UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
Mr_B said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Mr_B said:
zygalski said:
You should rejoice that our flourishing EU member economy seems so attractive to all those immigrants who could have decided to live in countries en route to ours, such as Italy, Germany, France....
Long may it continue!
Why not have the people we want, when we want, in the numbers we want and tell those we dont want a polite 'no thanks' ? I call that all the benefits and far fewer downsides. Long may it continue!
Better to ensure that immigrants can't claim benefits for x years and let busines (who know the skills they need at any one time) decide
No. In fact I proposed adding one more "safeguard" - no benefits for x years
Have another go too at backing up that ridiculous statement and tell me how many other counties have immigration controls and checks and why its a disaster for them.
Mr_B said:
What checks ? We have virtually nothing that can be used with regard to EU immigration and what there is is never applied to stop even the most obvious type of person from coming, as Alice Gross found out.
Have another go too at backing up that ridiculous statement and tell me how many other counties have immigration controls and checks and why its a disaster for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11255425/How-much-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.htmlHave another go too at backing up that ridiculous statement and tell me how many other counties have immigration controls and checks and why its a disaster for them.
Between 2008 and 2014, the number of benefit claimants increased by more than 130,000. The total number of migrants receiving working age benefits also increased in the last five years from 288,000 in 2008 to 395,000.
But only 113,700 EU migrants were on key out-of-work benefits in February this year of which only 65,000 were on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). In February, more than 1.1 million were unemployed although the DWP said last month the figure dropped to below a million for the whole of the UK.
What does this all mean? It suggests that whatever the arguments for and against reducing the number of EU migrants receiving British benefits, delivering such a reduction wouldn’t make a significant difference to the overall welfare bill which is estimated to be £208 billion for the year 2013-14. And seeing as the take-up of benefits among migrants is so small, it’s also worth asking how big of a draw Britain’s welfare system really is.
zygalski said:
Mr_B said:
So you couldn't see a single benefit in selecting those who come over than just standing back an watching ? More joined up Ziggy thinking on display.
Most are from Eastern Europe, come from comparatively humble backgrounds & are prepared to work long hours for low pay. A PH formmers dream come true in any other scenario....It's not all about nabbing the highest qualified heart surgeons from Romania to operate on our resident obese.
They are indeed hard working and prepared to work for low pay. The low pay bit with uncontrolled numbers being a problem that our own people who work such jobs not being too happy about. Again, maybe if it were controlled ?
The original point was about as smart as me saying I got a hundred jobs to fill , but lets just take the first hundred and don't bother checking with an interview. The reason I vote for an government is to avoid such stupidity and limit the potential for a complete balls-up.
zygalski said:
Mr_B said:
What checks ? We have virtually nothing that can be used with regard to EU immigration and what there is is never applied to stop even the most obvious type of person from coming, as Alice Gross found out.
Have another go too at backing up that ridiculous statement and tell me how many other counties have immigration controls and checks and why its a disaster for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11255425/How-much-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits.htmlHave another go too at backing up that ridiculous statement and tell me how many other counties have immigration controls and checks and why its a disaster for them.
Between 2008 and 2014, the number of benefit claimants increased by more than 130,000. The total number of migrants receiving working age benefits also increased in the last five years from 288,000 in 2008 to 395,000.
But only 113,700 EU migrants were on key out-of-work benefits in February this year of which only 65,000 were on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). In February, more than 1.1 million were unemployed although the DWP said last month the figure dropped to below a million for the whole of the UK.
What does this all mean? It suggests that whatever the arguments for and against reducing the number of EU migrants receiving British benefits, delivering such a reduction wouldn’t make a significant difference to the overall welfare bill which is estimated to be £208 billion for the year 2013-14. And seeing as the take-up of benefits among migrants is so small, it’s also worth asking how big of a draw Britain’s welfare system really is.
I see that last nights Apprentice was won by an immigrant, ironically an Australian, so using a points based system how would one score applicants for drive, determination, entrepreneurialism and project management (PM'ing is a big part of The Apprentice for those not familiar with "the process")
zygalski said:
I am not prepared to roll the dice on our economy based on prejudice & jingoism.
Long live the EU!
Come again? If you think those are the motivations behind the vast majority of those who oppose EU membership then you really haven't the foggiest and simply aren't worth debating.Long live the EU!
cookie118 said:
Overall it's the CE mark that is governed by EU directives, and hence a huge number of of manufactured products have to comply to EU mandated directives.
The UK manufacturing industry would probably be more in thrall to the EU after a leave because to sell into the EU it would still have to comply to their standards but would have no say over them at all!
We would have more say not less because being out would allow us to take economic reprisals against the EU regarding anything which we choose not to comply with regarding 'their' 'rules' because at that point they will no longer be 'our' 'rules'.The UK manufacturing industry would probably be more in thrall to the EU after a leave because to sell into the EU it would still have to comply to their standards but would have no say over them at all!
I think you've missed the countless references to the fact that we are in a trade deficit situation with the EU.IE the EU has ( a lot ) more to lose in that situation than we do.
FredClogs said:
I see that last nights Apprentice was won by an immigrant, ironically an Australian, so using a points based system how would one score applicants for drive, determination, entrepreneurialism and project management (PM'ing is a big part of The Apprentice for those not familiar with "the process")
What has Aus man wins UK game show really got to do with anything ? zygalski said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Yes, we need those immigrants bring essential skills of which we are short - like the ability to do basic maths - say to the nearest order of magnitude, even at 9 in the morning
The Eastern European work ethic makes a refreshing change. 
zygalski said:
Hey - we're doing reasonably well but let's risk it all for an unknown leap of faith based purely on dogma.
Sounds like a great thought process.
That is actually what Heath and the rest of the federalist Cons did in 1973.The only thing that we have to lose by leaving is the massive trade deficit and contributions we pay for the privilege since we joined the scam.In addition to getting sovereignty over our own government back. Sounds like a great thought process.
XJ Flyer said:
...the EU has ( a lot ) more to lose in that situation than we do.
Paraphrasing...The UK needs the EU like a fish needs a moped.As to thinking that the UK has meaningful influence, it's wishful thinking.
Did we influence (downwards) the additional payment arising partly from the success of our druggies and hookers, it appears not.
The wider view of UK influence
is revealed by polling from Lord Ashcroft which found 72% of Britons do not believe the UK can secure a better deal. Based on past experience that should be more like 92%.Dan Hannan put it well with his point that even if renegotiations take place, whatever emerges cannot be relied upon to last.
Dan Hannan said:
Shall I tell you the worst thing about the EU? It’s not the waste or the corruption or the Michelin-starred lifestyles of its leaders. It’s not the contempt for voters or the readiness to swat referendum results aside. It’s not the way that multi-nationals and NGOs and all manner of corporate interests are privileged over consumers. It’s not the pettifogging rules that plague small employers. It’s not the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. It’s not the anti-Britishness or the anti-Americanism. It’s not even the way in which the euro is inflicting preventable poverty on tens of millions of southern Europeans. No, it’s something more objectionable than any of these things – and something which, bizarrely, doesn’t exercise us nearly as much as it should. Put simply, it’s this: the EU makes up the rules as it goes along. Just think, for a moment, about what that means. It means that any deal you’ve signed can be arbitrarily altered later. It means that any plans you’ve made, on the basis of what you took to be binding agreements, can be retrospectively destroyed. It means, in short, that there is no effective rule of law.
How can we deal with a body that is not just open about, but proud of, its readiness to bend the rules? How could a deal negotiated by David Cameron, or any other British leader, be expected to stand as long as we were subject to the arbitrary whim of the ECJ? No new relationship with the EU will be worth the paper it’s written on unless it tackles the jurisdictional question. Whether by renegotiation or by Brexit, we need to get to a Swiss-type arrangement, where common rules apply narrowly to market issues, and where regulations bind the signatories as states rather than having direct effect on individuals. The doctrine of direct effect was invented by the ECJ in a series of power-grabs in the 1960s, rather neatly illustrating the problem.
How can we deal with a body that is not just open about, but proud of, its readiness to bend the rules? How could a deal negotiated by David Cameron, or any other British leader, be expected to stand as long as we were subject to the arbitrary whim of the ECJ? No new relationship with the EU will be worth the paper it’s written on unless it tackles the jurisdictional question. Whether by renegotiation or by Brexit, we need to get to a Swiss-type arrangement, where common rules apply narrowly to market issues, and where regulations bind the signatories as states rather than having direct effect on individuals. The doctrine of direct effect was invented by the ECJ in a series of power-grabs in the 1960s, rather neatly illustrating the problem.
turbobloke said:
XJ Flyer said:
...the EU has ( a lot ) more to lose in that situation than we do.
Paraphrasing...The UK needs the EU like a fish needs a moped.As to thinking that the UK has meaningful influence, it's wishful thinking.
Did we influence (downwards) the additional payment arising partly from the success of our druggies and hookers, it appears not.
The wider view of UK influence
is revealed by polling from Lord Ashcroft which found 72% of Britons do not believe the UK can secure a better deal. Based on past experience that should be more like 92%.Dan Hannan put it well with his point that even if renegotiations take place, whatever emerges cannot be relied upon to last.
Dan hannan said:
Shall I tell you the worst thing about the EU? It’s not the waste or the corruption or the Michelin-starred lifestyles of its leaders. It’s not the contempt for voters or the readiness to swat referendum results aside. It’s not the way that multi-nationals and NGOs and all manner of corporate interests are privileged over consumers. It’s not the pettifogging rules that plague small employers. It’s not the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. It’s not the anti-Britishness or the anti-Americanism. It’s not even the way in which the euro is inflicting preventable poverty on tens of millions of southern Europeans. No, it’s something more objectionable than any of these things – and something which, bizarrely, doesn’t exercise us nearly as much as it should. Put simply, it’s this: the EU makes up the rules as it goes along. Just think, for a moment, about what that means. It means that any deal you’ve signed can be arbitrarily altered later. It means that any plans you’ve made, on the basis of what you took to be binding agreements, can be retrospectively destroyed. It means, in short, that there is no effective rule of law.
How can we deal with a body that is not just open about, but proud of, its readiness to bend the rules? How could a deal negotiated by David Cameron, or any other British leader, be expected to stand as long as we were subject to the arbitrary whim of the ECJ? No new relationship with the EU will be worth the paper it’s written on unless it tackles the jurisdictional question. Whether by renegotiation or by Brexit, we need to get to a Swiss-type arrangement, where common rules apply narrowly to market issues, and where regulations bind the signatories as states rather than having direct effect on individuals. The doctrine of direct effect was invented by the ECJ in a series of power-grabs in the 1960s, rather neatly illustrating the problem.
How can we deal with a body that is not just open about, but proud of, its readiness to bend the rules? How could a deal negotiated by David Cameron, or any other British leader, be expected to stand as long as we were subject to the arbitrary whim of the ECJ? No new relationship with the EU will be worth the paper it’s written on unless it tackles the jurisdictional question. Whether by renegotiation or by Brexit, we need to get to a Swiss-type arrangement, where common rules apply narrowly to market issues, and where regulations bind the signatories as states rather than having direct effect on individuals. The doctrine of direct effect was invented by the ECJ in a series of power-grabs in the 1960s, rather neatly illustrating the problem.
XJ Flyer said:
You mean the work ethic that turned Eastern Europe into the type of place which they all want to leave to live here amongst us.The idea of the 'east euro' work ethic is just yet more Con party reverse racist rhetoric against the indigenous population to keep their cheap labour agenda on track.
Work ethic alone isn't sufficient for economic growth. You need a stable. democratic government, law and order, and a healthy educated population (amongst other things). Most of the lesser developed economies lack many of these factors.FredClogs said:
project management (PM'ing is a big part of The Apprentice for those not familiar with "the process")
Have to disagree with you thereWhat they call project mgt (or indeed many others do) bears no relationship whatsoever to real project management.
They are merely the latest and worst step in degrading what that phrase means.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FredClogs said:
project management (PM'ing is a big part of The Apprentice for those not familiar with "the process")
Have to disagree with you thereWhat they call project mgt (or indeed many others do) bears no relationship whatsoever to real project management.
They are merely the latest and worst step in degrading what that phrase means.
Countdown said:
XJ Flyer said:
You mean the work ethic that turned Eastern Europe into the type of place which they all want to leave to live here amongst us.The idea of the 'east euro' work ethic is just yet more Con party reverse racist rhetoric against the indigenous population to keep their cheap labour agenda on track.
Work ethic alone isn't sufficient for economic growth. You need a stable. democratic government, law and order, and a healthy educated population (amongst other things). Most of the lesser developed economies lack many of these factors.zygalski said:
I am not prepared to roll the dice on our economy based on prejudice & jingoism.
Long live the EU!
So if the EU is such a fantastic thing why is Greece,Spain, Portugal in such a bad way, why is resentment of the EU spreading all over the EU, its days are numbered, those in charge just don't realise it yet.Long live the EU!
XJ Flyer said:
Which seems to contradict the idea of a slavic master race that we need here because the Anglo Saxon world is a thick degenerate bunch of work shy layabouts.
No it doesn't. You seem to be conflating two different issues.Lots of employers struggle to get employees because the work is quite demanding and the pay isn't great. However for some people from Eastern Europe and elsewhere the pay is comparatively quite good so they're prepared to do the work. It's a win-win for UK employers and EE immigrants.
Are all Eastern Europeans "Slavs"?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff