Just heard the news leading with Recklass suggesting repatriating those he doesn't want. I wonder whether this will win him votes in Rochester or lose them?
Having heard Cameron proposing taking citizenship away from those fighting in Syria I suspect it's been researched and found to be a winner
But Cameron's policy is certainly more dangerous because it's so arbitrary. At least Recklass could work out some rules that might apply accross the board.
What would Cameron's plan involve? What would he do about UK citizens fighting for Israel or for the official Syrian opposition or in Africa and does it make a difference whether you are on the side of the government or for the rebels? Is a medic for ISIS better or worse than a fighter for the Free Syrian Army.......Who decides who loses their citizenship?
In other words like so much that Cameron suggests a load of ill thought out 'populist' bollocks....
The problem is that it isn't an arbitrary ban, it's a ban vs. joining this 'rehabilitation' scheme, which given the two options they will obviously all then do. Which whatever else it may mean, undoubtedly means people who have killed scores still roaming the streets, just on the intelligence services' coin. They may even just turn them around and send them back as members of the 'FSA' to continue the slaugher under the banner of moderacy.
Of course PMQ's do not hold a government to account in a serious way at least and nor do they promote a worthy atmosphere. What they do and are fairly unique in the world in doing is create a sense that the government and especially the PM is not beyond a bit of stick, ridicule and a 'street fight' (nor indeed is the Leader of the Opposition). To me THAT IS A GOOD THING. Do we want our politicians to get too grandiose like in France or even the USA? No way
Here's a thought. We give winter fuel allowance to British pensioners who have emigrated to Spain, and child benefit for children living in other EU countries. Is the UK the only country this daft, or do reciprocal arrangements exist? Do Greek pensioners over here get a 'summer AC allowance' from the Greek government, and do British workers in Germany get hand outs for their kids back in Blighty?
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
And plenty of people that need to leave or get deported are those on visas that are conditional on work placements. Should they lose that job, do you support deporting them? That's a hell of a lot more unexpected than the condition of the UK being in the EU ending.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
Here's a thought. We give winter fuel allowance to British pensioners who have emigrated to Spain, and child benefit for children living in other EU countries. Is the UK the only country this daft, or do reciprocal arrangements exist? Do Greek pensioners over here get a 'summer AC allowance' from the Greek government, and do British workers in Germany get hand outs for their kids back in Blighty?
To stop this you either have to leave the EU or stop the fuel allowance altogether
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
You are heading off at some kind of a tangent and they are all great questions and I am flattered you should wish to know my views about this range of issues (London Met students? If it was a scam - was it a scam? - then get them out).
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
And plenty of people that need to leave or get deported are those on visas that are conditional on work placements. Should they lose that job, do you support deporting them? That's a hell of a lot more unexpected than the condition of the UK being in the EU ending.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
Blimey I thought UKIP were not really that serious on chucking out EU nationals but it seems they are!! Libertarians they are not!!
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
Well, it looks like Cameron has concentrated the toxin, not expelled it, judging by you.
Driving Christians out of the Conservative Party was hardly likely to improve the quality, was it?
He didn't "drive Christians out" of the party.
Some people who don't believe in equality of all citizens and have taken it on themselves to judge their fellow men chose to leave. Personally, as a Christian, I don't believe that God will get too exercised about it - but if He does, that's His right. I wouldn't presume to know his mind.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
Public more positive about household finances than they have been for five years with one exception. Pressure on savings at lowest level in five years, as is the expectation of inflation.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
You are heading off at some kind of a tangent and they are all great questions and I am flattered you should wish to know my views about this range of issues (London Met students? If it was a scam - was it a scam? - then get them out).
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
No, he said that SOME would be given a fixed time work permit. Most of them would be able to stay under other schemes (either existing immigration categories or the 7-year rule). My view is that those that have only been in the UK a short time, do not have family connections to this country, and do not meet the fairly low levels of salary required to be a skilled worker, should absolutely be deported if they do not go home after being given time to get their affairs in order.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
The EU immigrants will know there is a time-limited visa that they need to leave at the end of it. That's exactly what UKIP would offer them.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
You are heading off at some kind of a tangent and they are all great questions and I am flattered you should wish to know my views about this range of issues (London Met students? If it was a scam - was it a scam? - then get them out).
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
If we move from a system of free migration, to having immigration controls, then yes, it's inevitable that some people who don't qualify for residency, once such controls have been introduced, will have to leave.
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
How would this work? Are you saying the sitting MP in those seats will join UKIP? Surely UKIP don't want Mike Hancock!
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I hope Mike Hancock isn't planning to defect to UKIP
You are heading off at some kind of a tangent and they are all great questions and I am flattered you should wish to know my views about this range of issues (London Met students? If it was a scam - was it a scam? - then get them out).
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
This is a question I have asked many times on here, what would UKIP do with the 400000 French people who live in London.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Here's a thought. We give winter fuel allowance to British pensioners who have emigrated to Spain, and child benefit for children living in other EU countries. Is the UK the only country this daft, or do reciprocal arrangements exist? Do Greek pensioners over here get a 'summer AC allowance' from the Greek government, and do British workers in Germany get hand outs for their kids back in Blighty?
I don't know the details here, but in cases like this it can be cheaper to give everyone the payment rather than have the costs associated with finding out who is living in a warmer clime.
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
How would this work? Are you saying the sitting MP in those seats will join UKIP? Surely UKIP don't want Mike Hancock!
A chicken run by MPs elsewhere who are wanting to defect to UKIP but who think they have no realistic chance of holding their current seat under the new banner.
Here's a thought. We give winter fuel allowance to British pensioners who have emigrated to Spain, and child benefit for children living in other EU countries. Is the UK the only country this daft, or do reciprocal arrangements exist? Do Greek pensioners over here get a 'summer AC allowance' from the Greek government, and do British workers in Germany get hand outs for their kids back in Blighty?
Isn't the (foreign benefit) problem that our benefits (including the NHS) are most often in the form of universal entitlements, whereas other countries are based on compulsory insurance systems? The Conservatives have made noises about changing this, but there's been nothing from Labour. If either party had any balls or brains they'd have sorted this out long ago.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Haven't we had just about enough of this bullshit, every time you or one of a few other people on this site shout racist or make ting-tong "jokes" about UKIP members, thereby painting all their members, and 15-20% of the electorate (31% if you believe the poll in the Guardian) with that same brush is a disgrace.
Perhaps UKIP should start talking about duckponds and back-to-basics, or homes-for-votes in a way that suggests all Tories approve, that would be fair. At the moment I am a Tory, next week I might be a Kipper, do I suddenly become a racist and hate foreigners in the blink of an eye. I might show this to my coloured wife, see if she is comfortable with me staying in a party that talks about brown people as a punchline ?
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I hope Mike Hancock isn't planning to defect to UKIP
I see that Roger was asking about my political home - "Whereas there are few Libs or Labour or Green supporters whose posts make me feel uncomfortable......(Cyclefree isn't Labour or Lib Dem is he/she?) "
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. I am of no fixed political abode - probably more Lib Dem (certainly in my constituency) than anything else. I hate bossy authoritarian governments with no regard for civil liberties or the rule of law, cut my teeth on the Guildford 4/ Birmingham 6 / Maguire 7 injustices (and have a high regard for Chris Mullin in consequence) and have spent time doing pro bono legal work for the homeless in Notting Hill - before it became achingly expensive and trendy. I also loathe incompetent governments.
Edit: Oh and SO encapsulates very well what I feel about the current Labour party.
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Who exactly are you trying to convince with this pitiable trolling?
If you really feel as passionate as you seem to about being wrong on every single issue, why don't you try it on some other site where politics isn't the main focus and your posts stand a chance of impressing people?
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I hope Mike Hancock isn't planning to defect to UKIP
Brian Coleman on the other hand....
It might be worth 'laying' Neil Hamilton. Can't believe I said that! Can't believe he'd get elected again under any banner either.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Haven't we had just about enough of this bullshit, every time you or one of a few other people on this site shout racist or make ting-tong "jokes" about UKIP members, thereby painting all their members, and 15-20% of the electorate (31% if you believe the poll in the Guardian) with that same brush is a disgrace.
Perhaps UKIP should start talking about duckponds and back-to-basics, or homes-for-votes in a way that suggests all Tories approve, that would be fair. At the moment I am a Tory, next week I might be a Kipper, do I suddenly become a racist and hate foreigners in the blink of an eye. I might show this to my coloured wife, see if she is comfortable with me staying in a party that talks about brown people as a punchline ?
When people use the term "brown people" you can tell they have crossed the line into Russell Brand/James O'Brien land and can be safely ignored
Went to see the Specials last night in Bournemouth. They were awesome again. A joyous night.
I remember seeing them headline the Anti-Nazi League/Rock Against Racism gig at Potternewton Park, Leeds on July 4th 1981. I think Ghost Town was still number one when I saw them - and a summer of riots lay ahead.
Aswad, the Au Pairs and Misty in Roots (with about 20 members of the band on stage!) were the support.
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Who exactly are you trying to convince with this pitiable trolling?
If you really feel as passionate as you seem to about being wrong on every single issue, why don't you try it on some other site where politics isn't the main focus and your posts stand a chance of impressing people?
The guy is just a racist that likes to send black African immigrants back home but gets upset when it happens to white Europeans.
Went to see the Specials last night in Bournemouth. They were awesome again. A joyous night.
1st saw them in 78 or 79. It was upstairs in a club in Bournemouth. They played their set twice as they ran out of songs to play. One of the best gigs I ever went to.
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank. It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case....
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard. Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time. I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank. .................
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I hope Mike Hancock isn't planning to defect to UKIP
That would be really really funny. He is a Eurosceptic...
Went to see the Specials last night in Bournemouth. They were awesome again. A joyous night.
1st saw them in 78 or 79. It was upstairs in a club in Bournemouth. They played their set twice as they ran out of songs to play. One of the best gigs I ever went to.
They bascially play all the songs from their two albums now, it just shows how good the songs are
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank. It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case....
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard. Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time. I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank. .................
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I hope Mike Hancock isn't planning to defect to UKIP
That would be really really funny. He is a Eurosceptic...
Is he a Eurosceptic? In which case he could fit in with UKIP. He's currently an Independent, having previously been LibDem, SDP and a Labour councillor.
This is a question I have asked many times on here, what would UKIP do with the 400000 French people who live in London.
You would hope that there would be some form of transitional arrangement, with a lot of boring paperwork as you move from the existing system to a new system.
This is more a question of competency, rather than of principle, though. It says nothing about what immigration system is better, or worse, merely that moving from one system to another is complicated.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic. Of course, once [if?] they are in office it becomes the sort of detail you'd expect an Opposition to hammer away on to ensure that the Government don't mess it up - or if they do that they are punished for the error.
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
There was a time before "tim".
I'm sure there was. When did the site start? Did people actually discuss betting back then?
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic.
Surely the point is that the Kippers are promulgating a naive view of things. They don't give the government any credit for worrying about the complicated details, they just lay into them with simplistic 'solutions' which have no basis in reality. Pointing this out is not expecting them to have all the answers, it is explaining why their simplistic answers are not answers at all. As in many things in life, the devil is in the detail.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
Today seems to have been a bit shouty here on PB. Kippers unsettling the status quo in British politics and the establishments on both sides getting very jittery. This may be a good thing.
This is a question I have asked many times on here, what would UKIP do with the 400000 French people who live in London.
You would hope that there would be some form of transitional arrangement, with a lot of boring paperwork as you move from the existing system to a new system.
This is more a question of competency, rather than of principle, though. It says nothing about what immigration system is better, or worse, merely that moving from one system to another is complicated.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic. Of course, once [if?] they are in office it becomes the sort of detail you'd expect an Opposition to hammer away on to ensure that the Government don't mess it up - or if they do that they are punished for the error.
From my knowledge of the French in London, many or indeed most had jobs waiting for them and many have been sent here by French companies. The same applies to many Americans, Canadians etc. This is bound to occur where global companies have a major presence.
Isn't the (foreign benefit) problem that our benefits (including the NHS) are most often in the form of universal entitlements, whereas other countries are based on compulsory insurance systems? The Conservatives have made noises about changing this, but there's been nothing from Labour. If either party had any balls or brains they'd have sorted this out long ago.
You'd think that introducing a contributory principle into all of our benefits system would be fairly simple.
The problem is that quite a lot of Britons have contributed nothing. How do we incorporate them?
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
There was a time before "tim".
I'm sure there was. When did the site start? Did people actually discuss betting back then?
I do remember a time back before the last election where Labour were firmly on the back foot and being castigated from all sides. Some of the Labour supporters complained that the whole site was a Tory mouthpiece.
At the time a number of us pointed out that the main driving factor behind the incessant attacks on Labour was that they were in Government and were therefore the main target and that after the election, whoever was in power would be subject to the same treatment.
I think it is true to say this has pretty much been the case. The difference being that, to their credit, the Government supporters have tended not to fall back on claims of unfairness or site bias and have fought their corner (viciously at times) rather than moaning about how the whole world hates them.
I hope that if and when Labour get back into power they learn this lesson and fight their corner rather than moaning and whining.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
Not being (entirely) flippant, but presumably we bought cars from other countries before 1972, and come to that extradited people from other countries as well. There is a tendency for people to suggest the world started with the European Communities Act, and didn't do much before then, but at least some of things we worry about doing "after" the EU must have happened before the EU as well.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic.
Surely the point is that the Kippers are promulgating a naive view of things. They don't give the government any credit for worrying about the complicated details, they just lay into them with simplistic 'solutions' which have no basis in reality. Pointing this out is not expecting them to have all the answers, it is explaining why their simplistic answers are not answers at all. As in many things in life, the devil is in the detail.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
Well, many countries manage to have free trade deals with the EU, or each other, without that leading to free movement of people. Is it proposed that the TTIP will allow all EU citizens to live and work in the US without let or hindrance? I have my doubts...
So how would that not equate to "regaining control of our borders", if that were the objective of the British Government during the negotiation of such a trade deal?
The problem is that quite a lot of Britons have contributed nothing. How do we incorporate them?
Indeed. Worse than that they have had 30 or so years of politicians telling them they can have something for nothing, and they now have an unshakeable sense of entitlement. A whole generation of Britons, in not insignificant numbers, have grown up in houses where both parents spent their whole lives on benefit, and now are in their mid 20's and are on benefit themselves, and see it in effect as a lifestyle choice.
Not being (entirely) flippant, but presumably we bought cars from other countries before 1972, and come to that extradited people from other countries as well. There is a tendency for people to suggest the world started with the European Communities Act, and didn't do much before then, but at least some of things we worry about doing "after" the EU must have happened before the EU as well.
The existence of the EU has changed the landscape. In the 1960s there were lots of country-specific sets of rules. Now that the EU exists on our doorstep as a single market of 500 million people representing 23% of world GDP. You can't just ignore that change and assume that the way things were done in the 1960s would make sense now.
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
There was a time before "tim".
I'm sure there was. When did the site start? Did people actually discuss betting back then?
The first posts were in March 2004 - see the archives. I remember this thread, and I'm pretty sure the discussions below the line have always been quite eclectic - though they were perhaps once a lot less rancorous.
I have been following this site for about 6 years now and it is interesting to see how it has gone through several different phases:
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
Well, many countries manage to have free trade deals with the EU, or each other, without that leading to free movement of people. Is it proposed that the TTIP will allow all EU citizens to live and work in the US without let or hindrance? I have my doubts...
So how would that not equate to "regaining control of our borders", if that were the objective of the British Government during the negotiation of such a trade deal?
Because we would be negotiating a much closer relationship with the EU than the US is under TTIP, or at least I hope we would. If not, then the BOOers would have an even harder task trying to convince people that leaving the EU wouldn't be catastrophic on jobs.
So, yes, of course, in the limit we could tell the EU to get stuffed on free movement of labour. But we wouldn't. That is the reality.
Of course the Kippers will jump on me and say I'm wrong. OK, fair enough, I'm open to persuasion, but I'm not seeing the slightest indication that any serious thought is being given to this sort of question. The Brexit Prize essay was a good start, but UKIP seem terminally uninterested in pursuing the questions it raised - which tells you a lot.
Not being (entirely) flippant, but presumably we bought cars from other countries before 1972, and come to that extradited people from other countries as well. There is a tendency for people to suggest the world started with the European Communities Act, and didn't do much before then, but at least some of things we worry about doing "after" the EU must have happened before the EU as well.
The existence of the EU has changed the landscape. In the 1960s there were lots of country-specific sets of rules. Now that the EU exists on our doorstep as a single market of 500 million people representing 23% of world GDP. You can't just ignore that change and assume that the way things were done in the 1960s would make sense now.
We concern ourselves a lot on this site at the moment with what Farage will do, and if there will be a BrExit, and how it would work. What about if it isn't in our gift, what about if LePen wins across the channel in a couple of years time and a FrExit is on the cards, the chances of the EU surviving that are pretty slim, then we would have all the same issues at someone elses instigation.
We concern ourselves a lot on this site at the moment with what Farage will do, and if there will be a BrExit, and how it would work. What about if it isn't in our gift, what about if LePen wins across the channel in a couple of years time and a FrExit is on the cards, the chances of the EU surviving that are pretty slim, then we would have all the same issues at someone elses instigation.
Ain't gonna happen - FrExit, that is, I'm less sure about the prospect of Madame Président Le Pen.
Having said that, you are right that we shouldn't view this just from the UK's point of view. The current EU structure is potentially unstable, and that might give us some opportunities for a rethink.
Four decades in the EU, and we still have different plugs and sockets - so much for harmonisation. And when do we switch to driving on the right so they don't need to make 2 versions of every car?
Today seems to have been a bit shouty here on PB. Kippers unsettling the status quo in British politics and the establishments on both sides getting very jittery. This may be a good thing.
Most of the criticism UKIP get is nothing to do with policy, it is about the fear of losing power
I think it is an interesting parallel with the way immigrants treated. When mainstream politicians slag UKIP for having a fear of the "other" it shows a complete lack of self awareness
The fact that Lab our and Tories are now copying UKIP policy* show they aren't ideologically opposed to UKIPs ideas, they just want power, and their synthetic rage isnt based on whats best for the UK but for their own ambition
*policies such as immigration, the Sovereign Wealth Fund, 40% tax rate...
Four decades in the EU, and we still have different plugs and sockets - so much for harmonisation. And when do we switch to driving on the right so they don't need to make 2 versions of every car?
Not being (entirely) flippant, but presumably we bought cars from other countries before 1972, and come to that extradited people from other countries as well. There is a tendency for people to suggest the world started with the European Communities Act, and didn't do much before then, but at least some of things we worry about doing "after" the EU must have happened before the EU as well.
The existence of the EU has changed the landscape. In the 1960s there were lots of country-specific sets of rules. Now that the EU exists on our doorstep as a single market of 500 million people representing 23% of world GDP. You can't just ignore that change and assume that the way things were done in the 1960s would make sense now.
Very true, Mr. Navabi, but then one shouldn't also assume that things can only be done in the way they are now. It was for example perfectly possible for British people to go and live on the continent and for continentals to come and live here before the EU was created (the Anglo-Portuguese branch of the Llama family bear witness to this).
Were the UK to decide to leave the EU a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out between the two parties. The difference would be that Parliament was again sovereign with all that entails in terms of choice.
The problem is that quite a lot of Britons have contributed nothing. How do we incorporate them?
Indeed. Worse than that they have had 30 or so years of politicians telling them they can have something for nothing, and they now have an unshakeable sense of entitlement. A whole generation of Britons, in not insignificant numbers, have grown up in houses where both parents spent their whole lives on benefit, and now are in their mid 20's and are on benefit themselves, and see it in effect as a lifestyle choice.
Where one segment of the population's children only have a 5% chance of their parents still being together by the time they reach 15.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic.
Surely the point is that the Kippers are promulgating a naive view of things. They don't give the government any credit for worrying about the complicated details, they just lay into them with simplistic 'solutions' which have no basis in reality. Pointing this out is not expecting them to have all the answers, it is explaining why their simplistic answers are not answers at all. As in many things in life, the devil is in the detail.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
Well, many countries manage to have free trade deals with the EU, or each other, without that leading to free movement of people. Is it proposed that the TTIP will allow all EU citizens to live and work in the US without let or hindrance? I have my doubts...
So how would that not equate to "regaining control of our borders", if that were the objective of the British Government during the negotiation of such a trade deal?
Yes, how does China do so much trade with the EU and not have open borders or be required to pay into the EU budget?
The problem is that quite a lot of Britons have contributed nothing. How do we incorporate them?
Indeed. Worse than that they have had 30 or so years of politicians telling them they can have something for nothing, and they now have an unshakeable sense of entitlement. A whole generation of Britons, in not insignificant numbers, have grown up in houses where both parents spent their whole lives on benefit, and now are in their mid 20's and are on benefit themselves, and see it in effect as a lifestyle choice.
Where one segment of the population's children only have a 5% chance of their parents still being together by the time they reach 15.
Very true, Mr. Navabi, but then one shouldn't also assume that things can only be done in the way they are now. It was for example perfectly possible for British people to go and live on the continent and for continentals to come and live here before the EU was created (the Anglo-Portuguese branch of the Llama family bear witness to this).
Were the UK to decide to leave the EU a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out between the two parties. The difference would be that Parliament was again sovereign with all that entails in terms of choice.
Portugese llamas?
You are right that a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out, but not that parliament would 'again' be sovereign (was it ever?), except in the formal sense which theoretically applies now. We would enter a trade treaty with our EU friends which by definition would greatly curtail parliament's and the government's freedom of action. The difference between that and what we currently have is one of degree only, and I don't think in practice it would be very different.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
Not being (entirely) flippant, but presumably we bought cars from other countries before 1972, and come to that extradited people from other countries as well. There is a tendency for people to suggest the world started with the European Communities Act, and didn't do much before then, but at least some of things we worry about doing "after" the EU must have happened before the EU as well.
One of the problems that the EU has is that many of the best examples of European co-operation, particularly in the scientific sphere, occur largely independently of the EU, such as the European Space Agency, CERN, EUMETSAT and ECMWF. Although not scientific even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is not an EU institution.
To the casual observer this reduces the EU to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Single Market and a pair of Parliament buildings for a single Parliament. Insofar as I think of myself as a European I am much more proud of European achievements such as CERN than I am of, er, the Common Fisheries Policy (which is not really an achievement after all). There's not much from the EU to inspire any sort of patriotic feeling, in the way that some Americans might feel patriotic about the achievements of, say, NASA.
Very true, Mr. Navabi, but then one shouldn't also assume that things can only be done in the way they are now. It was for example perfectly possible for British people to go and live on the continent and for continentals to come and live here before the EU was created (the Anglo-Portuguese branch of the Llama family bear witness to this).
Were the UK to decide to leave the EU a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out between the two parties. The difference would be that Parliament was again sovereign with all that entails in terms of choice.
Portugese llamas?
You are right that a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out, but not that parliament would 'again' be sovereign (was it ever?), except in the formal sense which theoretically applies now. We would enter a trade treaty with our EU friends which by definition would greatly curtail parliament's and the government's freedom of action. The difference between that and what we currently have is one of degree only, and I don't think in practice it would be very different.
No it would be hugely different. Even were we to go for the EEA option we would massively slash the amount of EU legislation we would be subjected to and also the costs resulting from EU membership. Whilst the Europhiles like to try and portray EEA membership as no different from EU membership there is a huge difference in real terms.
Of course if we were to reject EEA membership as well and simply opt for negotiating a FTA along the lines of a number of non-European countries then the differences would be even larger.
To the casual observer this reduces the EU to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Single Market and a pair of Parliament buildings for a single Parliament. Insofar as I think of myself as a European I am much more proud of European achievements such as CERN than I am of, er, the Common Fisheries Policy (which is not really an achievement after all). There's not much from the EU to inspire any sort of patriotic feeling, in the way that some Americans might feel patriotic about the achievements of, say, NASA.
The American's feel patriotic about NASA because its the North American Space Administration. The problem with Europe is it has no demos and no democracy, the population dont feel they are one people, and they dont feel they are in control of their European destiny, they feel is a sump for a very large amount of money which is used to subsidize what seems to them to be undeserving causes. A not untypical comment I hear when talking to people about the EU is "Charity begins at home", its the same reason the government is going to have an uphill task persuading anyone of the merits of its large aid budget taking in countries which have space programs when we dont (linking back to NASA again!)
Four decades in the EU, and we still have different plugs and sockets - so much for harmonisation. And when do we switch to driving on the right so they don't need to make 2 versions of every car?
I did hear that there was a proposal for the EU to insist that the UK adopts white rear number plates to match those on the Continent - but it would be far more sensible for the rest of the EU to adopt our practice of having a yellow rear number plate.
Similarly, I would have thought the Europeans we be best advised to switch to our three-pin plugs on safety grounds. Can someone confirm?
To the casual observer this reduces the EU to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Single Market and a pair of Parliament buildings for a single Parliament. Insofar as I think of myself as a European I am much more proud of European achievements such as CERN than I am of, er, the Common Fisheries Policy (which is not really an achievement after all). There's not much from the EU to inspire any sort of patriotic feeling, in the way that some Americans might feel patriotic about the achievements of, say, NASA.
The American's feel patriotic about NASA because its the North American Space Administration. The problem with Europe is it has no demos and no democracy, the population dont feel they are one people, and they dont feel they are in control of their European destiny, they feel is a sump for a very large amount of money which is used to subsidize what seems to them to be undeserving causes. A not untypical comment I hear when talking to people about the EU is "Charity begins at home", its the same reason the government is going to have an uphill task persuading anyone of the merits of its large aid budget taking in countries which have space programs when we dont (linking back to NASA again!)
If I may interject pedantically, it's actually the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - but the 'National' has the same function as your 'American', no doubt.
Well, many countries manage to have free trade deals with the EU, or each other, without that leading to free movement of people. Is it proposed that the TTIP will allow all EU citizens to live and work in the US without let or hindrance? I have my doubts...
So how would that not equate to "regaining control of our borders", if that were the objective of the British Government during the negotiation of such a trade deal?
Because we would be negotiating a much closer relationship with the EU than the US is under TTIP, or at least I hope we would. If not, then the BOOers would have an even harder task trying to convince people that leaving the EU wouldn't be catastrophic on jobs.
So, yes, of course, in the limit we could tell the EU to get stuffed on free movement of labour. But we wouldn't. That is the reality.
Of course the Kippers will jump on me and say I'm wrong. OK, fair enough, I'm open to persuasion, but I'm not seeing the slightest indication that any serious thought is being given to this sort of question. The Brexit Prize essay was a good start, but UKIP seem terminally uninterested in pursuing the questions it raised - which tells you a lot.
There seem to be three main arguments for UK independence from the EU.
1. We joined a free trade area, but it's clear that the EU project is to create a Federal country called Europe.
2. Too much of what the EU currently does is actively harmful - eg CAP, CFP - and meaningful reform has thus far proved to be elusive.
3. Membership of an EU that extends to the borders of the Soviet Union in the east, indeed including the former Soviet states of the Baltics, entails losing a very large degree of control of immigration, to an extent that was not the case when the EU was confined to Western Europe.
I can't envisage a stable state whereby the UK leaves the EU - thus dealing with arguments (1) and (2) - but retains free movement with the EU, not addressing argument (3).
Leaving aside my own personal views on the matter, I'm pretty certain that if there is majority public support for a British exit from the EU then the British electorate will not accept a trade deal with the EU which retains freedom of movement. I simply do not see any possible future world in which the British public would accept that compromise.
As evidence to support that point, it's worth noting that UKIP support in elections to the European Parliament increased from 7.0% in 1999 to 16.1% in 2004 (then ~16% in 2009 and 26.6% in 2014). What happened in 2004? Ten new members of the European Union. Most of them, and the subsequent enlargements, are easy to pick out on this map.
Public sector wages are still rising faster than private sector wages. The gap is now 11%, up from 9.5% the previous year. Austerity?
That's a great example of where you have to be careful with statistics. If you outsource some low-paid workers from the public sector, so that they are now classified as private sector employees, then you can increase the pay differential between the public and private sectors in favour of public sector workers, even if the pay of public sector workers increased more slowly than that of private sector workers.
The ONS figures are an interesting comparison to the ones you cite.
Today seems to have been a bit shouty here on PB. Kippers unsettling the status quo in British politics and the establishments on both sides getting very jittery. This may be a good thing.
Most of the criticism UKIP get is nothing to do with policy, it is about the fear of losing power
I think it is an interesting parallel with the way immigrants treated. When mainstream politicians slag UKIP for having a fear of the "other" it shows a complete lack of self awareness
The fact that Lab our and Tories are now copying UKIP policy* show they aren't ideologically opposed to UKIPs ideas, they just want power, and their synthetic rage isnt based on whats best for the UK but for their own ambition
*policies such as immigration, the Sovereign Wealth Fund, 40% tax rate...
I hope that if and when Labour get back into power they learn this lesson and fight their corner rather than moaning and whining.
Not sure I see the site as all that different to 2010, except for the arrival of the Kipper faction. I expect we all see ourselves as reasonable souls, sorely maligned but rising above it. :-)
Someone said "Isn't the (foreign benefit) problem that our benefits (including the NHS) are most often in the form of universal entitlements, whereas other countries are based on compulsory insurance systems? The Conservatives have made noises about changing this, but there's been nothing from Labour. If either party had any balls or brains they'd have sorted this out long ago."
I don't think so. Lots of other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Scandinavia have universal health care systems similar to ours. The Canadian system has distinct similarities to ours although it's much better-funded.
Many continental countries including Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland have insurance-based healthcare but it costs more to administer. If you want to spend more on the NHS, then by all means change but you'll need to hire more bureaucrats to fill in forms for billing and invoicing and claiming payments back from the government for the people who have no insurance - possibly as a result of poverty or of living abroad for part of their working life.
"OblitusSumMe" said.. '''Leaving aside my own personal views on the matter, I'm pretty certain that if there is majority public support for a British exit from the EU then the British electorate will not accept a trade deal with the EU which retains freedom of movement. I simply do not see any possible future world in which the British public would accept that compromise.''
Yes, but Cameron has said he does not want to be part of 'ever closer union'. The tory party does not, I don't. I cannot say that about Miliband and Labour with much conviction. Cameron is proposing a referendum on the issue. This closer union is of clourse inevitable with the Euro and its why we need to negotiate a different relationshio with the EU in the first place. Being in the EEA like Norway is one option, being some other sort of member, half in and half out is another. But trade means being part of the single market and that means free movement of labour. The changes the EU wants to make re ever closer union is the opportunity to modify the movement rules.
But whatever solution from whoever will make very little difference, UKIP have just stumbled into admitting that all those here are here to stay (our own nationals living and working in the EU are people Farage tends to forget) and in reality they would accept and have said they would accept significant numbers of immigrants. A movement of people all across the world is happening now and will continue. Over 200,000 thousand of the immigrant numbers are students anyway and this govt has closed down abuses from the Indian sub continent. And of course being in the single market like Norway means accepting EU regulations, it would be daft to use different ones anyway. The issue of the EU is relatively minor compared with gifting Labour into power. Any changes in reality will be small.
We have necessary negotiations to make and we can have a referendum at the end, but from UKIP we have self serving hysteria, led by a snake oil salesman chancer.
Very true, Mr. Navabi, but then one shouldn't also assume that things can only be done in the way they are now. It was for example perfectly possible for British people to go and live on the continent and for continentals to come and live here before the EU was created (the Anglo-Portuguese branch of the Llama family bear witness to this).
Were the UK to decide to leave the EU a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out between the two parties. The difference would be that Parliament was again sovereign with all that entails in terms of choice.
Portugese llamas?
You are right that a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out, but not that parliament would 'again' be sovereign (was it ever?), except in the formal sense which theoretically applies now. We would enter a trade treaty with our EU friends which by definition would greatly curtail parliament's and the government's freedom of action. The difference between that and what we currently have is one of degree only, and I don't think in practice it would be very different.
No it would be hugely different. Even were we to go for the EEA option we would massively slash the amount of EU legislation we would be subjected to and also the costs resulting from EU membership. Whilst the Europhiles like to try and portray EEA membership as no different from EU membership there is a huge difference in real terms.
Of course if we were to reject EEA membership as well and simply opt for negotiating a FTA along the lines of a number of non-European countries then the differences would be even larger.
Its not 'europhiles' its realists. Norway pays into EU funds and follows pretty much all EU regulations in respect of the single market, it is in Schengen and participates in a whole range of EU programmes and initiatives. Any future labour govt would take us ever closer into that. The EU exists and we have to deal with it. Its a total fantasy to pretend that it would be much different out rather than in.
Comments
What they do and are fairly unique in the world in doing is create a sense that the government and especially the PM is not beyond a bit of stick, ridicule and a 'street fight' (nor indeed is the Leader of the Opposition). To me THAT IS A GOOD THING.
Do we want our politicians to get too grandiose like in France or even the USA? No way
And plenty of people that need to leave or get deported are those on visas that are conditional on work placements. Should they lose that job, do you support deporting them? That's a hell of a lot more unexpected than the condition of the UK being in the EU ending.
So what are your thoughts about the deportation of London Met students that thought they had a certain time in the UK before their university lost access to sponsor them?
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJBMcRPqfBk
Public more positive about household finances than they have been for five years with one exception. Pressure on savings at lowest level in five years, as is the expectation of inflation.
You are heading off at some kind of a tangent and they are all great questions and I am flattered you should wish to know my views about this range of issues (London Met students? If it was a scam - was it a scam? - then get them out).
But the fact remains:
Mark Reckless said that EU immigrants resident in the UK should be given a fixed time work permit after which....what? Either deport them or do nothing.
What is your view on that? Deport?
I mean fine if that's it - each to their own, etc and there are plenty of other issues to consider and you have helpfully pointed out some of them, but that is the crux of the matter.
This is a question I have asked many times on here, what would UKIP do with the 400000 French people who live in London.
I don't know the details here, but in cases like this it can be cheaper to give everyone the payment rather than have the costs associated with finding out who is living in a warmer clime.
Perhaps UKIP should start talking about duckponds and back-to-basics, or homes-for-votes in a way that suggests all Tories approve, that would be fair. At the moment I am a Tory, next week I might be a Kipper, do I suddenly become a racist and hate foreigners in the blink of an eye. I might show this to my coloured wife, see if she is comfortable with me staying in a party that talks about brown people as a punchline ?
I see that Roger was asking about my political home - "Whereas there are few Libs or Labour or Green supporters whose posts make me feel uncomfortable......(Cyclefree isn't Labour or Lib Dem is he/she?) "
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. I am of no fixed political abode - probably more Lib Dem (certainly in my constituency) than anything else. I hate bossy authoritarian governments with no regard for civil liberties or the rule of law, cut my teeth on the Guildford 4/ Birmingham 6 / Maguire 7 injustices (and have a high regard for Chris Mullin in consequence) and have spent time doing pro bono legal work for the homeless in Notting Hill - before it became achingly expensive and trendy. I also loathe incompetent governments.
Edit: Oh and SO encapsulates very well what I feel about the current Labour party.
I've also made my views on Cameron known.
Does this help?
If you really feel as passionate as you seem to about being wrong on every single issue, why don't you try it on some other site where politics isn't the main focus and your posts stand a chance of impressing people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04q0zhl/daily-politics-19112014
Can't believe he'd get elected again under any banner either.
Aswad, the Au Pairs and Misty in Roots (with about 20 members of the band on stage!) were the support.
Great days....
He's currently an Independent, having previously been LibDem, SDP and a Labour councillor.
This is more a question of competency, rather than of principle, though. It says nothing about what immigration system is better, or worse, merely that moving from one system to another is complicated.
It's surely unreasonable to expect UKIP to have all the answers about how transitional arrangements would work, but I guess it makes for a good scare tactic. Of course, once [if?] they are in office it becomes the sort of detail you'd expect an Opposition to hammer away on to ensure that the Government don't mess it up - or if they do that they are punished for the error.
First it was Tim vs the Tory Herd
Then there was a period of Nit dominance led by Mssrs Dickson and Kelly, where every thread got hijacked by Scotland
Now recently we seem to have entered a 3rd phase of UKIP vs. the rest
Would be interesting to do a search for the number of mentions of "racism/racist" in current threads vs. threads from say a year ago.
Another excellent example of this is the nature of whatever trade agreement we'd end up with if we left the EU. It would necessarily cover much of the same ground as being in the EU - no-one in their right mind thinks we'd have our own UK-only type-approvals for cars, for example - so it would not be the case that we 'regain sovereignty' or even 'regain control of our borders' in the simplistic pub-bore sense that the Kippers claim.
The problem is that quite a lot of Britons have contributed nothing. How do we incorporate them?
At the time a number of us pointed out that the main driving factor behind the incessant attacks on Labour was that they were in Government and were therefore the main target and that after the election, whoever was in power would be subject to the same treatment.
I think it is true to say this has pretty much been the case. The difference being that, to their credit, the Government supporters have tended not to fall back on claims of unfairness or site bias and have fought their corner (viciously at times) rather than moaning about how the whole world hates them.
I hope that if and when Labour get back into power they learn this lesson and fight their corner rather than moaning and whining.
So how would that not equate to "regaining control of our borders", if that were the objective of the British Government during the negotiation of such a trade deal?
So, yes, of course, in the limit we could tell the EU to get stuffed on free movement of labour. But we wouldn't. That is the reality.
Of course the Kippers will jump on me and say I'm wrong. OK, fair enough, I'm open to persuasion, but I'm not seeing the slightest indication that any serious thought is being given to this sort of question. The Brexit Prize essay was a good start, but UKIP seem terminally uninterested in pursuing the questions it raised - which tells you a lot.
Having said that, you are right that we shouldn't view this just from the UK's point of view. The current EU structure is potentially unstable, and that might give us some opportunities for a rethink.
Mr. Nabavi? Potentially? The eurozone's about as stable as the tetrarchy after Diocletian abdicated.
I think it is an interesting parallel with the way immigrants treated. When mainstream politicians slag UKIP for having a fear of the "other" it shows a complete lack of self awareness
The fact that Lab our and Tories are now copying UKIP policy* show they aren't ideologically opposed to UKIPs ideas, they just want power, and their synthetic rage isnt based on whats best for the UK but for their own ambition
*policies such as immigration, the Sovereign Wealth Fund, 40% tax rate...
Were the UK to decide to leave the EU a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out between the two parties. The difference would be that Parliament was again sovereign with all that entails in terms of choice.
The average weekly increase in the year to April 2014 was £1. The lowest since records began. Yet another year of falling wages in real terms.
Public sector wages are still rising faster than private sector wages. The gap is now 11%, up from 9.5% the previous year. Austerity?
And the gender gap has narrowed if anyone still cares.
You are right that a perfectly reasonable modus vivendi would be worked out, but not that parliament would 'again' be sovereign (was it ever?), except in the formal sense which theoretically applies now. We would enter a trade treaty with our EU friends which by definition would greatly curtail parliament's and the government's freedom of action. The difference between that and what we currently have is one of degree only, and I don't think in practice it would be very different.
To the casual observer this reduces the EU to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Single Market and a pair of Parliament buildings for a single Parliament. Insofar as I think of myself as a European I am much more proud of European achievements such as CERN than I am of, er, the Common Fisheries Policy (which is not really an achievement after all). There's not much from the EU to inspire any sort of patriotic feeling, in the way that some Americans might feel patriotic about the achievements of, say, NASA.
Of course if we were to reject EEA membership as well and simply opt for negotiating a FTA along the lines of a number of non-European countries then the differences would be even larger.
"Portugese llamas? "
Absolutely, and very fine creatures they are too. Much like English llamas but with a taste for nicer cuisine and cheaper wine.
Similarly, I would have thought the Europeans we be best advised to switch to our three-pin plugs on safety grounds. Can someone confirm?
1. We joined a free trade area, but it's clear that the EU project is to create a Federal country called Europe.
2. Too much of what the EU currently does is actively harmful - eg CAP, CFP - and meaningful reform has thus far proved to be elusive.
3. Membership of an EU that extends to the borders of the Soviet Union in the east, indeed including the former Soviet states of the Baltics, entails losing a very large degree of control of immigration, to an extent that was not the case when the EU was confined to Western Europe.
I can't envisage a stable state whereby the UK leaves the EU - thus dealing with arguments (1) and (2) - but retains free movement with the EU, not addressing argument (3).
Leaving aside my own personal views on the matter, I'm pretty certain that if there is majority public support for a British exit from the EU then the British electorate will not accept a trade deal with the EU which retains freedom of movement. I simply do not see any possible future world in which the British public would accept that compromise.
As evidence to support that point, it's worth noting that UKIP support in elections to the European Parliament increased from 7.0% in 1999 to 16.1% in 2004 (then ~16% in 2009 and 26.6% in 2014). What happened in 2004? Ten new members of the European Union. Most of them, and the subsequent enlargements, are easy to pick out on this map.
The ONS figures are an interesting comparison to the ones you cite.
Coming to Dirty Dicks on Friday?
I don't think so. Lots of other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Scandinavia have universal health care systems similar to ours. The Canadian system has distinct similarities to ours although it's much better-funded.
Many continental countries including Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland have insurance-based healthcare but it costs more to administer. If you want to spend more on the NHS, then by all means change but you'll need to hire more bureaucrats to fill in forms for billing and invoicing and claiming payments back from the government for the people who have no insurance - possibly as a result of poverty or of living abroad for part of their working life.
'''Leaving aside my own personal views on the matter, I'm pretty certain that if there is majority public support for a British exit from the EU then the British electorate will not accept a trade deal with the EU which retains freedom of movement. I simply do not see any possible future world in which the British public would accept that compromise.''
Yes, but Cameron has said he does not want to be part of 'ever closer union'. The tory party does not, I don't. I cannot say that about Miliband and Labour with much conviction. Cameron is proposing a referendum on the issue.
This closer union is of clourse inevitable with the Euro and its why we need to negotiate a different relationshio with the EU in the first place.
Being in the EEA like Norway is one option, being some other sort of member, half in and half out is another. But trade means being part of the single market and that means free movement of labour. The changes the EU wants to make re ever closer union is the opportunity to modify the movement rules.
But whatever solution from whoever will make very little difference, UKIP have just stumbled into admitting that all those here are here to stay (our own nationals living and working in the EU are people Farage tends to forget) and in reality they would accept and have said they would accept significant numbers of immigrants.
A movement of people all across the world is happening now and will continue. Over 200,000 thousand of the immigrant numbers are students anyway and this govt has closed down abuses from the Indian sub continent.
And of course being in the single market like Norway means accepting EU regulations, it would be daft to use different ones anyway. The issue of the EU is relatively minor compared with gifting Labour into power. Any changes in reality will be small.
We have necessary negotiations to make and we can have a referendum at the end, but from UKIP we have self serving hysteria, led by a snake oil salesman chancer.
Norway pays into EU funds and follows pretty much all EU regulations in respect of the single market, it is in Schengen and participates in a whole range of EU programmes and initiatives. Any future labour govt would take us ever closer into that. The EU exists and we have to deal with it. Its a total fantasy to pretend that it would be much different out rather than in.