@Socrates - Ralph Miliband served in the Royal Navy. He volunteered to put his life at risk at the age of eighteen or nineteen to help ensure British victory. That is good enough for me. Do you have any evidence at all that he delayed applying for British citizenship in order to avoid conscription? Do you know how easy it was for Eastern European Jewish refugees to get British citizenship during the war? Would his application have been waved through at a time when many thousands of Jewish emigres and other refugees from eastern Europe were being interned?
As for being pro-British; he did apply for British citizenship, which he did not have to do; and he chose to live here and raise a family here, which he did not have to do. Why do you believe that he should have done more than that? Why should he have made public, patriotic statements? The vast majority of us do not do that. And why should he not have wanted to improve, as he saw it, the country of which he was a citizen? I just cannot see why someone who is British cannot advocate democratic change.
As for Miliband. I know you dislike his politics. But that does not make him anti-English. He just does not see the world or this country in the way that you do. He believes that what is best for England is what he believes in. He may well be wrong. I think he probably is. But there is no ulterior motive there; there are no dark forces driving him. He's just incorrect, wrong, not right.
Personally I think regardless of what Cameron said the public would vote BOO. Sure, people do not like change, but most people have little conception of the impact of the EU in everyday and so probably wouldn't fear a change from leaving it. Additionally, even those who want to stay in the EU includes a great many who dislike how it is and if nothing significant is gained could be persuadable
Nothing is ever good enough for people of a certain mindset.
Remember all the arguments about "why renegotiate, let's just vote now!"?
Clearly you have to renegotiate those who (like myself) are frustrated with the EU, but see it's potential. I suspect if there is no material change then I will reluctantly vote 'no' - in that we will have tried to reform and have proven it to be an impossible task.
Then good luck to them, and we'll be happy to help when it all falls apart.
Can someone give me a coherent reason (not a political one) why we couldn't have held an EU referendum in 2014 or early 2015? A serious question as the HoC hasl been treading water for the last year.
Of course, the answer to that is obvious. Without renegotiation, a vote to stay In would leave us committed in perpetuity to all the flaws of Lisbon with no amelioration at all.
"...On the subject of cheerful vicars; have you tried the URC? Our local one is admirably dour and lugubrious."
Oh, I couldn't do that. Going to the URC would get me a divorce only 30 milliseconds slower than me going to Rome. Herself has views you see and, to be fair, the non-conformist services make me uncomfortable. The CofE had it right for centuries but they have really lost the plot since probably ++Fisher and ++Welby, are you listening Charles, is an even bigger wet blanket than I thought he was going to be.
I just wanted to add my condemnation to posters criticising others' religious practices. As long as it doesn't impinge on others, people should be free to worship their God or gods in their own way.
I agree with you there wholeheartedly. But if you use your faith as a reason for voting a certain way, and state that in public, then you should expect it to be scrutinised. On a practical level no religion has 100% political identity, or if a particular adherents does claim that then it is always a recipe for trouble.* I dislike it in every form, whether that's Tony Blair's version of Christianity or the right-wing Republicans or a host of other religions.
This isn't to say religion is entirely private, nor that it should keep out of politics entirely. What it should never be is party political .
* You will not, I suspect, incidentally find much wholehearted support for UKIP amongst UK Catholic church goers.
Scrutinsed implies reasoned criticism and only a fool or a crook opposes scrutiny. However, you were just taking the p*ss. It was a cheap gibe and in any case inaccurate. However your apology of sorts earlier is accepted.
And there is more support amongst practicing Catholics for UKIP than you might think. Paul Nuttal the UKIP deputy is a practicing Catholic and stout defender of the unborn. I doubt there is much support from Catholics for the tories anymore, other than those who think they can live with both God and Mammon.
In any case, I was explaining why I would'nt be voting Labour or tory rather than why I would be voting UKIP. It's perfectly legitimate to not vote for a party because their policies conflict with tenets of your religion.
Had I been voting between 1918 and the death of Gaitskill, I'm pretty sure I would have been voting Labour.
@Socrates - Ralph Miliband served in the Royal Navy. He volunteered to put his life at risk at the age of eighteen or nineteen to help ensure British victory. That is good enough for me. Do you have any evidence at all that he delayed applying for British citizenship in order to avoid conscription? Do you know how easy it was for Eastern European Jewish refugees to get British citizenship during the war? Would his application have been waved through at a time when many thousands of Jewish emigres and other refugees from eastern Europe were being interned?
As for being pro-British; he did apply for British citizenship, which he did not have to do; and he chose to live here and raise a family here, which he did not have to do. Why do you believe that he should have done more than that? Why should he have made public, patriotic statements? The vast majority of us do not do that. And why should he not have wanted to improve, as he saw it, the country of which he was a citizen? I just cannot see why someone who is British cannot advocate democratic change.
As for Miliband. I know you dislike his politics. But that does not make him anti-English. He just does not see the world or this country in the way that you do. He believes that what is best for England is what he believes in. He may well be wrong. I think he probably is. But there is no ulterior motive there; there are no dark forces driving him. He's just incorrect, wrong, not right.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
The more widely shared that view is, the more incomprehensible it is that the Kippers and BOOers feel that they can't win unless he's on their side.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
You seem to have a blind spot that anyone who doesn't see Cameron as a great PM is automatically someone who bangs on abour Europe. Europe is not really that high on my agenda.
I object to weak economnic management, an overblown state, the erosion of privacy. his inability to manage his party or keep his core voters on board simply reinforce the perception that he's struggling in thejob.
If Cameron wins a majority he will be a colossus dominating the political stage as Labour and the Lib Dems seek a new leaders. His influence on a referendum in 2017 will be massive and the threat to others in the EU that "this is not a deal I can recommend to the British people" will be taken very seriously indeed. He will come back with something he believes is in the national interest and that he can sell, particularly the latter.
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
It is very easy to make a case against that spurious argument. Simply point out that those making the claims said exactly the same thing (actually they quoted 3 million jobs) about us not joining the Euro. They were scare-mongering then and they are scare-mongering now. And the economic arguments for leaving (which I have made on here several times before so am not going to repeat ad infinitum) are very clear.
Mr Nabavi is in fact being very generous to you and your lack of arguments. You make a very good case but only for exposing the lack of argument about leaving the EU. All you can say is 'scaremongering'. Wishful thinking is not an economic argument.
The point at the heart of leaving the EU is that to resolve the economic arguments you have to join the EEA which admits that the EU is going to continue to exist and we have to deal with it. The EEA is effectively no different to being in the EU. Any trade deal with the EU is no different to being in. Once out we cannot offer any influence with the EU all there is on offer is disputes.
The one clear thing that increasingly drives the anti EU argument that comes through loud and clear is crass nationalism of the worst kind.
You only have to google "Ukip policy" to learn that "UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders."
I am a tory, but every time I see a party with whose views I have some sympathy called "crass" by someone like you I am pushed closer to casting a feck you vote for ukip in May.
If Cameron wins a majority he will be a colossus dominating the political stage as Labour and the Lib Dems seek a new leaders. His influence on a referendum in 2017 will be massive and the threat to others in the EU that "this is not a deal I can recommend to the British people" will be taken very seriously indeed. He will come back with something he believes is in the national interest and that he can sell, particularly the latter.
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it is a matter of principle isn't it?
That 5, 10 or 20 will be what stops Cameron having the majority you allude to.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
The more widely shared that view is, the more incomprehensible it is that the Kippers and BOOers feel that they can't win unless he's on their side.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
You seem to have a blind spot that anyone who doesn't see Cameron as a great PM is automatically someone who bangs on abour Europe. Europe is not really that high on my agenda.
I object to weak economnic management, an overblown state, the erosion of privacy. his inability to manage his party or keep his core voters on board simply reinforce the perception that he's struggling in thejob.
As you know, I think you are 100% wrong about Cameron, so we'll have to agree to disagree on his merits, but we were discussing the Kippers' curious fear of Cameron campaigning in a referendum on the opposite side to them.
The problem is why do this now ? He just looks shifty, it's a re-run of cast iron Dave.
Er, because he was asked the direct question on live television.
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
Cabinet responsibility refers to supporting government bills put up to parliament, not to a popular referendum.
This is just Cameron showing his true Europhile credentials. He's going to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation even if all we get is a nice press release.
Just last week Tories on here were arguing that Cameron's renegotiation was credible because people like Gove and Hammond would call him out if he didn't achieve much. Look how long that argument lasted!
Well, if Gove and Hammond feel that strongly that the deal is inadequate, then they can resign from the Government, which in itself, would represent a huge boost to the NO campaign. So what are you moaning about?
Closer to the date, I imagine Cameron will suspend collective responsiblity, but Harold Wilson did not fight the 1974 campaigns on that basis and Cameron is probably holding that card in reserve.
such touching faith.
O ye of none
some of us practice the old time faith and ignore all this happy clappy crappy ;-)
Do you mind not mentioning that subject, especially on a Sunday. It really is just too painful.
We used to have a Rector; a nice enough chap, doctrinally fairly sound if a little low church for my tastes, but we leaned to live with each others foibles and his recycling of sermons. Then he retired.
After a rather long interregnum we now have a Priest in Charge, whose forced jollity and happy clappyness may well lead to the first murder of clergy in the parish since 1326.
wall to wall Graham Kendrick you have my deepest sympathy.
If Cameron wins a majority he will be a colossus dominating the political stage as Labour and the Lib Dems seek a new leaders. His influence on a referendum in 2017 will be massive and the threat to others in the EU that "this is not a deal I can recommend to the British people" will be taken very seriously indeed. He will come back with something he believes is in the national interest and that he can sell, particularly the latter.
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
@Socrates - Ralph Miliband served in the Royal Navy. He volunteered to put his life at risk at the age of eighteen or nineteen to help ensure British victory.
He served in the Free Belgian forces section of the Royal Navy, not the actual Royal Navy proper. Putting his life at risk to ensure the defeat of the Nazis is also something plenty of Russian communists did. Does that make them pro-British?
Do you have any evidence at all that he delayed applying for British citizenship in order to avoid conscription?
I will admit I do not. (Unlike you in this conversation, I don't dodge questions.) But you do not have evidence that he applied for it because he was pro-British. Living here and applying for citizenship clearly are not evidence of that, as demonstrated by the large number of radical Islamists that hate Britain who have done the same thing.
And why should he not have wanted to improve, as he saw it, the country of which he was a citizen? I just cannot see why someone who is British cannot advocate democratic change.
He didn't advocate just democratic change. He was happy for the use of force to be used to bring in socialism, even if he supported later bringing back "true" democracy once the socialist state was in place. He wanted to tear down the institutions of this country regardless of the views of the public. His son is similar, albeit less honest.
As for Miliband. I know you dislike his politics. But that does not make him anti-English. He just does not see the world or this country in the way that you do. He believes that what is best for England is what he believes in. He may well be wrong. I think he probably is. But there is no ulterior motive there; there are no dark forces driving him. He's just incorrect, wrong, not right.
I think you misunderstand my position. I don't think Miliband supports socialism in order to subjugate the English (as an 'ulterior motive'). I think he wants to subjugate the English in order to bring in socialism. Whether that's through preventing English devolution, having the Scots and Welsh voting on English matters, offshoring English governance to the EU or replacing the English with more reliable left-voting groups from Pakistan and Bangladesh, he supports it.
@Socrates - Ralph Miliband served in the Royal Navy. He volunteered to put his life at risk at the age of eighteen or nineteen to help ensure British victory. That is good enough for me. Do you have any evidence at all that he delayed applying for British citizenship in order to avoid conscription? Do you know how easy it was for Eastern European Jewish refugees to get British citizenship during the war? Would his application have been waved through at a time when many thousands of Jewish emigres and other refugees from eastern Europe were being interned?
As for being pro-British; he did apply for British citizenship, which he did not have to do; and he chose to live here and raise a family here, which he did not have to do. Why do you believe that he should have done more than that? Why should he have made public, patriotic statements? The vast majority of us do not do that. And why should he not have wanted to improve, as he saw it, the country of which he was a citizen? I just cannot see why someone who is British cannot advocate democratic change.
As for Miliband. I know you dislike his politics. But that does not make him anti-English. He just does not see the world or this country in the way that you do. He believes that what is best for England is what he believes in. He may well be wrong. I think he probably is. But there is no ulterior motive there; there are no dark forces driving him. He's just incorrect, wrong, not right.
On that basis will you vote for him?
I will not vote for Ed Miliband. I may very reluctantly vote Labour, though. It's something that I have been thinking about a great deal over Christmas and I don't believe that my previous notion of not voting at all is sustainable. I am to the left of centre and I am definitely not a Green, so really I have just one choice if I am to exercise the democratic right for which Ralph Miliband fought. And I am coming round to the belief that I should exercise it.
Can someone give me a coherent reason (not a political one) why we couldn't have held an EU referendum in 2014 or early 2015? A serious question as the HoC hasl been treading water for the last year
Cameron is not promising jam tomorrow, he's been promising jam in three or four years time. They could have had the arguments completed by now.
The reason is that unless you try renegotiation you leave open the argument "let's stay in and change it from the inside"
Not to me, but thanks for the attempt. We've already been discussing it for years and nothing has been negotiated. You know that Cameron will obviously wait until May 2015 and then he may begin to form an agenda to open initial negotiations.
It will take at least four years from the first suggestion to anything concrete - we had the war to end all wars in that time and that took much longer than expected.
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
It is very easy to make a case against that spurious argument. Simply point out that those making the claims said exactly the same thing (actually they quoted 3 million jobs) about us not joining the Euro. They were scare-mongering then and they are scare-mongering now. And the economic arguments for leaving (which I have made on here several times before so am not going to repeat ad infinitum) are very clear.
Mr Nabavi is in fact being very generous to you and your lack of arguments. You make a very good case but only for exposing the lack of argument about leaving the EU. All you can say is 'scaremongering'. Wishful thinking is not an economic argument.
The point at the heart of leaving the EU is that to resolve the economic arguments you have to join the EEA which admits that the EU is going to continue to exist and we have to deal with it. The EEA is effectively no different to being in the EU. Any trade deal with the EU is no different to being in. Once out we cannot offer any influence with the EU all there is on offer is disputes.
The one clear thing that increasingly drives the anti EU argument that comes through loud and clear is crass nationalism of the worst kind.
And this is where your lack of knowledge really reveals itself. Anyone who claims that membership of the EEA is effectively no different to the EU is either stupid or lying. I suspect the former but it is probably the latter in your case.
As long as you keep repeating these idiotic claims you really are just making yourself look very stupid.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
I think the biggest issue "Out" faces is that various people who might vote "Out" want different things.
I think that's correct. That's both a strength and weakness. A strength, in that you draw support from right, left, and centre. A weakness in that their messages will be incoherent.
It's much more clear what politicians who support the status quo in the EU favour, namely social democracy and government which is unaccountable to the public.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the refeerendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
Except that Cameron will lie about the extent to what he's achieved, force all his ministers and aspiring ministers to publicly back his argument,. .
That's their problem. If they would bend to that sort of pressure over their own beliefs, we are well rid of them.
Exactly! But people like Richard Nabavi are trying to us this as an argument to vote for this lot of charlatans to stay in power!
My overpowering dread and terror on perusing this Board is that between now and May you will declare your intention to vote Conservative.
Personally I think regardless of what Cameron said the public would vote BOO. Sure, people do not like change, but most people have little conception of the impact of the EU in everyday and so probably wouldn't fear a change from leaving it. Additionally, even those who want to stay in the EU includes a great many who dislike how it is and if nothing significant is gained could be persuadable
Nothing is ever good enough for people of a certain mindset.
Remember all the arguments about "why renegotiate, let's just vote now!"?
Clearly you have to renegotiate those who (like myself) are frustrated with the EU, but see it's potential. I suspect if there is no material change then I will reluctantly vote 'no' - in that we will have tried to reform and have proven it to be an impossible task.
Then good luck to them, and we'll be happy to help when it all falls apart.
Potential? How long do we have to wait?
In its current form it's not going to achieve that potential (the bulk of which comes from a free trade area anyway).
But if we can reform it meaningfully, it's worth having.
If we can't, then I'm confident that the UK is strong enough to stand on its own two feet, although I'd prefer that we were part of the EEA.
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave.
Can you be so kind as to answer the following two questions please?
On census night, the population of the United Kingdom (UK) was estimated to be 63.2 million. * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we leave EU in 2017? * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we stay in EU in 2017?
I've got a genuine reason for these questions, but I'd like you to answer them first, please. They're genuinely not trick questions (I'm not assuming a war, Scotland seceding, or anything tricky). If you're not comfortable with precise figures, nearest two-three million will do.
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
But that's the nub.
There is a difference (or there should be) between "It is unsustainable for practical reasons" and "it is unsustainable for purely political reasons"
England is the 28th most densely populated country in the world. Most of those with a denser populations are tiny islands/city states like Jersey and Monaco.
The only countries with a population of 0.5 million or more with a higher population density than England are Puerto Rica, Rwanda, Lebanon, South Korea, Mauritius, Taiwan, Palestine, Bangladesh, Bahrain and Singapore.
The only large countries (ie population of 5 million or more with a higher population density than England are Rwanda, South Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Singapore.
Maybe France should cede Normandy to us and evacuate its French citizens to give us some more room. Perhaps the EU could set up a boundary commission.....
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave. Right now there's a good chance we'd vote to leave.
If you know of a third alternative, I'd be interested to know what it is.
Free movement isn't really the issue: it's equal treatment of EU vs UK citizens.
Let's say we leave the EU but keep free movement. If we don't like low-wage East Europeans coming in without a job, we can (a) restrict their access to benefits, (b) subsidise local workers through wage credits etc and (c) kick they out if they commit crimes
Next best option, and the most realistic is for them t vote UKIP and hope they get enough seats/votes to influence the government, whoever it may be
That's the single worst option.
If Kipper votes deliver Ed (the most Europhile candidate on offer) will they be chanting "it was the best option" when he signs up to the Euro?
That really is nonsense... Whoever is PM after the next election is very unlikely to have a majority, let alone one big enough to do something like signing us up to the Euro.. amazing you could be bothered to type that rubbish
However, one thing I know for sure, the present rate of immigration from the rest-of-the-EU is unsustainable.
Why not?
Are you really claiming the country is full?
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
If it is full then why are there jobs available for immigrants? Many immigrants are students - the numbers of which this govt has cut significantly. Many immigrants are from the USA Canada Australia NZ South Africa and predominantly India. The success of our economy and our own citizens inability to fill the number of jobs we are creating is pushing EU immigration. We need the Eurozone to recover. One thing is clear - whether in our out of the EU we will have no influence on how the Eurozone behaves but will always be affected by it.
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave. Right now there's a good chance we'd vote to leave.
If you know of a third alternative, I'd be interested to know what it is.
Free movement isn't really the issue: it's equal treatment of EU vs UK citizens.
Let's say we leave the EU but keep free movement. If we don't like low-wage East Europeans coming in without a job, we can (a) restrict their access to benefits, (b) subsidise local workers through wage credits etc and (c) kick they out if they commit crimes
That is not fair Sean. UKIP are not hard right. If they are then the Australian liberal party who see to it that there are strict immigration quotas must be goose steppers.
If they were hard right then they wouldn't get the support they do. Liblabcon should be glad that we have someone fundamentally decent and libertarian like Farage holding liblabcons feet to the flame, rather than some of the unsavoury characters emerging in places like France Holland or Greece.
The problem is that the Conservatives have drifted so far to the left that peoples compasses are out of kilter.
As you know, I think you are 100% wrong about Cameron, so we'll have to agree to disagree on his merits, but we were discussing the Kippers' curious fear of Cameron campaigning in a referendum on the opposite side to them.
It is not curious at all. It is the difference between having both of the main parties campaigning to stay in vs one of those parties campaigning to leave.
My interest is in getting us out of the EU. I would prefer it sooner but am willing to wait if that massively increases the chances of a BOO win.
However, one thing I know for sure, the present rate of immigration from the rest-of-the-EU is unsustainable.
Why not?
Are you really claiming the country is full?
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
If it is full then why are there jobs available for immigrants? Many immigrants are students - the numbers of which this govt has cut significantly. Many immigrants are from the USA Canada Australia NZ South Africa and predominantly India. The success of our economy and our own citizens inability to fill the number of jobs we are creating is pushing EU immigration. We need the Eurozone to recover. One thing is clear - whether in our out of the EU we will have no influence on how the Eurozone behaves but will always be affected by it.
However, one thing I know for sure, the present rate of immigration from the rest-of-the-EU is unsustainable.
Why not?
Are you really claiming the country is full?
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
If it is full then why are there jobs available for immigrants? Many immigrants are students - the numbers of which this govt has cut significantly. Many immigrants are from the USA Canada Australia NZ South Africa and predominantly India. The success of our economy and our own citizens inability to fill the number of jobs we are creating is pushing EU immigration. We need the Eurozone to recover. One thing is clear - whether in our out of the EU we will have no influence on how the Eurozone behaves but will always be affected by it.
It isn't me that needs to be convinced - I don't think we're full - it's society in general, and at present its views are hardening, not softening. Whatever the factual arguments, the general perception and so the political arguments matter most, and they are getting harsher all the time. If immigration continues at current levels or increases, even if it is necessary, there will be a political reaction against that which will be well supported by society at large. Immigration will need to be reduced if there is not to be a reaction against the very principle of it.
@Socrates - I am afraid we just disagree. My understanding is that it was extremely difficult for foreign nationals - especially Jewish refugees - to obtain British citizenship during the war. I have seen no evidence that he consciously chose the Belgians over the British, and in the great scheme of things I don't see that it matters that much anyway. He fought with British servicemen and directly supported British actions and was part of a force that was within the British/Allied chain of command- none of which applies to the Russians because they had their own independent army, navy and air force.
I have never seen anything that shows Ralph Miliband advocated the use of force to bring about the changes he wanted. And in my book wanting to change society even if society does not want to be changed is absolutely fine. You make your case and it is either accepted or it is not. That's democracy.
And I just do not believe that Ed Miliband wants to subjugate the English and see no evidence that this is the case. I just thin he sees the world differently to you and many other right wing people. But, again, that's democracy for you.
So UKIP supporters/waiverers are expected to have faith in the renegotiation and referendum process on the basis that Conservative ministers will put principle before their careers?
No, of course not. They should be saying 'We are confident Cameron won't get anything substantial in the renegotiation, so that helps us greatly in our Out campaign'.
At least, that would be the sane position if they actually wanted us to leave the EU, as they say they do. Their actions, in trying to torpedo the referendum, and in doing absolutely nothing to prepare the Out case, suggest they prefer ever-closer union.
I think the biggest issue "Out" faces is that various people who might vote "Out" want different things.
I think that's correct. That's both a strength and weakness. A strength, in that you draw support from right, left, and centre. A weakness in that their messages will be incoherent.
It's much more clear what politicians who support the status quo in the EU favour, namely social democracy and government which is unaccountable to the public.
I wouldn't personally consider all the people who support our continuing role in the EU as it is as social democrats but you touch on an interesting point and a mistake that gets made. I think one of the reasons many people on the centre left were quite optimistic about both Blair and Clegg was that it was assumed their pro-Europeanism meant they were in favour of moving away from Thatcherism and embracing more continental policies, particularly a critique on the free market. Oh boy have we been disappointed. It turns out that Blair and Clegg were pro-European in the same way that plenty of centre right politicians on the continent are. The likes of the FT and the CBI no doubt want us to be inside the tent for economic reasons, not because they actually like the politics or social model of the continent. They generally don't.
I see the Liberal Democrat's are touting for business to join them in a coalition.Before you decide to do so you need to have a basic sense of a relationship of trust and the problem is you cannot believe a word Clegg or his party says. Here's the 2010 Liberal Democrat PPB titled-yes-"Broken Promises".
If Cameron wins a majority he will be a colossus dominating the political stage as Labour and the Lib Dems seek a new leaders. His influence on a referendum in 2017 will be massive and the threat to others in the EU that "this is not a deal I can recommend to the British people" will be taken very seriously indeed. He will come back with something he believes is in the national interest and that he can sell, particularly the latter.
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it is a matter of principle isn't it?
Only if you have any.
Your inference that it is only you who have principles is laughable. DavidL's points are fair ones. Cameron will, if allowed, renegotiate our relationship in light of the Eurozones desire for ever closer union. Its likely that we will be outside the inevitable closer political union of the EU. Thats his aim. We will get what we will get and than vote on it. The result will be what it will be. With a Labour govt it is it seems to me that we will more than likely inside that closer union than outside it. Whichever way you care to look it seems the best option to vote conservative.
The EEA may be our best bet, though that is a point for discussion. But economically it will be little different. It would be politically though - again that may or may not be a good thing. The referendum if the shenanigans of UKIP still allow us one, will probably turn on if it is better to be in the EU and semi detached or not.
I see the Liberal Democrat's are touting for business to join them in a coalition.Before you decide to do so you need to have a basic sense of a relationship of trust and the problem is you cannot believe a word Clegg or his party says. Here's the 2010 Liberal Democrat PPB titled-yes-"Broken Promises".
Enjoy.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
One reason I look forward to 2015 and end of the coalition is we can presumably at some point stop pretending the LDs are the only party to ever have broken their word, or that they are egregiously at fault for it, with or without the partial defence of coalition politics.
@Socrates - I am afraid we just disagree. My understanding is that it was extremely difficult for foreign nationals - especially Jewish refugees - to obtain British citizenship during the war. I have seen no evidence that he consciously chose the Belgians over the British, and in the great scheme of things I don't see that it matters that much anyway. He fought with British servicemen and directly supported British actions and was part of a force that was within the British/Allied chain of command- none of which applies to the Russians because they had their own independent army, navy and air force.
I have never seen anything that shows Ralph Miliband advocated the use of force to bring about the changes he wanted. And in my book wanting to change society even if society does not want to be changed is absolutely fine. You make your case and it is either accepted or it is not. That's democracy.
And I just do not believe that Ed Miliband wants to subjugate the English and see no evidence that this is the case. I just thin he sees the world differently to you and many other right wing people. But, again, that's democracy for you.
Personally I don't think Ralph MIliband hated this country any more than Michael Foot (and for the avoidance of doubt by that I mean not in the slightest). But no one who is not in modern politics considers every single tiny sentence they write in the context of future analysis by partisan commentators. I would honestly defy anyone to say they have never privately thought or written something they would not be embarrassed to have made public later for fear it could be misconstrued or misused.
The whole argument (or at least is use against Miliband Junior) is frankly petty and purile
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
The more widely shared that view is, the more incomprehensible it is that the Kippers and BOOers feel that they can't win unless he's on their side.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
You seem to have a blind spot that anyone who doesn't see Cameron as a great PM is automatically someone who bangs on abour Europe. Europe is not really that high on my agenda.
I object to weak economnic management, an overblown state, the erosion of privacy. his inability to manage his party or keep his core voters on board simply reinforce the perception that he's struggling in thejob.
An 'overblown state' (?!?!?) One where the major criticism by the tory party's principle opponents is to complain that it plans to reduce spending as a part of GDP to levels of 1935?
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing my arguments from what I say other people's arguments will be), I think the line will be a load of nonsense. The economic case for leaving the EU is not yet made, but probably could be made, depending on exactly what was proposed in its place. The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
So it would be a leap into the unknown.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
Maybe, but fewer people have any conception of what the impact of us being in the EU really is, the arguments are even more abstract and open to being contested than anything the No side could say in the IndyRef, with almost none of the residual affection for the thing we're being asked to leave. The In side for the EU referendum will have to rely even more on technical arguments than emotional ones, and with that lack of investment in the topic I suspect a lack of clear plan from the BOOers will be less of an obstacle. We shall see. Or would, if hypothetically we get the chance.
Perhaps a more important lesson from indyref is who controls the media, including the state broadcaster, and their relative penetrations into the different demographics with their various voting percentages. How will the BBC and (separately!) the Daily Mail come out, in terms of the elderly and high voting percentage groups?
If Cameron wins a majority he will be a colossus dominating the political stage as Labour and the Lib Dems seek a new leaders. His influence on a referendum in 2017 will be massive and the threat to others in the EU that "this is not a deal I can recommend to the British people" will be taken very seriously indeed. He will come back with something he believes is in the national interest and that he can sell, particularly the latter.
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it is a matter of principle isn't it?
Only if you have any.
Your inference that it is only you who have principles is laughable. DavidL's points are fair ones. Cameron will, if allowed, renegotiate our relationship in light of the Eurozones desire for ever closer union. Its likely that we will be outside the inevitable closer political union of the EU. Thats his aim. We will get what we will get and than vote on it. The result will be what it will be. With a Labour govt it is it seems to me that we will more than likely inside that closer union than outside it. Whichever way you care to look it seems the best option to vote conservative.
The EEA may be our best bet, though that is a point for discussion. But economically it will be little different. It would be politically though - again that may or may not be a good thing. The referendum if the shenanigans of UKIP still allow us one, will probably turn on if it is better to be in the EU and semi detached or not.
To say that 'Cameron, if allowed, will renegotiate our relationship etc and then say the best option is to vote Conservative is utter rubbish. Anyone with at least one functioning brain cell knows that it won't be allowed to happen, so voting UKIP and eventually getting a referendum is the best option.
However, one thing I know for sure, the present rate of immigration from the rest-of-the-EU is unsustainable.
Why not?
Are you really claiming the country is full?
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
Perhaps we should curb breeding?
Among who?
The entire population, if you think there are too many people. No need to be selective.
I don't think there are too many people, though I think most people in this country do think that, and even if they are wrong, politically that makes accepting increased immigration untenable. I suspect ending or reducing immigration will be a more popular option before breeding curbs.
However, one thing I know for sure, the present rate of immigration from the rest-of-the-EU is unsustainable.
Why not?
Are you really claiming the country is full?
To what society will accept? Getting close to it I should think.
Perhaps we should curb breeding?
Among who?
The entire population, if you think there are too many people. No need to be selective.
I don't think there are too many people, though I think most people in this country do think that, and even if they are wrong, politically that makes accepting increased immigration untenable. I suspect ending or reducing immigration will be a more popular option before breeding curbs.
Best way to bring in breeding curbs is making child benefit payable on the first two kids only.
as a non-kipper Conservative on vote strike, I also think Cameron is pretty useless at politics. I suspect you;ll find I am not the only one.
The more widely shared that view is, the more incomprehensible it is that the Kippers and BOOers feel that they can't win unless he's on their side.
The truth, of course, is that the result of the EU referendum (if we ever get one, which depends on the 2015 GE result) will depend not a jot on David Cameron. We all know what he's going to say, we could probably even have a good stab at guessing the words in which he'll say it. He has, after all, been completely consistent all along. No-one is going to be persuaded one way or the other by what he says.
You seem to have a blind spot that anyone who doesn't see Cameron as a great PM is automatically someone who bangs on abour Europe. Europe is not really that high on my agenda.
I object to weak economnic management, an overblown state, the erosion of privacy. his inability to manage his party or keep his core voters on board simply reinforce the perception that he's struggling in thejob.
An 'overblown state' (?!?!?) One where the major criticism by the tory party's principle opponents is to complain that it plans to reduce spending as a part of GDP to levels of 1935?
Your analysis is hilarious.
As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog you are a vacuous twat, your posts have neither insight, logic nor wit. You are guano with a keyboard.
You now ask me to take Ed Miliband spin at face value. Says it all.
I shall now go back to normal state of ignoring your drivel, but you could do yourself a favour and try to post something sensible this year never too late to start there are still 361 days left.
I think you overdo it, and this undermines your argument. Primrose Hill lefties like Miliband are not actively "racist", in terms of disliking English people - they just find patriotism utterly mystifying, and obscurely distasteful (cf Nick Palmer) and of course they find the history of western imperialism and conquest, fueled by rampant capitalism, totally reprehensible.
Given that capitalist England, in particular, conquered the world in the last 200 years, and we live in a world shaped by Englishness, from language to accounting laws, this makes "Englishness" especially suspect in the eyes of lefties.
But they know this is unpopular in England. So they contort themselves ludicrously to try and accommodate Englishness, to pretend they understand or even like it ("when I see a white van I think *respect*!"), while still maintaining their anti-imperialist blah de blah. Deep down they also fear Englishness, culturally and psephologically: see Jack Straw's various comments on naturally "violent" English people, passim.
But you can (almost) appreciate their dilemma. Lefties are ideologically driven to support the underdog, yet they live in a country which is the opposite of the underdog: which has trampled the world for centuries, imposing its values. This makes English lefties schizophrenic and incoherent on issues of country and nationhood (contrast with Scottish lefties). It also means they ignore the white English working classes, because, emotionally, they cannot sympathise with poor white English people, who must be privileged simply by virtue of their race.
Thus, Rotherham.
Yup - that seems much ,more like it to me. Miliband does not understand popular patriotism. He does not hate it, he just doesn't get it. Anyone who did would not have made that utterly ridiculous comment about white vans. That said, there are many aspects of traditional working class English culture that he would be a lot more comfortable with than right-wingers: collectivism, trade unionism, class solidarity, for example. We all pick and choose those bits of English culture we like and we ignore and/or disdain the rest.
I think you overdo it, and this undermines your argument. Primrose Hill lefties like Miliband are not actively "racist", in terms of disliking English people - they just find patriotism utterly mystifying, and obscurely distasteful (cf Nick Palmer) and of course they find the history of western imperialism and conquest, fueled by rampant capitalism, totally reprehensible.
Given that capitalist England, in particular, conquered the world in the last 200 years, and we live in a world shaped by Englishness, from language to accounting laws, this makes "Englishness" especially suspect in the eyes of lefties.
But they know this is unpopular in England. So they contort themselves ludicrously to try and accommodate Englishness, to pretend they understand or even like it ("when I see a white van I think *respect*!"), while still maintaining their anti-imperialist blah de blah. Deep down they also fear Englishness, culturally and psephologically: see Jack Straw's various comments on naturally "violent" English people, passim.
But you can (almost) appreciate their dilemma. Lefties are ideologically driven to support the underdog, yet they live in a country which is the opposite of the underdog: which has trampled the world for centuries, imposing its values. This makes English lefties schizophrenic and incoherent on issues of country and nationhood (contrast with Scottish lefties). It also means they ignore the white English working classes, because, emotionally, they cannot sympathise with poor white English people, who must be privileged simply by virtue of their race.
Thus, Rotherham.
Yup - that seems much ,more like it to me. Miliband does not understand popular patriotism. He does not hate it, he just doesn't get it. Anyone who did would not have made that utterly ridiculous comment about white vans. That said, there are many aspects of traditional working class English culture that he would be a lot more comfortable with than right-wingers: collectivism, trade unionism, class solidarity, for example. We all pick and choose those bits of English culture we like and we ignore and/or disdain the rest.
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave.
Can you be so kind as to answer the following two questions please?
On census night, the population of the United Kingdom (UK) was estimated to be 63.2 million. * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we leave EU in 2017? * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we stay in EU in 2017?
I've got a genuine reason for these questions, but I'd like you to answer them first, please. They're genuinely not trick questions (I'm not assuming a war, Scotland seceding, or anything tricky). If you're not comfortable with precise figures, nearest two-three million will do.
May I ask if you're going to answer those two questions, please? You don't have to (it's not as if I'm paying you, after all), but it would help if you did
Make a case for the 'leaving the EU would cost us millions of jobs' argument please.
Oh, easiest case in the world. The unions, virtually all big businesses, most UK politicians, nearly all European politicians, US politicians, the BBC, and a good chunk of the rest of the media, will all be pushing that line. Of course there will be claims and counter-claims, most of them spurious or exaggerated, but the Out side have the problem that it's a leap into the dark. The Stay In side just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's the easiest thing of all to do.
For the avoidance of doubt (because my Kipper friends here seem incapable of distinguishing The trouble is, though, that in making that economic case they'd demolish most of their other arguments for leaving.
As we have discussed before, Mr. Nabavi, it will be impossible for the better off out campaigners to say exactly what relationship the UK will have with the EU after we opt to leave because that relationship can only, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, be negotiated after we opt to leave.
So it would be a leap into the unknown.
The Yes campaign seemed to fail because they failed to convince voters that they had a clear vision of what indy Scotland looked like. The same is likely to be the case for the BOOers.
Maybe, but fewer people have any conception of what the impact of us being in the EU really at lack of investment in the topic I suspect a lack of clear plan from the BOOers will be less of an obstacle. We shall see. Or would, if hypothetically we get the chance.
Perhaps a more important lesson from indyref is who controls the media, including the state broadcaster, and their relative penetrations into the different demographics with their various voting percentages. How will the BBC and (separately!) the Daily Mail come out, in terms of the elderly and high voting percentage groups?
Mr Carnyx there are lessons to be learnt from Scotland but I doubt it's media based.
Firstly like Salmond just keep pumping away and say anything.
Secondly business needs to be neutralised. Yes suffered when the business community cracked and came out heavily towards the end.
Thridly Out needs a credible alternative model to the status quo, Yes just left too many gaping holes to be credible.
Fourth gradual may be better than big bang.
I suspect it would be better for Out to fight a no more closer union referendum , which de facto will lead to Brexit than fight an economic battle with dubious stats and threats of economic armageddon.
Off topic. Saw the 'Hoegh Osaka' cargo ship that is grounded off the Isle of Wight from Lee on Solent shore this lunchtime. I've just seen on the BBC website that it was grounded deliberately by the pilot and master after it developed a list. I just wonder why it took the News organisations so long to discover this basic piece of information that must have been know by the MCA and other authorities within minutes of the decision to run the ship aground had been taken.
Utter rubbish about left wingers supporting the underdog -they don't. They expect the underdog to support them. There's a big difference. The underdog to a left winger is a perpetually poor subgroup which must manifest eternal gratitude for the efforts of left wing politicians, teachers, social workers, medics and social servants keeping their lives from being even more terrible than otherwise.
@Socrates - I am afraid we just disagree. My understanding is that it was extremely difficult for foreign nationals - especially Jewish refugees - to obtain British citizenship during the war. I have seen no evidence that he consciously chose the Belgians over the British, and in the great scheme of things I don't see that it matters that much anyway. He fought with British servicemen and directly supported British actions and was part of a force that was within the British/Allied chain of command- none of which applies to the Russians because they had their own independent army, navy and air force.
I have never seen anything that shows Ralph Miliband advocated the use of force to bring about the changes he wanted. And in my book wanting to change society even if society does not want to be changed is absolutely fine. You make your case and it is either accepted or it is not. That's democracy.
And I just do not believe that Ed Miliband wants to subjugate the English and see no evidence that this is the case. I just thin he sees the world differently to you and many other right wing people. But, again, that's democracy for you.
Personally I don't think Ralph MIliband hated this country any more than Michael Foot (and for the avoidance of doubt by that I mean not in the slightest). But no one who is not in modern politics considers every single tiny sentence they write in the context of future analysis by partisan commentators. I would honestly defy anyone to say they have never privately thought or written something they would not be embarrassed to have made public later for fear it could be misconstrued or misused.
The whole argument (or at least is use against Miliband Junior) is frankly petty and purile
I bow to no-one in my dislike of Milliband, but this is absolutely right. (1) Sins of the father do not pass down; and (2) We've all said stupid things in our time - particularly when we were 15 or 16, and in the privacy of our diary.
I know someone who admits arguing - in his late teens - that black South Africans shouldn't get the vote until they had education.
Said person was cringing with embarrassment when he admitted this.
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave.
Can you be so kind as to answer the following two questions please?
On census night, the population of the United Kingdom (UK) was estimated to be 63.2 million. * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we leave EU in 2017? * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we stay in EU in 2017?
I've got a genuine reason for these questions, but I'd like you to answer them first, please. They're genuinely not trick questions (I'm not assuming a war, Scotland seceding, or anything tricky). If you're not comfortable with precise figures, nearest two-three million will do.
May I ask if you're going to answer those two questions, please? You don't have to (it's not as if I'm paying you, after all), but it would help if you did
Not gonna. Girlfriend arriving. Couldn't be arsed anyway. Bugger off. Etc.
Happy Nu Year.
If I knew the best way to stop the conversation was to ask you a direct question with no ulterior motive that could be simply answered with just a few minute's thought, I'd've done it years ago...:-)
OK, my reason for the question is this. If I understand correctly, you presented two options (we leave EU and population growth due to migration lessens, we stay in EU and population growth due to migration does not lessen) and asked for a third option
One third option is that we leave the EU and population growth continues as the same rate as it would have done if we stayed.
Leaving the EU may be a necessary condition to establishing border control and thence inward migration, but it is not a sufficient one. The pressures encouraging inward migration (population growth ex-EU, easier transportation, desire for growth and cheap labour) continue to exist even post-Brexit and a UK government post-Brexit might not arrest (or even reduce!) inward migration for those very reasons. One can construct a scenario whereby a government leaves the EU, inaugurates controlled migration, but never sets the cutoff high enough to prevent population growth continuing on its merry way.
Paul_Mid_Beds 'The problem is that the Conservatives have drifted so far to the left that peoples compasses are out of kilter.' Since when exactly? Have the Tories moved to the left compared with the days of Harold Macmillan, RA Butler,Iain Macleod, Edward Boyle, Ted Heath etc? Many take the view they have moved sharply to the right since those days.
Given that Free Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, and will not be altered, this means that either the immigration stops naturally very soon (how?), or we leave.
Can you be so kind as to answer the following two questions please?
On census night, the population of the United Kingdom (UK) was estimated to be 63.2 million. * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we leave EU in 2017? * What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we stay in EU in 2017?
I've got a genuine reason for these questions, but I'd like you to answer them first, please. They're genuinely not trick questions (I'm not assuming a war, Scotland seceding, or anything tricky). If you're not comfortable with precise figures, nearest two-three million will do.
May I ask if you're going to answer those two questions, please? You don't have to (it's not as if I'm paying you, after all), but it would help if you did
Not gonna. Girlfriend arriving. Couldn't be arsed anyway. Bugger off. Etc.
Happy Nu Year.
If I knew the best way to stop the conversation was to ask you a direct question with no ulterior motive that could be simply answered with just a few minute's thought, I'd've done it years ago...:-)
OK, my reason for the question is this. If I understand correctly, you presented two options (we leave EU and population growth due to migration lessens, we stay in EU and population growth due to migration does not lessen) and asked for a third option
One third option is that we leave the EU and population growth continues as the same rate as it would have done if we stayed.
Leaving the EU may be a necessary condition to establishing border control and thence inward migration, but it is not a sufficient one. The pressures encouraging inward migration (population growth ex-EU, easier transportation, desire for growth and cheap labour) continue to exist even post-Brexit and a UK government post-Brexit might not arrest (or even reduce!) inward migration for those very reasons. One can construct a scenario whereby a government leaves the EU, inaugurates controlled migration, but never sets the cutoff high enough to prevent population growth continuing on its merry way.
I'm not sure anyone has argued that leaving will automatically solve ANY problem - but it is a precondition for doing so.
That really is nonsense... Whoever is PM after the next election is very unlikely to have a majority, let alone one big enough to do something like signing us up to the Euro
He doesn't need a big majority to sign us up. How big a majority did Gordo need to sign Lisbon? Oh, wait...
I think that you are right. The pressures on immigration are such that the countries the BOOers want to emulate (Australia, Canada, USA, Norway, Switzerland etc) have immigration rates and similar or higher per capita immigration, and similar social issues as we do. Take Montreal or Martin Place as examples...
The truth is that free democratic countries with the rule of law and open economies attract a lot of people looking for personal economic gain and opportunities. Personally I think that we benefit a lot from getting our migrants from Eastern Europe rather than elsewhere as they have many common cultural values and integrate well. We also get the reciprocal benefit of being able to look for work and residences in sunnier parts.
I think UKIPs promises on immigration cannot be met, but as they are not going to have the opportunity to form a government they will never be exposed.
I'm not sure anyone has argued that leaving will automatically solve ANY problem - but it is a precondition for doing so.
To misquote the Mighty Jeff Goldblum, "...you were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that you didn't stop to think if they would..."
Not me. I've always expressed the view that a malignant leadership (Cameron, Milliband) is far more dangerous than an oppressive legislative instrument (the EU). Of course it is. You can work within the EU if you are utterly determined to govern in the interests of the British people, the same way you can continue to do a job even if paralysed down one side. But if the brain is gone, there's no use having the full use of your body.
I think that you are right. The pressures on immigration are such that the countries the BOOers want to emulate (Australia, Canada, USA, Norway, Switzerland etc) have immigration rates and similar or higher per capita immigration, and similar social issues as we do. Take Montreal or Martin Place as examples...
The truth is that free democratic countries with the rule of law and open economies attract a lot of people looking for personal economic gain and opportunities. Personally I think that we benefit a lot from getting our migrants from Eastern Europe rather than elsewhere as they have many common cultural values and integrate well. We also get the reciprocal benefit of being able to look for work and residences in sunnier parts.
I think UKIPs promises on immigration cannot be met, but as they are not going to have the opportunity to form a government they will never be exposed.
Australia and Canada have vast areas of country and actively encourage migration - though of course Australia only encourages what it perceives to be the right sort of migration based on what is good for its economy at the time. As an example for many years you could not emigrate to Australia if you were a Geologist as they had a surplus of qualified people in that profession.
Norway controls its migration very strictly and sets rather onerous conditions on the right to settle in the country (including 300 hours compulsory lessons in Norwegian language and culture followed by exams).
The important point is that these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
That presupposes that our current immigration stance does not benefit "the country as a whole" which is at best a contentious statement
And free movement definitely benefits UK citizens moving abroad.
That really is nonsense... Whoever is PM after the next election is very unlikely to have a majority, let alone one big enough to do something like signing us up to the Euro
He doesn't need a big majority to sign us up. How big a majority did Gordo need to sign Lisbon? Oh, wait...
No British government will join the Euro in the next Parliament, whatever the outcome of the election.
these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
That presupposes that our current immigration stance does not benefit "the country as a whole" which is at best a contentious statement
And free movement definitely benefits UK citizens moving abroad.
No it doesn't. Immigration at its current levels may currently benefit the country (a contentious statement at best), and tomorrow it may not, and the next day it could be better, or worse. The inescapable fact is it is outside the control of the UK Government. There is no 'positive' outcome of our current EU immigration status that could not be replicated (and refined) by setting an independent policy.
these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
That presupposes that our current immigration stance does not benefit "the country as a whole" which is at best a contentious statement
And free movement definitely benefits UK citizens moving abroad.
The question is not whether it benefits the relatively small number of emigres but whether it benefits the country as a whole - all of its citizens not just those wealthy enough to be able to settle in other countries.
Now personally this is not as big a problem for me as it apparently is for other UKIP supporters as I am fairly ambivalent about migration as long as it is done in the right way and is able to be controlled if necessary. The problem at the moment is that it cannot be controlled - as has been illustrated perfectly by Cameron's failed promises on reducing migrant numbers.
I do particularly think however that the idea of running a country for the benefit solely of its businesses and to the potential detriment of many of its citizens is not a great way to do things.
This is why I have often asked Robert to comment on my suggestion that any business wishing to employ migrants should take full responsibility for them including all of their benefits, medical insurance and social security needs for the whole time they are in the country - including after they have decided they no longer need them at least until they get another job.
I do also contend that, given that we are having ever increasing pressure on housing and are having to build more and more homes, often to the detriment and in the face of opposition from local communities it is valid to claim that there are too many people coming into the country.
The answer to this may well be something as simple as better planning and coordination by local and central government - something that appears to be sadly lacking at the moment - but it is also something that is almost impossible when you have a large portion of migrants who cannot be controlled or even accurately counted.
I think that you are right. The pressures on immigration are such that the countries the BOOers want to emulate (Australia, Canada, USA, Norway, Switzerland etc) have immigration rates and similar or higher per capita immigration, and similar social issues as we do. Take Montreal or Martin Place as examples...
The truth is that free democratic countries with the rule of law and open economies attract a lot of people looking for personal economic gain and opportunities. Personally I think that we benefit a lot from getting our migrants from Eastern Europe rather than elsewhere as they have many common cultural values and integrate well. We also get the reciprocal benefit of being able to look for work and residences in sunnier parts.
I think UKIPs promises on immigration cannot be met, but as they are not going to have the opportunity to form a government they will never be exposed.
Australia and Canada have vast areas of country and actively encourage migration - though of course Australia only encourages what it perceives to be the right sort of migration based on what is good for its economy at the time. As an example for many years you could not emigrate to Australia if you were a Geologist as they had a surplus of qualified people in that profession.
Norway controls its migration very strictly and sets rather onerous conditions on the right to settle in the country (including 300 hours compulsory lessons in Norwegian language and culture followed by exams).
The important point is that these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
But the actual numbers are very similar.
Australia gets about the same number of immigrants as us, so roughly 3 times the per-capita rate as the UK.
In Norway 14% of the population are immigrants or who have two parents who were immigrants. Apart from Swedes the main immigrant groups are Polish, Lithuanian, Somali and Pakistani.
Sounds more like they have a higher rate of immigration than us, and not an especially highly skilled one.
Both Australia and Norway have high unemployment and other social issues in immigrant communities much as we do. UKIP and the BOOers are selling snake oil cures for immigration and they know it.
Far better to have active programmes to integrate migrants with English lessons etc, I would also encourage EU migrants to take British citizenship so that they can involve themselves fully in our society.
There is no 'positive' outcome of our current EU immigration status that could not be replicated (and refined) by setting an independent policy.
That's demonstrably not true. Free movement of UK citizens is a positive outcome and could not be replicated independently
Note 'immigration'. Whether freedom of movement for UK citizens has had a beneficial effect on the country via outward migration is an entirely different issue, which is highly debatable in itself.
There is no 'positive' outcome of our current EU immigration status that could not be replicated (and refined) by setting an independent policy.
That's demonstrably not true. Free movement of UK citizens is a positive outcome and could not be replicated independently
I have no problem with the prospect of British citizens being subject to immigration controls by Spain or France, any more than by the USA or Australia. Countries should act in their own best interests when setting immigration policy.
Australia gets about the same number of immigrants as us, so roughly 3 times the per-capita rate as the UK.
In Norway 14% of the population are immigrants or who have two parents who were immigrants. Apart from Swedes the main immigrant groups are Polish, Lithuanian, Somali and Pakistani.
Sounds more like they have a higher rate of immigration than us, and not an especially highly skilled one.
Both Australia and Norway have high unemployment and other social issues in immigrant communities much as we do. UKIP and the BOOers are selling snake oil cures for immigration and they know it.
Far better to have active programmes to integrate migrants with English lessons etc, I would also encourage EU migrants to take British citizenship so that they can involve themselves fully in our society.
Hardly comparable given that Australia is the 3rd least densely populated country in the world and Norway the 27th.
And of course you are kind of shooting yourself in the foot because Norway being in the EEA cannot control EU migration.
As I say I am not opposed to more migration if it is for the benefit of the country but you cannot even start to have that debate if you have no control over migration in the first place.
And As I have said before a system that says - as you have done in an earlier post this evening - that it would rather have a Pole than, for example, an Indian as an immigrant is straying dangerously close to bigotry.
I'm not sure anyone has argued that leaving will automatically solve ANY problem - but it is a precondition for doing so.
To misquote the Mighty Jeff Goldblum, "...you were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that you didn't stop to think if they would..."
Not me. I've always expressed the view that a malignant leadership (Cameron, Milliband) is far more dangerous than an oppressive legislative instrument (the EU). Of course it is. You can work within the EU if you are utterly determined to govern in the interests of the British people, the same way you can continue to do a job even if paralysed down one side. But if the brain is gone, there's no use having the full use of your body.
It's quite ridiculous to call Cameron's leadership "malignant". That kind of ukip attitude just shows how immature any ukip participation in government would be.
Ooh, Ed's going to be in Manchester tomorrow. Last two times he was in Mancland, he forgot immigration and the deficit in his speech and erm, had showed he was a tightwad with the beggar
Ed Miliband will on Monday declare day one of Labour’s general election battle as he promises to run a campaign of “hope, not falsehood” that will see him holding weekly question-time sessions with voters.
The Labour leader will list three priorities for government as putting working people first, dealing with the deficit and protecting the NHS at a rally in Manchester, where he will challenge activists to engage 4 million voters in conversation between now and May.
On the EU referendum:- I suspect we're going to get one no matter what happens in the election. The Lib Dems are probably going to commit themselves to one before long (perhaps even before the election), so one would happen in a Lib-Lab coalition in a hung parliament. In fact, even if Labour scrape together a majority, there's probably enough Kate Hoeys and Frank Fields on the Labour backbenches to force one through even then.
Perhaps a more important lesson from indyref is who controls the media, including the state broadcaster, and their relative penetrations into the different demographics with their various voting percentages. How will the BBC and (separately!) the Daily Mail come out, in terms of the elderly and high voting percentage groups?
Mr Carnyx there are lessons to be learnt from Scotland but I doubt it's media based.
Firstly like Salmond just keep pumping away and say anything.
Secondly business needs to be neutralised. Yes suffered when the business community cracked and came out heavily towards the end.
Thridly Out needs a credible alternative model to the status quo, Yes just left too many gaping holes to be credible.
Fourth gradual may be better than big bang.
I suspect it would be better for Out to fight a no more closer union referendum , which de facto will lead to Brexit than fight an economic battle with dubious stats and threats of economic armageddon.
As you don't (I think) live in Scotland, unless I have muddled you with a Halesowen-domiciled PBer, I don't think you would have quite appreciated the asymmetry of the media barrage during indyref, especially for those people who never looked beyond their newspaper and the BBC. It doesn't matter so much what the arguments are when it is largely hostile media that are interpreting them to the public. Remember the polling lessons - that the yes vote went up once people were actually exposed to the arguments pro as well as con. That was very strong evidence of a lag effect maintained by the unified chorus of No propaganda, as was the general increase in a Yes vote over time. So the overall balance of the media as to Brexit will be very important for the EU referendum, as and when it arrives, and I think you are underrating the media factor, unless you think that the newspapers and TV will be more mixed in their approaches.
But some interesting thoughts there re Brexit, especially re more ways than one to skin a cat.
On the EU referendum:- I suspect we're going to get one no matter what happens in the election. The Lib Dems are probably going to commit themselves to one before long (perhaps even before the election), so one would happen in a Lib-Lab coalition in a hung parliament. In fact, even if Labour scrape together a majority, there's probably enough Kate Hoeys and Frank Fields on the Labour backbenches to force one through even then.
The Liberals committed themselves to one before and changed their mind after an election. So really any promise from them is a bit meh.
I'm not sure anyone has argued that leaving will automatically solve ANY problem - but it is a precondition for doing so.
To misquote the Mighty Jeff Goldblum, "...you were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that you didn't stop to think if they would..."
Not me. I've always expressed the view that a malignant leadership (Cameron, Milliband) is far more dangerous than an oppressive legislative instrument (the EU). Of course it is. You can work within the EU if you are utterly determined to govern in the interests of the British people, the same way you can continue to do a job even if paralysed down one side. But if the brain is gone, there's no use having the full use of your body.
It's quite ridiculous to call Cameron's leadership "malignant". That kind of ukip attitude just shows how immature any ukip participation in government would be.
Correct. But is is true to say that the biggest clear and present danger to our country would be a future Labour government and not the EU. Its clear that Cameron does not want us to be a part of any 'ever closer union'. The Eurozone will lead to that and frankly only a Cameron led government after 2015 can save us from it.
I'm not sure what to make of this, as I'm opposed to the death penalty
A rapist and murderer is to be put to death in Belgium this week, despite Europe’s ban on the death penalty, after a court granted him the right to euthanasia.
Frank Van Den Bleeken, 52, is not physically ill but claims his “psychological suffering” is unbearable and that he would prefer to die than spend more of his life behind bars.
Comments
As for being pro-British; he did apply for British citizenship, which he did not have to do; and he chose to live here and raise a family here, which he did not have to do. Why do you believe that he should have done more than that? Why should he have made public, patriotic statements? The vast majority of us do not do that. And why should he not have wanted to improve, as he saw it, the country of which he was a citizen? I just cannot see why someone who is British cannot advocate democratic change.
As for Miliband. I know you dislike his politics. But that does not make him anti-English. He just does not see the world or this country in the way that you do. He believes that what is best for England is what he believes in. He may well be wrong. I think he probably is. But there is no ulterior motive there; there are no dark forces driving him. He's just incorrect, wrong, not right.
"...On the subject of cheerful vicars; have you tried the URC? Our local one is admirably dour and lugubrious."
Oh, I couldn't do that. Going to the URC would get me a divorce only 30 milliseconds slower than me going to Rome. Herself has views you see and, to be fair, the non-conformist services make me uncomfortable. The CofE had it right for centuries but they have really lost the plot since probably ++Fisher and ++Welby, are you listening Charles, is an even bigger wet blanket than I thought he was going to be.
And there is more support amongst practicing Catholics for UKIP than you might think. Paul Nuttal the UKIP deputy is a practicing Catholic and stout defender of the unborn. I doubt there is much support from Catholics for the tories anymore, other than those who think they can live with both God and Mammon.
In any case, I was explaining why I would'nt be voting Labour or tory rather than why I would be voting UKIP. It's perfectly legitimate to not vote for a party because their policies conflict with tenets of your religion.
Had I been voting between 1918 and the death of Gaitskill, I'm pretty sure I would have been voting Labour.
I object to weak economnic management, an overblown state, the erosion of privacy. his inability to manage his party or keep his core voters on board simply reinforce the perception that he's struggling in thejob.
Are you really claiming the country is full? Is your argument that we don't have the facilities to cope and that they can never be constructed?
If he loses all of this is academic anyway because Labour will not offer a referendum or take any steps to seek to renegotiate our membership (unless we are asked to give up yet more of the rebate in which case they will presumably agree).
As for UKIP, well who cares? 5 MPs, 10 MPs, 20MPs. It won't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it is a matter of principle isn't it?
I am a tory, but every time I see a party with whose views I have some sympathy called "crass" by someone like you I am pushed closer to casting a feck you vote for ukip in May.
He didn't advocate just democratic change. He was happy for the use of force to be used to bring in socialism, even if he supported later bringing back "true" democracy once the socialist state was in place. He wanted to tear down the institutions of this country regardless of the views of the public. His son is similar, albeit less honest. I think you misunderstand my position. I don't think Miliband supports socialism in order to subjugate the English (as an 'ulterior motive'). I think he wants to subjugate the English in order to bring in socialism. Whether that's through preventing English devolution, having the Scots and Welsh voting on English matters, offshoring English governance to the EU or replacing the English with more reliable left-voting groups from Pakistan and Bangladesh, he supports it.
There is a difference (or there should be) between "It is unsustainable for practical reasons" and "it is unsustainable for purely political reasons"
"Of course, the answer to that is obvious"
Not to me, but thanks for the attempt. We've already been discussing it for years and nothing has been negotiated. You know that Cameron will obviously wait until May 2015 and then he may begin to form an agenda to open initial negotiations.
It will take at least four years from the first suggestion to anything concrete - we had the war to end all wars in that time and that took much longer than expected.
As long as you keep repeating these idiotic claims you really are just making yourself look very stupid.
It's much more clear what politicians who support the status quo in the EU favour, namely social democracy and government which is unaccountable to the public.
But if we can reform it meaningfully, it's worth having.
If we can't, then I'm confident that the UK is strong enough to stand on its own two feet, although I'd prefer that we were part of the EEA.
On census night, the population of the United Kingdom (UK) was estimated to be 63.2 million.
* What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we leave EU in 2017?
* What do you think the population of the UK will be in 2030 if we stay in EU in 2017?
I've got a genuine reason for these questions, but I'd like you to answer them first, please. They're genuinely not trick questions (I'm not assuming a war, Scotland seceding, or anything tricky). If you're not comfortable with precise figures, nearest two-three million will do.
The only countries with a population of 0.5 million or more with a higher population density than England are Puerto Rica, Rwanda, Lebanon, South Korea, Mauritius, Taiwan, Palestine, Bangladesh, Bahrain and Singapore.
The only large countries (ie population of 5 million or more with a higher population density than England are Rwanda, South Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Singapore.
Maybe France should cede Normandy to us and evacuate its French citizens to give us some more room. Perhaps the EU could set up a boundary commission.....
Let's say we leave the EU but keep free movement. If we don't like low-wage East Europeans coming in without a job, we can (a) restrict their access to benefits, (b) subsidise local workers through wage credits etc and (c) kick they out if they commit crimes
Many immigrants are students - the numbers of which this govt has cut significantly. Many immigrants are from the USA Canada Australia NZ South Africa and predominantly India. The success of our economy and our own citizens inability to fill the number of jobs we are creating is pushing EU immigration. We need the Eurozone to recover. One thing is clear - whether in our out of the EU we will have no influence on how the Eurozone behaves but will always be affected by it.
If they were hard right then they wouldn't get the support they do. Liblabcon should be glad that we have someone fundamentally decent and libertarian like Farage holding liblabcons feet to the flame, rather than some of the unsavoury characters emerging in places like France Holland or Greece.
The problem is that the Conservatives have drifted so far to the left that peoples compasses are out of kilter.
My interest is in getting us out of the EU. I would prefer it sooner but am willing to wait if that massively increases the chances of a BOO win.
I want a D-Day not a Dieppe.
I have never seen anything that shows Ralph Miliband advocated the use of force to bring about the changes he wanted. And in my book wanting to change society even if society does not want to be changed is absolutely fine. You make your case and it is either accepted or it is not. That's democracy.
And I just do not believe that Ed Miliband wants to subjugate the English and see no evidence that this is the case. I just thin he sees the world differently to you and many other right wing people. But, again, that's democracy for you.
Here's the 2010 Liberal Democrat PPB titled-yes-"Broken Promises".
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
DavidL's points are fair ones. Cameron will, if allowed, renegotiate our relationship in light of the Eurozones desire for ever closer union. Its likely that we will be outside the inevitable closer political union of the EU. Thats his aim. We will get what we will get and than vote on it. The result will be what it will be. With a Labour govt it is it seems to me that we will more than likely inside that closer union than outside it. Whichever way you care to look it seems the best option to vote conservative.
The EEA may be our best bet, though that is a point for discussion. But economically it will be little different. It would be politically though - again that may or may not be a good thing. The referendum if the shenanigans of UKIP still allow us one, will probably turn on if it is better to be in the EU and semi detached or not.
The whole argument (or at least is use against Miliband Junior) is frankly petty and purile
Your analysis is hilarious.
"Lefties are ideologically driven to support the underdog,"
That's correct; it's their boast and in many ways their failing when the underdog is wrong.
They sit as Judge and Jury and Guilty is the default option for anything or anyone considered more powerful.
You now ask me to take Ed Miliband spin at face value. Says it all.
I shall now go back to normal state of ignoring your drivel, but you could do yourself a favour and try to post something sensible this year never too late to start there are still 361 days left.
Given that capitalist England, in particular, conquered the world in the last 200 years, and we live in a world shaped by Englishness, from language to accounting laws, this makes "Englishness" especially suspect in the eyes of lefties.
But they know this is unpopular in England. So they contort themselves ludicrously to try and accommodate Englishness, to pretend they understand or even like it ("when I see a white van I think *respect*!"), while still maintaining their anti-imperialist blah de blah. Deep down they also fear Englishness, culturally and psephologically: see Jack Straw's various comments on naturally "violent" English people, passim.
But you can (almost) appreciate their dilemma. Lefties are ideologically driven to support the underdog, yet they live in a country which is the opposite of the underdog: which has trampled the world for centuries, imposing its values. This makes English lefties schizophrenic and incoherent on issues of country and nationhood (contrast with Scottish lefties). It also means they ignore the white English working classes, because, emotionally, they cannot sympathise with poor white English people, who must be privileged simply by virtue of their race.
Thus, Rotherham.
Yup - that seems much ,more like it to me. Miliband does not understand popular patriotism. He does not hate it, he just doesn't get it. Anyone who did would not have made that utterly ridiculous comment about white vans. That said, there are many aspects of traditional working class English culture that he would be a lot more comfortable with than right-wingers: collectivism, trade unionism, class solidarity, for example. We all pick and choose those bits of English culture we like and we ignore and/or disdain the rest.
Well argued, pretty much spot-on.
May I ask if you're going to answer those two questions, please? You don't have to (it's not as if I'm paying you, after all), but it would help if you did
Firstly like Salmond just keep pumping away and say anything.
Secondly business needs to be neutralised. Yes suffered when the business community cracked and came out heavily towards the end.
Thridly Out needs a credible alternative model to the status quo, Yes just left too many gaping holes to be credible.
Fourth gradual may be better than big bang.
I suspect it would be better for Out to fight a no more closer union referendum , which de facto will lead to Brexit than fight an economic battle with dubious stats and threats of economic armageddon.
I just wonder why it took the News organisations so long to discover this basic piece of information that must have been know by the MCA and other authorities within minutes of the decision to run the ship aground had been taken.
I know someone who admits arguing - in his late teens - that black South Africans shouldn't get the vote until they had education.
Said person was cringing with embarrassment when he admitted this.
OK, my reason for the question is this. If I understand correctly, you presented two options (we leave EU and population growth due to migration lessens, we stay in EU and population growth due to migration does not lessen) and asked for a third option
One third option is that we leave the EU and population growth continues as the same rate as it would have done if we stayed.
Leaving the EU may be a necessary condition to establishing border control and thence inward migration, but it is not a sufficient one. The pressures encouraging inward migration (population growth ex-EU, easier transportation, desire for growth and cheap labour) continue to exist even post-Brexit and a UK government post-Brexit might not arrest (or even reduce!) inward migration for those very reasons. One can construct a scenario whereby a government leaves the EU, inaugurates controlled migration, but never sets the cutoff high enough to prevent population growth continuing on its merry way.
'The problem is that the Conservatives have drifted so far to the left that peoples compasses are out of kilter.'
Since when exactly? Have the Tories moved to the left compared with the days of Harold Macmillan, RA Butler,Iain Macleod, Edward Boyle, Ted Heath etc? Many take the view they have moved sharply to the right since those days.
I think that you are right. The pressures on immigration are such that the countries the BOOers want to emulate (Australia, Canada, USA, Norway, Switzerland etc) have immigration rates and similar or higher per capita immigration, and similar social issues as we do. Take Montreal or Martin Place as examples...
The truth is that free democratic countries with the rule of law and open economies attract a lot of people looking for personal economic gain and opportunities. Personally I think that we benefit a lot from getting our migrants from Eastern Europe rather than elsewhere as they have many common cultural values and integrate well. We also get the reciprocal benefit of being able to look for work and residences in sunnier parts.
I think UKIPs promises on immigration cannot be met, but as they are not going to have the opportunity to form a government they will never be exposed.
Norway controls its migration very strictly and sets rather onerous conditions on the right to settle in the country (including 300 hours compulsory lessons in Norwegian language and culture followed by exams).
The important point is that these countries try, with greater or lesser success, to control migration and direct it so that it benefits the country as a whole. Something that is impossible whilst we remain a member of the EU.
And free movement definitely benefits UK citizens moving abroad.
Now personally this is not as big a problem for me as it apparently is for other UKIP supporters as I am fairly ambivalent about migration as long as it is done in the right way and is able to be controlled if necessary. The problem at the moment is that it cannot be controlled - as has been illustrated perfectly by Cameron's failed promises on reducing migrant numbers.
I do particularly think however that the idea of running a country for the benefit solely of its businesses and to the potential detriment of many of its citizens is not a great way to do things.
This is why I have often asked Robert to comment on my suggestion that any business wishing to employ migrants should take full responsibility for them including all of their benefits, medical insurance and social security needs for the whole time they are in the country - including after they have decided they no longer need them at least until they get another job.
I do also contend that, given that we are having ever increasing pressure on housing and are having to build more and more homes, often to the detriment and in the face of opposition from local communities it is valid to claim that there are too many people coming into the country.
The answer to this may well be something as simple as better planning and coordination by local and central government - something that appears to be sadly lacking at the moment - but it is also something that is almost impossible when you have a large portion of migrants who cannot be controlled or even accurately counted.
It was rather more a case that Ken was underestimated.
On first prefs, Boris polled 44%
The pollsters forecast, on first prefs for Boris were
YouGov 43%, Opinium 43%, Populus 46%, ComRes 45%, Survation 42%, TNS 45%
So 3 pollsters underestimated Boris, and 3 pollsters overestimated Boris, but all of them were within 2% of the result.
Australia gets about the same number of immigrants as us, so roughly 3 times the per-capita rate as the UK.
In Norway 14% of the population are immigrants or who have two parents who were immigrants. Apart from Swedes the main immigrant groups are Polish, Lithuanian, Somali and Pakistani.
Sounds more like they have a higher rate of immigration than us, and not an especially highly skilled one.
Both Australia and Norway have high unemployment and other social issues in immigrant communities much as we do. UKIP and the BOOers are selling snake oil cures for immigration and they know it.
Far better to have active programmes to integrate migrants with English lessons etc, I would also encourage EU migrants to take British citizenship so that they can involve themselves fully in our society.
Been asked to partake in a VI poll.
Another sweet couple of hours to look forward to..... until they take it off iplayer.
Mrs Scrap is however less than happy.
As for AFC Dons beating Liverpool, I can't see it sadly.
@georgeeaton: Miliband to announce Labour target of four million conversations with voters in the next four months - nearly double the level in 2010.
And of course you are kind of shooting yourself in the foot because Norway being in the EEA cannot control EU migration.
As I say I am not opposed to more migration if it is for the benefit of the country but you cannot even start to have that debate if you have no control over migration in the first place.
And As I have said before a system that says - as you have done in an earlier post this evening - that it would rather have a Pole than, for example, an Indian as an immigrant is straying dangerously close to bigotry.
Ed Miliband will on Monday declare day one of Labour’s general election battle as he promises to run a campaign of “hope, not falsehood” that will see him holding weekly question-time sessions with voters.
The Labour leader will list three priorities for government as putting working people first, dealing with the deficit and protecting the NHS at a rally in Manchester, where he will challenge activists to engage 4 million voters in conversation between now and May.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/04/ed-miliband-labour-general-election-campaign-hope-not-falsehood
AFC are worth a punt, though not a patch on the old Plough Lane mob.
But some interesting thoughts there re Brexit, especially re more ways than one to skin a cat.
PS: have to go off now, good night.
So really any promise from them is a bit meh.
Am I the only one who thinks Darts isn't a real sport and doesn't understand all the hype?
"Street Fighter Miliband KO's Poster Boy Cameron."
A rapist and murderer is to be put to death in Belgium this week, despite Europe’s ban on the death penalty, after a court granted him the right to euthanasia.
Frank Van Den Bleeken, 52, is not physically ill but claims his “psychological suffering” is unbearable and that he would prefer to die than spend more of his life behind bars.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html