What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.
Discussion
Can someone please offer a non xenophobic basis for objecting to free movement of workers within the EU?
Note that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
Note that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
A supplement to my question above: Some people are worried about the Romanians in Britain. They don't seem very worried about the French in Britain. Why? Perhaps because the French people here are nice and well behaved and often earn high and pay high tax. Some of the Romanians do that too (I know some high faluting Romanian lawyers who have been here paying megatax for ages). Some Romanians are low skilled but honest and keen to work, some are crims and chancers. We are in a transient phase as the eastern economies and societies catch up and modernise. We let them in too early, perhaps, but look at the progress that Poland has made since the fall of the USSR, with help from us.
Breadvan72 said:
Can someone please offer a non xenophobic basis for objecting to free movement of workers within the EU?
Note that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
Apart from the obvious problems of a tiny island with limited resources?Note that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
We just need a bloke with a clicker on the gate, one out, one in. Simple.
Breadvan72 said:
A supplement to my question above: Some people are worried about the Romanians in Britain. They don't seem very worried about the French in Britain. Why? Perhaps because the French people here are nice and well behaved and often earn high and pay high tax. Some of the Romanians do that too (I know some high faluting Romanian lawyers who have been here paying megatax for ages). Some Romanians are low skilled but honest and keen to work, some are crims and chancers. We are in a transient phase as the eastern economies and societies catch up and modernise. We let them in too early, perhaps, but look at the progress that Poland has made since the fall of the USSR, with help from us.
It could be argued that because of the EU, we didn't have a choice in the matter. Could it not, BV?Guam said:
PRTVR said:
Guam said:
Which is not to say that all folk from Rhodesia and SA would hold such views, there is a higher probability some might however.
Agreed but what is the answer? Ban white people from Africa from having anything to do with politics? Mighty that be considered racist. One can reasonably hold their feet to the fire on their views at interview I reckon. That being said I understand how difficult that might be to flush out, people can be very good at masking their true opinions as any interviewee at a job interview can amply demonstrate.
It may be that they did put him under pressure, we can never really know.
Guam said:
AshVX220 said:
Breadvan72 said:
If Global Scandinavia meant no warfare and no poverty, and peace and freedom for all on the planet, would that not be a price worth paying for giving up the noble spectacle of PM's Question Time?
None of this will happen, but there is no harm in thinking about where you might want to get to, even if only on a regional or continental scale.
If you really believe a Global Governance will end war and poverty, you're truly deluded. There's conflict all over this planet between groups and tribes and nations for all sorts of crazy reasons. It won't stop just because we have one group ruling all. And Poverty, how do you plan to tackle poverty on a global scale? By distributing the resouces of everyone evenly....great, we'll be worse and hungry. It will never happen, people will fight and people will want more than the next guy.....and they'll fight to get it.None of this will happen, but there is no harm in thinking about where you might want to get to, even if only on a regional or continental scale.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 23 April 18:12
, You are correct, in order to create a global government you would have to level the playing field socially on a Global scale, the ideal of that has its attractions, however the cost to achieve that in individual freedoms would be terrifying imho.However I am prepared to return to the fold Comrades as Commissar for Eurasia should I be called
Anyone who disagrees the wall and blindfolds are just over there Breadvan72 said:
A supplement to my question above: Some people are worried about the Romanians in Britain. They don't seem very worried about the French in Britain. Why? Perhaps because the French people here are nice and well behaved and often earn high and pay high tax. Some of the Romanians do that too (I know some high faluting Romanian lawyers who have been here paying megatax for ages). Some Romanians are low skilled but honest and keen to work, some are crims and chancers. We are in a transient phase as the eastern economies and societies catch up and modernise. We let them in too early, perhaps, but look at the progress that Poland has made since the fall of the USSR, with help from us.
That carries a sort of implicit assumption that the people worried about Romanians are worried because they are Romanian and not French. I think what worries those people is that they think migration levels will be like those of other new accession countries and not like those of France. I think that if we had seen the kind of sudden large movements of French people that we saw of Eastern Europeans, we would have seen similar worries from the same people about that. And I think that if we had seen similar levels of migration of Eastern Europeans to those we have of French people UKIP would not be making immigration such a central plank of its campaign.PRTVR said:
Guam said:
PRTVR said:
Guam said:
Which is not to say that all folk from Rhodesia and SA would hold such views, there is a higher probability some might however.
Agreed but what is the answer? Ban white people from Africa from having anything to do with politics? Mighty that be considered racist. One can reasonably hold their feet to the fire on their views at interview I reckon. That being said I understand how difficult that might be to flush out, people can be very good at masking their true opinions as any interviewee at a job interview can amply demonstrate.
It may be that they did put him under pressure, we can never really know.
Breadvan72 said:
London is the sixth largest city in France. There has been large scale movement of French people. This does not attract much comment. Romanians attract comment.
As for resources, is there any evidence that resources cannot cope with migrant workers? Is this just supposition?
When did you last try to get a doctors appointment? Ever been out on the roads and noticed it can be just a teensy bit busy at times? Got kids, notice how all the decent schools are over subscribed? As for resources, is there any evidence that resources cannot cope with migrant workers? Is this just supposition?
Are resources unlimited or finite?
Breadvan72 said:
Can someone please offer a non xenophobic basis for objecting to free movement of workers within the EU?
Note that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
2 good reasonsNote that I said workers, as that is what the Treaty is about. Contrary to the myths propagated by UKIP, there are not unqualified free movement rights for those who are not economically active.
Note also that I said free movement, and that means movement is possible in all directions within the EU. Many thousands of Brits are resident and economically active in other EU States. This pattern may increase as the idea of free movement beds in. My daughter (aged nine at present and able to get by in basic French) will probably learn German and maybe Spanish, and if she wants to go to university in Berlin or work in Madrid that will be fine by me.
Contrary to another myth, it is not impossible to deport criminals. I have been involved in the deportation of several (by representing HMG in Court on the cases). It can be difficult in some cases to deport some of them, and some do get to stay (my opinion is that the Courts have got Article 8 ECHR wrong in some of these cases, but the Supreme Court trumps my opinion). Some of the crims that UKIP et al complain of were raised here, so they are really our problem, not the problem of some place where they lived until they were three. Dumping some crim somewhere they have no real connection with on the basis of the mere accident of birth is not exactly principled.
Answers that say "OMG 9789 kabillion Europeeps could all move here tomorrow OMG!!!!" will be put straight in the bin. Real world answers, please.
1 Having 1,000,000 poles here means our home grown useless morons can bleat on about not having jobs due to the EU. And the government say what a pity here have some free money. Remove the free and ready supply of people willing to work and we have less excuses for our own wasters to be unemployed. Though undecided if removing people willing to work will improve our own useless feckers. See previous posts about giant catapluts
2 What about our friends from india etc as we have closer links and more history with india then we do with bulgarians. Though i did enjoy the film about colin the bulgarian
longblackcoat said:
It wouldn't be the first time.
It now appears it wasn't just a case of a few bedroom pictures, it's been an ongoing campaign against her. In which case it's genuinely surprising that she's now surprised that appearing an a national campaign for a contentious political party could have lead to anything other than this. I reiterate that I feel for her, but there's a certain inevitability about the way this has unfurled.
Gentle questioning by UKIP would have revealed that there was indeed something in her part she didn't want revealed. At this point UKIP should have simply dropped her from the campaign, partly out of common decency, but mostly because it would detract from the message. She should have been told that even if she wanted to go ahead, it wouldn't be in her interests.
If, however, she made UKIP aware of the issue and they decided to go ahead, then it would be a hugely cynical step, and one which traded the distress of a loyal supporter for column inches. She might been somewhat naive about how this would play out, but those in charge of the campaign would have known. Given the fact that Miss Vaid is now said to be very distressed (and assuming this to be true), it's clear she was in no way prepared for what's transpired.
At the very least UKIP have been incompetent in failing to both check the background of their employee and to prepare her for the consequences of being exposed to the public eye; if they knew about it and went ahead anyway then they're guilty of the worst sort of cynicism. Either way, it's not been a good day at the office for UKIP.
Thanks longblackcoat,It now appears it wasn't just a case of a few bedroom pictures, it's been an ongoing campaign against her. In which case it's genuinely surprising that she's now surprised that appearing an a national campaign for a contentious political party could have lead to anything other than this. I reiterate that I feel for her, but there's a certain inevitability about the way this has unfurled.
Gentle questioning by UKIP would have revealed that there was indeed something in her part she didn't want revealed. At this point UKIP should have simply dropped her from the campaign, partly out of common decency, but mostly because it would detract from the message. She should have been told that even if she wanted to go ahead, it wouldn't be in her interests.
If, however, she made UKIP aware of the issue and they decided to go ahead, then it would be a hugely cynical step, and one which traded the distress of a loyal supporter for column inches. She might been somewhat naive about how this would play out, but those in charge of the campaign would have known. Given the fact that Miss Vaid is now said to be very distressed (and assuming this to be true), it's clear she was in no way prepared for what's transpired.
At the very least UKIP have been incompetent in failing to both check the background of their employee and to prepare her for the consequences of being exposed to the public eye; if they knew about it and went ahead anyway then they're guilty of the worst sort of cynicism. Either way, it's not been a good day at the office for UKIP.
I guess every one of us would have some skeletons, if we were put under such scrutiny. I was thinking less about pictures and more about the employer bit. I'd imagine, even if terribly incompetent, which I doubt, they had to know that someone will recognize her as employed by UKIP and had a play out of it.
Two possible scenarios; In her zest to impress her employers, she decided to risk it and see how it would pan out (very much less likely).
Someone on the team knew that it'll all come out, but that it would be worth it. As you said, column inches vs distressed employee.
Breadvan72 said:
London is the sixth largest city in France. There has been large scale movement of French people. This does not attract much comment. Romanians attract comment.
Contrary to the beliefs of its residents, London is not the UK 
The French have had the right to reside in the UK for a long time, they haven't suddenly arrived en masse. They are in smaller numbers (estimated at c. 300-400k), they are concentrated in London and because there is not the same economic disparity between the UK and France they are not here for the same reasons and not the same socioeconomic groups.
Breadvan72 said:
As for resources, is there any evidence that resources cannot cope with migrant workers? Is this just supposition?
You mean in terms of "naked self interest"? I wasn't thinking of resources so much as the labour market.Guam said:
I would have to agree, however we do expect higher standards of politicians and party activists (of all colours), whilst the deranged "see dey is all racist scum innit" attacks are OTT, failing to recognise it does create grounds for criticism is also OTT. Because of the double standards being applied to UKIP, regarding what their critics expectations are, they have to be more fastidious than others need to be (and demonstrably so).
Like it or not its a rod they will have to bear for some time I am afraid.
As we see on here a single episode can lead to massive over reaction and there has been more than one.
Not sure what their party structure is, but they need to drag in their reps from their local associations and instruct them to flag these guys up quicker and bin them quicker, if they detect the merest hint of such behaviour. Draconian perhaps, however reality suggests it is necessary if they are not to alienate many of those switching to them from the mainstream.
High standards in our politicians, good luck with that Like it or not its a rod they will have to bear for some time I am afraid.
As we see on here a single episode can lead to massive over reaction and there has been more than one.
Not sure what their party structure is, but they need to drag in their reps from their local associations and instruct them to flag these guys up quicker and bin them quicker, if they detect the merest hint of such behaviour. Draconian perhaps, however reality suggests it is necessary if they are not to alienate many of those switching to them from the mainstream.
What UKIP need is people like yourself.
In respons to BV's question, I don't know the answers really. But a counter-point. Why do such immigrants trek all the way across Europe, through some amazing countries to come to the UK?
I think we all know the answer is our very generous benefits system, free healthcare, fairly good free education etc.
We can't afford to continue doing this.
Although, maybe the prime reason they come here rather than stop in Germany or France for example could be the langauge. English is still the dominant langauge in the western world and more people from other nations learn English first over French, Spanish or German?
I think we all know the answer is our very generous benefits system, free healthcare, fairly good free education etc.
We can't afford to continue doing this.
Although, maybe the prime reason they come here rather than stop in Germany or France for example could be the langauge. English is still the dominant langauge in the western world and more people from other nations learn English first over French, Spanish or German?
AshVX220 said:
In respons to BV's question, I don't know the answers really. But a counter-point. Why do such immigrants trek all the way across Europe, through some amazing countries to come to the UK?
I think we all know the answer is our very generous benefits system, free healthcare, fairly good free education etc.
We can't afford to continue doing this.
Although, maybe the prime reason they come here rather than stop in Germany or France for example could be the langauge. English is still the dominant langauge in the western world and more people from other nations learn English first over French, Spanish or German?
Not wholly true. There are more Bulgarians/Romanians in France, Spain and Italy. There are closer cultural ties to do with language and earlier trends of migration. Our benefits system is not that much different to the countries you mention when compared in context (i.e. you get less benefit in Spain but the cost of living is lower). As for healthcare and education, they are also comparable to ours - some might say that both were better in France).I think we all know the answer is our very generous benefits system, free healthcare, fairly good free education etc.
We can't afford to continue doing this.
Although, maybe the prime reason they come here rather than stop in Germany or France for example could be the langauge. English is still the dominant langauge in the western world and more people from other nations learn English first over French, Spanish or German?
You say we can't afford it, others say we can't not afford it. Most migrants are better skilled than many UK subjects, consequently they pay more tax and improve our economy by making it more competitive. You could argue that we need the migrants to help pay the benefits of our feckless home-grown layabouts.
http://niesr.ac.uk/press/bulgarian-and-romanian-mi...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff