, if we were to leave the EEA there would be ample time for a transition, with employers able to go through a 'fast track' procedure to get existing employees' work permits.
Let's remember David Cameron's proud achievement of a €32bn cut over seven years. It's now been agreed that an extra €7.3bn will go on to this year's budget. If they go on in this manner - and there's nothing we can do to stop it - that will be an extra €51bn over the seven year budget period, making it €19bn higher than the last seven year budget.
So much for the "first ever cut". When will people learn that the EU will never do anything to prevent it's accumulation of powers and money? Tony Blair's agreement on CAP reform didn't do it. Rejection of the EU Constitution didn't do it. David Cameron's veto didn't do it. Explicit bans on no EU bailouts didn't do it. Last year's budget deal didn't do it.
If we stay in, we will slowly but surely be sucked into a superstate based on majority voting. Or we can say enough's enough and go back to a bilateral trade deal. It's quite simple.
Presumably the Electoral Commission will get involved at some point and make a ruling on whether the question is fair.
That will only happen if (a) the Bill was introduced into Parliament, and (b) the Bill declares that the provisions of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 apply to its provisions. One might think that no government would introduce a Bill which curtailed by implication the statutory functions of the Electoral Commission, or alternatively, that Chairman Shapps-Green has tried his hand at statutory drafting in recent days and come unstuck. But Mr Shapps-Green assures us that the Bill has been in preparation for months, so it must be the former.
Presumably the Electoral Commission will get involved at some point and make a ruling on whether the question is fair.
You think the Bill is going anywhere?!
I think it's possible Treaty change in the next parliament will force Miliband to bring it back. If not, I'm pretty sure a Conservative-led government will introduce it after 2020.
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget. Just like Cameron's veto was later nullified, the big achievement of the cut is now on course to be nullified.
Though I'm not sure if Neil's is actually a photo of him at 3 am on Saturday.
I am nowhere near as good looking as my avatar at any time of day!
Think of the rugged, virile, manly good looks of Brian Cowen and that's Neil for you.
In that case here's a selection of BIFFO photos for Neil's avatar, please not the one with Desperate Dan 4th line down on the right - could give the Moderators a problem
I put a couple of these through the WAVE Website Accessibility Tool, to check how well they've been designed for access by the disabled (e.g. the blind) who use reader tools.
Conservatives: 0 errors, 26 alerts Labour: 7 errors, 16 alerts LibDems: 2 errors, 1 alert (although their front page is very simple) UKIP: 22 errors, 51 alerts
As an example, my own website front page gets 2 errors and 6 alerts, and the BBC News front page 2 errors, 51 alerts.
You have to be very careful with these figures, as the online tools isn't the best, and it can depend on the accessibility tool the disabled person is using.
But generally the results are not too bad, and certainly better than some websites I have seen.
I think it's possible Treaty change in the next parliament will force Miliband to bring it back. If not, I'm pretty sure a Conservative-led government will introduce it after 2020.
I'm pretty sure any Government would get proper Parliamentary draftsmen in rather than introduce the product of Michael Green / Grant Shapps' months of toil.
Let's remember David Cameron's proud achievement of a €32bn cut over seven years. It's now been agreed that an extra €7.3bn will go on to this year's budget. If they go on in this manner - and there's nothing we can do to stop it - that will be an extra €51bn over the seven year budget period, making it €19bn higher than the last seven year budget.
So much for the "first ever cut". When will people learn that the EU will never do anything to prevent it's accumulation of powers and money? Tony Blair's agreement on CAP reform didn't do it. Rejection of the EU Constitution didn't do it. David Cameron's veto didn't do it. Explicit bans on no EU bailouts didn't do it. Last year's budget deal didn't do it.
If we stay in, we will slowly but surely be sucked into a superstate based on majority voting. Or we can say enough's enough and go back to a bilateral trade deal. It's quite simple.
Makes a no vote more likely - bad news for Euroholics - like rEd Miliband.
I was having an interesting conversation with someone last night on EuroNCAP. This is a safety rating for cars that has, by any objective measure, been a massive success and which must have saved some lives.
Euro NCAP is more strenuous than the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval, and is often a consideration for people when buying cars. Manufacturers take it very seriously.
NCAP was developed in Britain from 1997, and was later taken up by the EC (the British scheme was itself modelled on an American scheme).
If we were not part of the EU, would NCAP have been taken up in such a manner by most of Europe? Would it's position have been critically weakened, particularly as it is a voluntary test that manufacturers do not need to submit their new cars to? They would surely be less likely to go to the cost of submitting cars to a voluntary test that is only applicable to one country.
I postulated that NCAP (and indeed the Whole Vehicle Type Approval) are examples of benefits of working together with the other European countries. My friend disagreed, and said that NCAP would have been taken up by European countries anyway.
If we were not part of the EU, the bulk of our manufacturing exports would still be modelled on EU standards, simply because that is where the bulk of our trade goes. However, at the same time it's worth noting that the world is generally moving ever closer as far as standards go: FCC is the defacto standard and stamp for measuring electromagnetic radiation emition standards.
In theory (although practice is of course different...), it would make perfect sense for Britain to pool sovereignty as regards:
One would think that having a single Commonwealth or NAFTA or EU or even OECD 'drug safety agency' would save money and enable judgements on the safety of drugs to achieved more quickly and cheaply than if every country had their own bodies. It is, of course, a reduction of sovereignty to do this. However, one would think that the cost savings and time benefits would compensate for this.
Let's remember David Cameron's proud achievement of a €32bn cut over seven years. It's now been agreed that an extra €7.3bn will go on to this year's budget. If they go on in this manner - and there's nothing we can do to stop it - that will be an extra €51bn over the seven year budget period, making it €19bn higher than the last seven year budget.
So much for the "first ever cut". When will people learn that the EU will never do anything to prevent it's accumulation of powers and money? Tony Blair's agreement on CAP reform didn't do it. Rejection of the EU Constitution didn't do it. David Cameron's veto didn't do it. Explicit bans on no EU bailouts didn't do it. Last year's budget deal didn't do it.
If we stay in, we will slowly but surely be sucked into a superstate based on majority voting. Or we can say enough's enough and go back to a bilateral trade deal. It's quite simple.
Makes a no vote more likely - bad news for Euroholics - like rEd Miliband.
Sir Harry (deceased)! Good to see you use my term "Euroholic"!
Euroholic (n.) - one who is intoxicated with and/or addicted to the notion of ever-closer and ever-deeper union of one's country with its European neighbours and who cannot accept arguments to the contrary, often branding opponents as "extreme" or "racist" or "xenophobic" or even just "stupid". A Euroholic is often heard repeating the mantra "My EU right or wrong!".
Let's remember David Cameron's proud achievement of a €32bn cut over seven years. It's now been agreed that an extra €7.3bn will go on to this year's budget. If they go on in this manner - and there's nothing we can do to stop it - that will be an extra €51bn over the seven year budget period, making it €19bn higher than the last seven year budget.
So much for the "first ever cut". When will people learn that the EU will never do anything to prevent it's accumulation of powers and money? Tony Blair's agreement on CAP reform didn't do it. Rejection of the EU Constitution didn't do it. David Cameron's veto didn't do it. Explicit bans on no EU bailouts didn't do it. Last year's budget deal didn't do it.
If we stay in, we will slowly but surely be sucked into a superstate based on majority voting. Or we can say enough's enough and go back to a bilateral trade deal. It's quite simple.
Makes a no vote more likely - bad news for Euroholics - like rEd Miliband.
Sir Harry (deceased)! Good to see you use my term "Euroholic"!
it's a good term - quitting would be for the better for the health and save money.
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but the great EU budget victory secured by Cameron has already turned out to be illusory.
Yesterday Britain was outvoted at a meeting of EU finance ministers and a top up of 7.3 billion Euros was agreed for the 2013 budget which means the UK will have to provide an extra 1 bn Euros this year. That could increase as there are moves to increase the top up to the 11.2 bn requested by the Commission.
The difference between EU membership and non-EU membership is that the UK can make these decisions about what standards to use on a case by case basis. Where it makes sense to join, we can, and where it doesn't make sense, we don't. If it later proves that the OECD pharmaceutical regulator or whatever is doing a bad job, we can also pull out. In the EU we can't do this stuff, we have to sign up to virtually everything, and can never pull out.
I put a couple of these through the WAVE Website Accessibility Tool, to check how well they've been designed for access by the disabled (e.g. the blind) who use reader tools.
Conservatives: 0 errors, 26 alerts Labour: 7 errors, 16 alerts LibDems: 2 errors, 1 alert (although their front page is very simple) UKIP: 22 errors, 51 alerts
As an example, my own website front page gets 2 errors and 6 alerts, and the BBC News front page 2 errors, 51 alerts.
You have to be very careful with these figures, as the online tools isn't the best, and it can depend on the accessibility tool the disabled person is using.
But generally the results are not too bad, and certainly better than some websites I have seen.
UKIP result looks like a shocker. Usability testing UKIP!
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
The way the Commission appears to intend it to work is that whatever the agreement on spending they will simply ask for these top ups each year so making the whole exercise of deciding the budget pretty useless. They are already talking of similar top ups for next year and 2015.
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but the great EU budget victory secured by Cameron has already turned out to be illusory.
Yesterday Britain was outvoted at a meeting of EU finance ministers and a top up of 7.3 billion Euros was agreed for the 2013 budget which means the UK will have to provide an extra 1 bn Euros this year. That could increase as there are moves to increase the top up to the 11.2 bn requested by the Commission.
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but the great EU budget victory secured by Cameron has already turned out to be illusory.
Yesterday Britain was outvoted at a meeting of EU finance ministers and a top up of 7.3 billion Euros was agreed for the 2013 budget which means the UK will have to provide an extra 1 bn Euros this year. That could increase as there are moves to increase the top up to the 11.2 bn requested by the Commission.
No veto available so we just have to lump it.
I see now that Sunil had already mentioned this earlier but from a different source.
I was having an interesting conversation with someone last night on EuroNCAP. This is a safety rating for cars that has, by any objective measure, been a massive success and which must have saved some lives.
Euro NCAP is more strenuous than the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval, and is often a consideration for people when buying cars. Manufacturers take it very seriously.
NCAP was developed in Britain from 1997, and was later taken up by the EC (the British scheme was itself modelled on an American scheme).
If we were not part of the EU, would NCAP have been taken up in such a manner by most of Europe? Would it's position have been critically weakened, particularly as it is a voluntary test that manufacturers do not need to submit their new cars to? They would surely be less likely to go to the cost of submitting cars to a voluntary test that is only applicable to one country.
I postulated that NCAP (and indeed the Whole Vehicle Type Approval) are examples of benefits of working together with the other European countries. My friend disagreed, and said that NCAP would have been taken up by European countries anyway.
If we were not part of the EU, the bulk of our manufacturing exports would still be modelled on EU standards, simply because that is where the bulk of our trade goes. However, at the same time it's worth noting that the world is generally moving ever closer as far as standards go: FCC is the defacto standard and stamp for measuring electromagnetic radiation emition standards.
In theory (although practice is of course different...), it would make perfect sense for Britain to pool sovereignty as regards:
One would think that having a single Commonwealth or NAFTA or EU or even OECD 'drug safety agency' would save money and enable judgements on the safety of drugs to achieved more quickly and cheaply than if every country had their own bodies. It is, of course, a reduction of sovereignty to do this. However, one would think that the cost savings and time benefits would compensate for this.
YMMV
Cheers for that. I was mote interested in whether our standard would have been adopted by the rest of the EU in this way, if we had not been members, especially given not-invented-here syndrome.
But you are right: standards are becoming ever more standardised, simply because manufacturers want to sell the same kit into as many countries as possible without alterations.
As it happens, at one time I was very familiar with the FCC EMC standard, as well as its competitors. There was a little barn in the Fens near Cambridge where we used to send all our kit to get EMC tested. It was in the middle of nowhere so that there was less spurious background radiation.
Just watched the MPC Press Conference. Very impressive performance at his last conference by Mervyn King. How jealous it must make the politicians and economists of the Eurozone countries to see the world-wide attention given to and exhibited by this example of retained UK sovereignty.
The difference between EU membership and non-EU membership is that the UK can make these decisions about what standards to use on a case by case basis. Where it makes sense to join, we can, and where it doesn't make sense, we don't. If it later proves that the OECD pharmaceutical regulator or whatever is doing a bad job, we can also pull out. In the EU we can't do this stuff, we have to sign up to virtually everything, and can never pull out.
I'm not using this as part of a broader EU debate, I'm merely pointing out that there may be certain areas where pooling sovereignty is beneficial.
Do we really need our own patent office, or would be more in the interests of UK inventors or consumers to merge with the US one? Irrespective of whether we did this with the US or someone else, it would seem that it was a process that was difficult to reverse. The question is - as always - would the resulting loss of sovereignty be worth the time and money savings (and the benefits to British firms in not having to deal with multiple entities).
Yep it was kind of predictable - probably why some of us were so confident in predicting it.
The fundamental defect of the way that British politicians handle these negotiations is that they proceed on the fundamentally flawed assumptions (1) that the European Union will abide by its own rules, and (2) that the European Union will keep to the letter and spirit of agreements it enters into.
"Not sure if it has already been mentioned but the great EU budget victory secured by Cameron has already turned out to be illusory."
Sun rises in the morning
Err, it was the idiots who were in power from 1997 to 2010 who agreed to this structure.
100% of the blame lies with Brown and Blair.
Labour's propensity to blame Cameron for Labour's own actions is repulsive.
It may well have been but it was the idiot who is in No 10 now who tried to pretend that he was securing some kind of great victory in controlling the EU budget when he must have already known it was nothing of the sort.
He could have been honest and said actually that whatever he did it would make no difference to how much we were stitched up for but he wanted to pretend he could actually do something to change the EU rather than admitting he, and we, are utterly powerless as long as we stay in. If we can't control something as fundamental as how much they take from us against our will then what exactly is this influence we are supposed to have?
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but the great EU budget victory secured by Cameron has already turned out to be illusory.
Yesterday Britain was outvoted at a meeting of EU finance ministers and a top up of 7.3 billion Euros was agreed for the 2013 budget which means the UK will have to provide an extra 1 bn Euros this year. That could increase as there are moves to increase the top up to the 11.2 bn requested by the Commission.
No veto available so we just have to lump it.
I see now that Sunil had already mentioned this earlier but from a different source.
Apologies Sunil.
Actually, Richard, I was replying to Socrates! Hat-tip to him!
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget. Just like Cameron's veto was later nullified, the big achievement of the cut is now on course to be nullified.
Socrates now you know why I like to bang on about that graph of relative amounts of "aid" to India versus the EU!
To India: 300 million (300,000,000) GBP p.a. To EU: 18 Billion (18,000,000,000) GBP p.a.
It may well have been but it was the idiot who is in No 10 now who tried to pretend that he was securing some kind of great victory in controlling the EU budget when he must have already known it was nothing of the sort.
He did achieve a significant victory, in that the medium-term budget increase was vetoed (to be fair, with support from Germany and others). In other words, it would be a lot worse without the pressure he applied. He can only work within the structure Blair and Brown foolishly agreed to.
It may well have been but it was the idiot who is in No 10 now who tried to pretend that he was securing some kind of great victory in controlling the EU budget when he must have already known it was nothing of the sort.
He did achieve a significant victory, in that the medium-term budget increase was vetoed (to be fair, with support from Germany and others). In other words, it would be a lot worse without the pressure he applied. He can only work within the structure Blair and Brown foolishly agreed to.
What kind of victory is it if the EU just turns round and uses a different method to get the money out of us?
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
OMFG British reporting of the EU is useless. They have a "triumph" frame and a "surrender" frame, but no "tell you what's actually going on" frame.
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
OMFG British reporting of the EU is useless. They have a "triumph" frame and a "surrender" frame, but no "tell you what's actually going on" frame.
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
Croats haven't joined yet, I thought it would be in July?
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
It's not related to Croatia, AFAIK. It seems to be just spending for the sake of it:
The Council today agreed to provide EUR 7.3 billion in a first stage and to focus this amount on measures to support economic growth, create jobs and tackle unemployment, especially amount youth people
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
OMFG British reporting of the EU is useless. They have a "triumph" frame and a "surrender" frame, but no "tell you what's actually going on" frame.
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
My understanding is that this is nothing to do with Croatia. Basically they agreed to cut the amount of money they take for the budget but not the spending that money is spent on.
The top up is to make up the difference
There does not appear to be any reason why they can't carry on doing this every year. That said I am not sure of the fine print so there may well be some limit on how often they can do it but certainly they appear to have plans to do the same next year and the year after.
Comments
We have team red with no policies, team blue with policies they ignore and team yellow operating by change by the day policies all getting on their high horses and demanding to know things they themselves won't do. I'd say the customary response involves two words, three Fs and one meaning. The big parties are in the poo because they take their core vote for granted and now they've been called out. It's a long overdue adjustment and if the kippers are sensible they'll sit tight say nothing and let Nick Plamer and co play the Marie Antoinette card, it can only help the anti politics theme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22536991
"David Miliband has described his move to New York to take up a new job as an "episode not an emigration".
Speaking at a charity event in London, the former foreign secretary refused to speculate about his next move as he had not even started the new role.
But he did not rule out a return to British politics at some stage."
Coming back to spearhead the "better off in" campaign - they will need a "cleanskin"
For instance, repeated calls of 'Tory Scum'. For another example see a few posts back.
Sane, rational debate it ain't.
It was a novelty to see a news story of a famous high profile man in his seventies that didn't involve child abuse.
Talk about prompting: I want to Mike to put a donate button up again as I'd like to pay for like unlike buttons to be reinstalled. I feel it adds spice to the blog.
Clue - it isn't about the details - its the sentiment behind the observation.
And even if someone has views or a personality that you consider are unpleasant, they may still have a valuable contribution to make.
Where are all these PBers calling UKP voters racist? Where are all these lefties doing it?
There seems to be a complete double standard for Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. On the same basis, the fair question would be "Should the UK become independent of the European Union?"
Whatever the wording, the "yes" should be to the proposed change happening. This is what the Scottish independence vote was. This is what the AV referendum was. Clearly, David Cameron is trying to rig the deck on this one. No wonder eurosceptics don't trust him.
You are entitled to suggest that but are quite wrong in doing so. Nick Palmer uses the classic passive aggressive tactics of...... *paraphrasing here*
"Not all ukip voters are necessarily driven by racism, but we should sympathise...."
"Let's try to see things from a ukip perspective.... Send them all back"
You are naive if you don't see what he's doing
Maybe that's why you still vote Labour!
on the policy issue, î have never heard Farage mention it, he has never been asked to explain this policy if it exists, and I just think if it were ukip policy to send immigrants back, it would have been flagged by the people that want to dirty their name.
If it is a ukip policy, and people want to describe them as xenophobic racists, then they should highlight it
Farages German wife would have to go I suppose, so I doubt it.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/diane-abbott-to-turn-labours-attention-to-a-crisis-of-masculinity/
Although she's often regarded as a bit of a joke, she can sometimes be quite thoughtful (and she did give the perhaps best speech of the whole of the last parliament, on the 42-day detention proposal).
There does seem to be some interesting thinking going on in at least some Labour circles. Just not right at the top.
Besides, you should really read Mr Fox's comment on this thread from just before 07.30
http://www.ukipbasingstoke.co.uk/ukip-policies/ukip-immigration-asylum-policies/
The same is true of the Scottish independence referendum.
"No, I am asking - given that it has been said that UKIP do not want to send immigrants back to where they came from. Presumably that means the party is happy for all those from the EU who have settled in the UK, and who will settle here between now and our withdrawal, to remain whatever happens. "
What do you mean by "sending immigrants back"? The current immigration system sends immigrants back all the time, on student visas, on working visas etc. UKIP would no doubt have a similar system for EU immigrants: some could stay, and some would be sent back. Why is this supposed to be so unpleasantly awful? I have never heard any of the main parties criticise the existing system.
When have UKIP said that "millions" of them would be coming here anyway?
As for UKIP, my uncle's a UKIP member, my closest friend is a UKIP supporter, I liked my UKIP opponent in 2010 and I think they are genuinely trying to avoid having candidates who have racist views. I disagree with them on nearly everything, but I'm much less hostile than many others. The fact that they appear to be nicking a larger part of the Tory vote is an endearing factor.
And I'm not Danish, as our Italian friend Moniker (ALERT: that's another joke) appears to believe.I was born in London, though I lived in Denmark for 15 years from when I was 12.
Oh look ok, you win I give in, I can't cope with your hair splitting any longer.
I don't think they are intending to send people that are legally in the uk back where they came from. The only party that does say that is the BNP I think.
Vote labour, agree with Nick Palmer, it doesn't matter to me
Don't reply please, you give me a headache
http://www.conservatives.com
http://www.greenparty.org.uk
http://www.labour.org.uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk
http://www.english.plaidcymru.org
http://www.snp.org
http://www.ukip.org
i was more or less open-minded about UKIP. after reading that, I don't feel so very comfortable with it. doesn't seem very "British" or very tolerant.
having said that, i don't live there any more so not for me to pass judgement i suppose (yes I'm an immigrant...)
The employment figures are also quite encouraging; we're certainly avoiding the worst, as the economy rebalances away from excessive dependence on the public sector. Osborne's path through the minefield remains well-judged.
Of course tim is right that the squeeze on living standards remains a problem. Unfortunately that's pretty inevitable as we come slowly out of a debt crisis.
If Socrates is correct, it seems as if UKIP will expect at least some of those EU migrants who have settled here perfectly legally to leave this country once we withdraw from the EU.
I'll leave you alone now!
Illegal immigrants shouldn't be here should they? I think theLDs wanted an amnesty at the last Ge, not so sure now
You're left with a choice between the wording being the product of months of consideration by people determined to give a boost to the 'in' campaign or it was a slapdash copy and paste job that they pulled together one afternoon.
Remember Grant Shapps / Michael Green said they took months over it and he is very truthful.
You should be aware that the moderators have told us all not to go after posters on an individual level.
Presumably the Electoral Commission will get involved at some point and make a ruling on whether the question is fair.
The SNP one is much better than it used to be too.
None of them are great though are they?
It makes it easier to see who's posting.
( Though I'm not sure if Neil's is actually a photo of him at 3 am on Saturday. )
Vote Labour for no Rederendum.
I was having an interesting conversation with someone last night on EuroNCAP. This is a safety rating for cars that has, by any objective measure, been a massive success and which must have saved some lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP
Euro NCAP is more strenuous than the EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval, and is often a consideration for people when buying cars. Manufacturers take it very seriously.
NCAP was developed in Britain from 1997, and was later taken up by the EC (the British scheme was itself modelled on an American scheme).
If we were not part of the EU, would NCAP have been taken up in such a manner by most of Europe? Would it's position have been critically weakened, particularly as it is a voluntary test that manufacturers do not need to submit their new cars to? They would surely be less likely to go to the cost of submitting cars to a voluntary test that is only applicable to one country.
I postulated that NCAP (and indeed the Whole Vehicle Type Approval) are examples of benefits of working together with the other European countries. My friend disagreed, and said that NCAP would have been taken up by European countries anyway.
Longer-term, if we were to leave the EEA there would be ample time for a transition, with employers able to go through a 'fast track' procedure to get existing employees' work permits.
Are you open to counter bribes to keep the buttons away? If so I am happy to participate in the inevitable bidding war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22527437
Let's remember David Cameron's proud achievement of a €32bn cut over seven years. It's now been agreed that an extra €7.3bn will go on to this year's budget. If they go on in this manner - and there's nothing we can do to stop it - that will be an extra €51bn over the seven year budget period, making it €19bn higher than the last seven year budget.
So much for the "first ever cut". When will people learn that the EU will never do anything to prevent it's accumulation of powers and money? Tony Blair's agreement on CAP reform didn't do it. Rejection of the EU Constitution didn't do it. David Cameron's veto didn't do it. Explicit bans on no EU bailouts didn't do it. Last year's budget deal didn't do it.
If we stay in, we will slowly but surely be sucked into a superstate based on majority voting. Or we can say enough's enough and go back to a bilateral trade deal. It's quite simple.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2013/05/15/20002-20130515ARTFIG00339-baisse-record-du-pouvoir-d-achat-des-francais-en-2012.php
http://www.uup.org/
http://www.sdlp.ie/
http://allianceparty.org/
http://www.sinnfein.ie/
http://www.respectparty.org/
http://www.bnp.org.uk/
If only I had his lips.
I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget. Just like Cameron's veto was later nullified, the big achievement of the cut is now on course to be nullified.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=biffo+the+bear&client=firefox-a&hs=kSF&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=U1-TUYuMB8SION7rgPgM&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=567
E.g. for the Conservatives: http://wave.webaim.org/report#/http://www.conservatives.com/
Conservatives: 0 errors, 26 alerts
Labour: 7 errors, 16 alerts
LibDems: 2 errors, 1 alert (although their front page is very simple)
UKIP: 22 errors, 51 alerts
As an example, my own website front page gets 2 errors and 6 alerts, and the BBC News front page 2 errors, 51 alerts.
You have to be very careful with these figures, as the online tools isn't the best, and it can depend on the accessibility tool the disabled person is using.
But generally the results are not too bad, and certainly better than some websites I have seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJzLtMrV01E
If we were not part of the EU, the bulk of our manufacturing exports would still be modelled on EU standards, simply because that is where the bulk of our trade goes. However, at the same time it's worth noting that the world is generally moving ever closer as far as standards go: FCC is the defacto standard and stamp for measuring electromagnetic radiation emition standards.
In theory (although practice is of course different...), it would make perfect sense for Britain to pool sovereignty as regards:
- checking drug safety
- patents
- vehicle emission standards
- electrical transmission standards
- boiler standards
One would think that having a single Commonwealth or NAFTA or EU or even OECD 'drug safety agency' would save money and enable judgements on the safety of drugs to achieved more quickly and cheaply than if every country had their own bodies. It is, of course, a reduction of sovereignty to do this. However, one would think that the cost savings and time benefits would compensate for this.
YMMV
http://www.alp.org.au
and the Canadian Liberals have a nice drop down navigation menu.
http://www.liberal.ca
Good to see you use my term "Euroholic"!
Euroholic (n.) - one who is intoxicated with and/or addicted to the notion of ever-closer and ever-deeper union of one's country with its European neighbours and who cannot accept arguments to the contrary, often branding opponents as "extreme" or "racist" or "xenophobic" or even just "stupid". A Euroholic is often heard repeating the mantra "My EU right or wrong!".
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
Yesterday Britain was outvoted at a meeting of EU finance ministers and a top up of 7.3 billion Euros was agreed for the 2013 budget which means the UK will have to provide an extra 1 bn Euros this year. That could increase as there are moves to increase the top up to the 11.2 bn requested by the Commission.
No veto available so we just have to lump it.
The difference between EU membership and non-EU membership is that the UK can make these decisions about what standards to use on a case by case basis. Where it makes sense to join, we can, and where it doesn't make sense, we don't. If it later proves that the OECD pharmaceutical regulator or whatever is doing a bad job, we can also pull out. In the EU we can't do this stuff, we have to sign up to virtually everything, and can never pull out.
Apologies Sunil.
Mad.
But you are right: standards are becoming ever more standardised, simply because manufacturers want to sell the same kit into as many countries as possible without alterations.
As it happens, at one time I was very familiar with the FCC EMC standard, as well as its competitors. There was a little barn in the Fens near Cambridge where we used to send all our kit to get EMC tested. It was in the middle of nowhere so that there was less spurious background radiation.
100% of the blame lies with Brown and Blair.
Labour's propensity to blame Cameron for Labour's own actions is repulsive.
We will be out of the EU by 2022 - nailed on.
Do we really need our own patent office, or would be more in the interests of UK inventors or consumers to merge with the US one? Irrespective of whether we did this with the US or someone else, it would seem that it was a process that was difficult to reverse. The question is - as always - would the resulting loss of sovereignty be worth the time and money savings (and the benefits to British firms in not having to deal with multiple entities).
He could have been honest and said actually that whatever he did it would make no difference to how much we were stitched up for but he wanted to pretend he could actually do something to change the EU rather than admitting he, and we, are utterly powerless as long as we stay in. If we can't control something as fundamental as how much they take from us against our will then what exactly is this influence we are supposed to have?
To India: 300 million (300,000,000) GBP p.a.
To EU: 18 Billion (18,000,000,000) GBP p.a.
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
The Council today agreed to provide EUR 7.3 billion in a first stage and to focus this amount on measures to support economic growth, create jobs and tackle
unemployment, especially amount youth people
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/137116.pdf
The top up is to make up the difference
There does not appear to be any reason why they can't carry on doing this every year. That said I am not sure of the fine print so there may well be some limit on how often they can do it but certainly they appear to have plans to do the same next year and the year after.