UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Art0ir]

Esseesse said:

It just requires agreement that in the case of a 'no' vote, as soon as the vote is declared, the borders are controlled and anyone coming here is given a 2 year work visa (or month holiday visa) so that it can be reviewed/they can go home after Article 50 negotiations.

Yes indeed. These were the transitional controls Reckless was misquoted on.

Esseesse said:

I'm surprised to see today that the British Communist Party seem to be against the EU...

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/britain/eu.html

I'm not at all, across most of Europe it is the Left leading the anti-EU calls.

[Esseesse]

Art0ir said:

Esseesse said:

It just requires agreement that in the case of a 'no' vote, as soon as the vote is declared, the borders are controlled and anyone coming here is given a 2 year work visa (or month holiday visa) so that it can be reviewed/they can go home after Article 50 negotiations.

Yes indeed. These were the transitional controls Reckless was misquoted on.

Interesting to see the non-EU migration data...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/d...

If there was no EU migration, the Tories would not be close to their "10's of thousands" promise anyway.

[jogon]

How UKIP friendly is your seat - http://lfdodds.cartodb.com/viz/c9aa56de-719f-11e4-...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1124...

South West looks very UKIP friendly.

[Esseesse]

Art0ir said:

Esseesse said:

I'm surprised to see today that the British Communist Party seem to be against the EU...

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/britain/eu.html

I'm not at all, across most of Europe it is the Left leading the anti-EU calls.

This is true. I've often wondered if it would be a good thing for there to be a strong anti-EU movement with leftist branding in the UK. Not because I wish for such a thing, but it might give some Labour voters somewhere to turn to and forever dispel the whole false 'right-wing' narrative about wanting out of the EU.

[Esseesse]

jogon said:

How UKIP friendly is your seat - http://lfdodds.cartodb.com/viz/c9aa56de-719f-11e4-...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1124...

South West looks very UKIP friendly.

Interesting, my area is not at all.

I wonder if the next government will attempt to gerrymander against the UKIP vote.

[Yazar]

Esseesse said:

Interesting to see the non-EU migration data...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/d...

If there was no EU migration, the Tories would not be close to their "10's of thousands" promise anyway.

They promised merely on 'net' migration as opposed to incoming. No 'ifs no buts' said 'cast iron promiser' dave

[johnxjsc1985]

would you buy a car from this man

[JagLover]

Guam said:

Indeed, watching this thread over the weekend, other than the banal XJF nonsense which seemingly infects every thread these days, the reality is its turning out pretty much as we both anticipated. Anyone making solid prediction now is frankly pissing in the wind, the electorate is so fractured (and continuing to split from the normal behaviour to a fairly large measure). that no one can possibly know how this will play out.

Whether Reckless keeps his seat will be due as much to these manifestations as it will be down to the Tories inability to throw the same level of resource at the seat in the GE.

In general terms I am still sticking with a maximum of around 10-12 UKIP seats as we cant know how much money they will have by the GE and how effective their local machinery is going to be by then, they are definitely ramping up their game, but until it gets run out in full battle order, its impossible to say with any certainty exactly how this will go down

Which is what makes this all so much fun

Except if you are a supporter of the other three of course

Agreed

Allot depends as well on how well UKIP can concentrate its vote. It could easily achieve a mid twenties share of the English vote but struggle to get more than 20 seats.

[mrpurple]

UKIP must be doing something right...Top 3 threads on here as I type this

[King Cnut]

Esseesse said:

It just requires agreement that in the case of a 'no' vote, as soon as the vote is declared, the borders are controlled and anyone coming here is given a 2 year work visa (or month holiday visa) so that it can be reviewed/they can go home after Article 50 negotiations.

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

You can't do whatever you want just because you've won a referendum. It wouldn't legal. (Unless you think that the first act of a new dispensation should be an illegal one - which would create an undemocratic, precedent). Moreover, if the government of the day was pro EU and was on the losing side of the referendum, as seems likely, they would be obliged to call a General Election and no legislation regarding Article 50 or the closure of borders could be enacted.

That's why Reckless said what he did (and why he still doesn't understand why Nigel told him off). His statement represented the only logical and legal way of managing Brexit without precipitating a huge immigration problem.

[PRTVR]

King said:

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

The alternative is to stay in the EU and have the possibility of limitless people coming in without control, at least at a some point in the future we will have some control.

[hidetheelephants]

King said:

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

Who comes up with these ridiculous strawman arguments? The entire population of the EU will decide to put their lives hold and the whole economy in the stter to stop a member state going about its democratic business; this is just stupid, never mind the logistical impossibility of moving them all, feeding them or dealing rapidly with the huge pile of dead bodies because they weren't fed or keeled over with the excitement. It's easy enough to pick holes in UKIP policies(or indeed most party policies) without resort to nonsense like this.

[King Cnut]

PRTVR said:

King said:

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

The alternative is to stay in the EU and have the possibility of limitless people coming in without control, at least at a some point in the future we will have some control.

Of course, you're absolutely right. Needs must and all that...

Anyway, I've been looking into problem and there is a way around it without doing anything illegal. All you have to do is get Parliament to pass an "Enabling Act" to overcome the objections of the legal nit-pickers. Here's an example of one below; it was used successfully for quite a few years, so it's been tried and tested (but you may need to substitute some of terms).

Enabling Act

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the Reich Government. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85, Sentence 2, and Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the Reich Government may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich Government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reichsgesetzblatt. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich Government.

Article 4
Reich treaties with foreign states that affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The Reich Government shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937, or if the present Reich Government is replaced by another.

Berlin, March 24, 1933

[Esseesse]

King said:

Esseesse said:

It just requires agreement that in the case of a 'no' vote, as soon as the vote is declared, the borders are controlled and anyone coming here is given a 2 year work visa (or month holiday visa) so that it can be reviewed/they can go home after Article 50 negotiations.

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

You can't do whatever you want just because you've won a referendum. It wouldn't legal. (Unless you think that the first act of a new dispensation should be an illegal one - which would create an undemocratic, precedent). Moreover, if the government of the day was pro EU and was on the losing side of the referendum, as seems likely, they would be obliged to call a General Election and no legislation regarding Article 50 or the closure of borders could be enacted.

That's why Reckless said what he did (and why he still doesn't understand why Nigel told him off). His statement represented the only logical and legal way of managing Brexit without precipitating a huge immigration problem.

Interesting. Thanks for explaining how you see it, I think you could well be right.

ETA: I had not considered that for during those 2 years after Article 50 we would still be bound by EU laws. Congratulations in explaining clearly a position a little different from where I was and convincing me of your rightness, it's a difficult thing to do (to anybody).

Edited by Esseesse on Monday 24th November 15:10

[Einion Yrth]

King said:

Of course, you're absolutely right. Needs must and all that...

Anyway, I've been looking into problem and there is a way around it without doing anything illegal. All you have to do is get Parliament to pass an "Enabling Act" to overcome the objections of the legal nit-pickers. Here's an example of one below; it was used successfully for quite a few years, so it's been tried and tested (but you may need to substitute some of terms).

Enabling Act

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the Reich Government. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85, Sentence 2, and Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the Reich Government may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich Government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reichsgesetzblatt. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich Government.

Article 4
Reich treaties with foreign states that affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The Reich Government shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937, or if the present Reich Government is replaced by another.

Berlin, March 24, 1933

My word, a straw Godwin: remarkable.

[mrpurple]

Einion Yrth said:

My word, a straw Godwin: remarkable.

He can't even spell his own name correctly.

[fatboy18]

King said:

PRTVR said:

King said:

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

The alternative is to stay in the EU and have the possibility of limitless people coming in without control, at least at a some point in the future we will have some control.

Of course, you're absolutely right. Needs must and all that...

Anyway, I've been looking into problem and there is a way around it without doing anything illegal. All you have to do is get Parliament to pass an "Enabling Act" to overcome the objections of the legal nit-pickers. Here's an example of one below; it was used successfully for quite a few years, so it's been tried and tested (but you may need to substitute some of terms).

Enabling Act

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the Reich Government. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85, Sentence 2, and Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the Reich Government may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich Government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reichsgesetzblatt. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich Government.

Article 4
Reich treaties with foreign states that affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The Reich Government shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937, or if the present Reich Government is replaced by another.

Berlin, March 24, 1933

Well that works for me

[PRTVR]

King said:

PRTVR said:

King said:

Does it 'just'?

Just because there's been a 'no vote' the government can't simply wave a magic wand and close the borders. It would be illegal. We'd still be members of the EU until the Brexit was fully negociated and passed by parliament. This would leave a nice opportunity for every single one of 500,000,000 europeans to come and live next door to you (and claim benefits etc etc).

The alternative is to stay in the EU and have the possibility of limitless people coming in without control, at least at a some point in the future we will have some control.

Of course, you're absolutely right. Needs must and all that...

Anyway, I've been looking into problem and there is a way around it without doing anything illegal. All you have to do is get Parliament to pass an "Enabling Act" to overcome the objections of the legal nit-pickers. Here's an example of one below; it was used successfully for quite a few years, so it's been tried and tested (but you may need to substitute some of terms).

Enabling Act

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the Reich Government. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85, Sentence 2, and Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the Reich Government may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich Government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reichsgesetzblatt. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich Government.

Article 4
Reich treaties with foreign states that affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The Reich Government shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937, or if the present Reich Government is replaced by another.

Berlin, March 24, 1933

Ah UKIP the new Nazi party .....how original, remember the USA Canada Australia and lots of other countries have control over immigration, do you level the same argument against them ?

[King Cnut]

PRTVR said:

Ah UKIP the new Nazi party .....how original, remember the USA Canada Australia and lots of other countries have control over immigration, do you level the same argument against them ?

No, I don't level such accusations against them. Whatever you feel about their laws regarding immigration, they tend to be properly legislated.

Nor do I level the accusation at UKIP. I aimed the Nazi thing squarely at you. You seem to think that the law should take second place to other considerations; such as immigration. That's a profoundly dangerous and undemocratic position.

The question is, do the other supporters of UKIP on here agree with you?

[BlackLabel]

The latest from Ashcroft.

Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 24th November 17:27