UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Guam said:
don4l said:
I wonder what he will do if he fails to renegotiate our terms of membership? Will we still have a referendum?
He is full of s
t, we were told it wasn't possible to do it before 2017! He is just waking up to the fact that his decision not to show some stones and force the issue in this Parliament, could cost him the election, something many of us on here have been saying for aeons!
Guam said:
He is full of st, we were told it wasn't possible to do it before 2017!
He is just waking up to the fact that his decision not to show some stones and force the issue in this Parliament, could cost him the election, something many of us on here have been saying for aeons!
How exactly would he have done that?t, we were told it wasn't possible to do it before 2017! He is just waking up to the fact that his decision not to show some stones and force the issue in this Parliament, could cost him the election, something many of us on here have been saying for aeons!
He did not have a majority and no other party would have supported the legislation.
Also why would he? CMD has been clear he favours staying in the EU but on different terms.
Mr_B said:
zygalski said:
Picture of UKIP central to cheer everyone up 
I was wondering what the point of this was and did think about responding. Fortunately I couldn't find a picture that included 1400 raped girls all sat about in Rotherham as a kinda counter. 
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
I don't think the timing is fair, but I would be surprised if many people who watched it are in any doubt who they'll vote for. I'd have thought the audience would comprise of ukip supporters who'll watch so they can be outraged and anti ukip people who watch to have their worst fears dramatised by C4.How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
The edgy tone that channel 4 seek to portray would be more genuine if this close to the election they do s programme on Labour sacrificing children to paedophiles to avoid offence and the conservatives cutting Police whilst sending money in foreign aid without appropriate safeguards on its use.
FiF said:
Seeing as the only argument presented against this is the tired old anti Mail stuff, perhaps referring to the Telegraph may help, or the original source at Migration watch itself.
Telegraph BBC bias hinders immigration crackdown
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....
You know zygalski your credibility disappeared a long time ago, this confirms you are just an unpleasant little troll intent on causing mischief.
If you'd argued that Migration watch isn't perfect and can sometimes interpret data, shall we say, in an interesting fashion. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't, sometimes they have a different handle on things that may or may not be to the agreement of the individual, then your input may have led to something worthwhile.
But as usual you spit out such thought, so shallow that even a speck of dust wouldn't float in your phlegm.
As it happens, on the question of funding for border control, or underfunding, then in this case they, Migration watch are correct, and in their report manage to praise many actions of the Coalition. Some of their points may be questionable, would need a further check but in essence they're right.
But it's all designed to push Mail readers buttons apparently. Whatever, carry on with that pirate patch on one eye. Harrrr!
You like throwing around insults but never seem to apply any critical analysis. Your links above are a case in point.Telegraph BBC bias hinders immigration crackdown
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....
You know zygalski your credibility disappeared a long time ago, this confirms you are just an unpleasant little troll intent on causing mischief.
If you'd argued that Migration watch isn't perfect and can sometimes interpret data, shall we say, in an interesting fashion. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't, sometimes they have a different handle on things that may or may not be to the agreement of the individual, then your input may have led to something worthwhile.
But as usual you spit out such thought, so shallow that even a speck of dust wouldn't float in your phlegm.
As it happens, on the question of funding for border control, or underfunding, then in this case they, Migration watch are correct, and in their report manage to praise many actions of the Coalition. Some of their points may be questionable, would need a further check but in essence they're right.
But it's all designed to push Mail readers buttons apparently. Whatever, carry on with that pirate patch on one eye. Harrrr!
While the migration watch report does pick up some of the changes it really is very poor.
My comments on the report are:
1. The section on family visas makes no mention of the ECHR. Since ECHR decisions greatly restrict the ability of a Government to affect this figure I would have expected some consideration.
2. You say the report proves spending more on border controls will help control immigration. In fact the report just states this as a fact without offering any proof. It does not even suggest how addition spending will change things.
Very very poor report.
So if you want to spend more on border controls to control immigration how would you propose spending the money?
Mrr T said:
You like throwing around insults but never seem to apply any critical analysis. Your links above are a case in point.
While the migration watch report does pick up some of the changes it really is very poor.
My comments on the report are:
1. The section on family visas makes no mention of the ECHR. Since ECHR decisions greatly restrict the ability of a Government to affect this figure I would have expected some consideration.
2. You say the report proves spending more on border controls will help control immigration. In fact the report just states this as a fact without offering any proof. It does not even suggest how addition spending will change things.
Very very poor report.
So if you want to spend more on border controls to control immigration how would you propose spending the money?
All this talk of the importance of issues like immigration is massively overplayed by our frothy-mouthed PH kipper clan.While the migration watch report does pick up some of the changes it really is very poor.
My comments on the report are:
1. The section on family visas makes no mention of the ECHR. Since ECHR decisions greatly restrict the ability of a Government to affect this figure I would have expected some consideration.
2. You say the report proves spending more on border controls will help control immigration. In fact the report just states this as a fact without offering any proof. It does not even suggest how addition spending will change things.
Very very poor report.
So if you want to spend more on border controls to control immigration how would you propose spending the money?
After all, predictions are that UKIP get 2 seats out of 650 in May. Even I understand that if immigration & our membership of the EU were the key criteria when deciding to vote, then UKIP would expect rather more than 0.3% representation in the HoC.
Edited by zygalski on Thursday 12th February 12:24
brenflys777 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
I don't think the timing is fair, but I would be surprised if many people who watched it are in any doubt who they'll vote for. I'd have thought the audience would comprise of ukip supporters who'll watch so they can be outraged and anti ukip people who watch to have their worst fears dramatised by C4.How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
The edgy tone that channel 4 seek to portray would be more genuine if this close to the election they do s programme on Labour sacrificing children to paedophiles to avoid offence and the conservatives cutting Police whilst sending money in foreign aid without appropriate safeguards on its use.
The anti-UKIP will roar 'haha we told you it would be bad with UKIP'.
The pro-UKIP will either take any negativity as media bias, or possibly even see any portrayal of people not being able to afford their iPhone after benefits are removed as a good thing any way. Either way it'll harden their vote.
Those in between could probably go either way.
On the other hand, maybe it'll picture the UK getting back on to it's feet, green shoots of heavy industry recovering in the north and on to a brighter future. Who is directing it?
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
We will be getting party political broad casts right up to the last few days of the election, why should they be allowed?How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
Mrr T said:
So if you want to spend more on border controls to control immigration how would you propose spending the money?
Exit checks for starters. Dealing with routes where not only no exit checks but no entry checks, unbelievably.
Stop reorganising for reorganising sake, just because the organisation was setup and named by the other lot.
Deal with the backlog so new cases can be dealt with in timely manner. That will need resources.
Have you worked out just how much of your taxes goes into border control. Might be surprised how little it is. Less than half a cup of coffee a week.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/09/nigel...
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/2veprh...
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/2veprh...
Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 12th February 12:51
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
I think it is outrageous and would be whichever party it covered.How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
Zod said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
I think it is outrageous and would be whichever party it covered.How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
But why we allow party broadcasts at all is beyond me as it gives the big parties a massive advantage over any small or independent one.
FiF said:
Mrr T said:
So if you want to spend more on border controls to control immigration how would you propose spending the money?
Exit checks for starters. Dealing with routes where not only no exit checks but no entry checks, unbelievably.
Stop reorganising for reorganising sake, just because the organisation was setup and named by the other lot.
Deal with the backlog so new cases can be dealt with in timely manner. That will need resources.
Have you worked out just how much of your taxes goes into border control. Might be surprised how little it is. Less than half a cup of coffee a week.
My comments are:
1. Exit checks will be expensive since it will nearly double the number of BF personal at airports ferries. It will require substantial changes to airports to accommodate the checks. I agree it can be done but is it really worth it all we then know better is who has gone not where those who have over stayed are.
2. The issue of the backlog on asylum cases is often in the papers. I was given an insight into the problem some time ago let me share it with you. Most alyssum seekers in the UK walk into police stations etc, having entered illegally, with no papers. They will then claim alyssum. So how do you then prove/disprove the claim. They claim they come from country X. Now its likely country X does not even have good enough records to prove the person did/didn't come from there. Further, even if the country did have the records since they are accused of persecuting the person they are less than likely to help. Languages, accents may help but these are not definitive, particularly if the claim is religious based. All the time the officer dealing with the case is aware any decision is he makes may be challenged under the ECHR. The truth about the back log is its not caused mainly by inefficiency or lack of money but because proving/disproving a claim bejond the balance of probabilities unless the applicant is high enough profile to have been in the media is virtually impossible.
Further even if you can prove a claim is false getting the person deported is a nightmare. The ECHR stops you deporting them under the Dublin accord. Deporting them to there original country requires that country to issue a new passport. That can take years. So some money may help but its not easy.
Some other ideas are:
1. Use DA money in countries where the refugees come from so as to reduce the numbers.
2. Provide funding to the front line nations in the EU to stop entry to the EU.
3. International agreement to process asylum seekers before they enter a country, and agreement as to how many each country will take. This will not make it any easier to process applications but it does mean you no longer have all the problems of deporting failed applicants.
Mrr T said:
Thanks for responding.
My comments are:
1. Exit checks will be expensive since it will nearly double the number of BF personal at airports ferries. It will require substantial changes to airports to accommodate the checks. I agree it can be done but is it really worth it all we then know better is who has gone not where those who have over stayed are.
2. The issue of the backlog on asylum cases is often in the papers. I was given an insight into the problem some time ago let me share it with you. Most alyssum seekers in the UK walk into police stations etc, having entered illegally, with no papers. They will then claim alyssum. So how do you then prove/disprove the claim. They claim they come from country X. Now its likely country X does not even have good enough records to prove the person did/didn't come from there. Further, even if the country did have the records since they are accused of persecuting the person they are less than likely to help. Languages, accents may help but these are not definitive, particularly if the claim is religious based. All the time the officer dealing with the case is aware any decision is he makes may be challenged under the ECHR. The truth about the back log is its not caused mainly by inefficiency or lack of money but because proving/disproving a claim bejond the balance of probabilities unless the applicant is high enough profile to have been in the media is virtually impossible.
Further even if you can prove a claim is false getting the person deported is a nightmare. The ECHR stops you deporting them under the Dublin accord. Deporting them to there original country requires that country to issue a new passport. That can take years. So some money may help but its not easy.
Some other ideas are:
1. Use DA money in countries where the refugees come from so as to reduce the numbers.
2. Provide funding to the front line nations in the EU to stop entry to the EU.
3. International agreement to process asylum seekers before they enter a country, and agreement as to how many each country will take. This will not make it any easier to process applications but it does mean you no longer have all the problems of deporting failed applicants.
Some reasonable suggestions. Personally think it's worth doing the exit checks and getting e-borders working properly. Exit checks should be quicker than entry checks so maybe not doubling especially with electronic scanning of passports where possible. My comments are:
1. Exit checks will be expensive since it will nearly double the number of BF personal at airports ferries. It will require substantial changes to airports to accommodate the checks. I agree it can be done but is it really worth it all we then know better is who has gone not where those who have over stayed are.
2. The issue of the backlog on asylum cases is often in the papers. I was given an insight into the problem some time ago let me share it with you. Most alyssum seekers in the UK walk into police stations etc, having entered illegally, with no papers. They will then claim alyssum. So how do you then prove/disprove the claim. They claim they come from country X. Now its likely country X does not even have good enough records to prove the person did/didn't come from there. Further, even if the country did have the records since they are accused of persecuting the person they are less than likely to help. Languages, accents may help but these are not definitive, particularly if the claim is religious based. All the time the officer dealing with the case is aware any decision is he makes may be challenged under the ECHR. The truth about the back log is its not caused mainly by inefficiency or lack of money but because proving/disproving a claim bejond the balance of probabilities unless the applicant is high enough profile to have been in the media is virtually impossible.
Further even if you can prove a claim is false getting the person deported is a nightmare. The ECHR stops you deporting them under the Dublin accord. Deporting them to there original country requires that country to issue a new passport. That can take years. So some money may help but its not easy.
Some other ideas are:
1. Use DA money in countries where the refugees come from so as to reduce the numbers.
2. Provide funding to the front line nations in the EU to stop entry to the EU.
3. International agreement to process asylum seekers before they enter a country, and agreement as to how many each country will take. This will not make it any easier to process applications but it does mean you no longer have all the problems of deporting failed applicants.
Appreciate the difficulties with asylum seekers but taking one example mentioned before. Asylum seekers arrested for walking up a motorway after they've bunked out of the lorry they'd used to enter country. Border agency contacted who said release on the grounds they should agree to make their own way turn up and report for processing 80 miles away. Does that sound like an effective organisation properly resourced?
In case nobody has worked it out each taxpayer pays ~50p per week for border control.
Zod said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Has the C4 program "UKIP the first 100 days" been mentioned - an imaginary impact of what will happen with Nigel as PM?
How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
I think it is outrageous and would be whichever party it covered.How can this be allowed so close to the election? It could seriously influence public opinion based on complete prejudiced fiction, one way or the other.
It will, in this case, simply harden attitudes and intensify spats. Each will have their prejudices reinforced.
Middle ground waverers, some will be put off, some will react the opposite way.
Whatever happens it cheapens the whole election debate.
FiF said:
Appreciate the difficulties with asylum seekers but taking one example mentioned before. Asylum seekers arrested for walking up a motorway after they've bunked out of the lorry they'd used to enter country. Border agency contacted who said release on the grounds they should agree to make their own way turn up and report for processing 80 miles away. Does that sound like an effective organisation properly resourced?
Sounds good planning to me. They know he will turn up because this will entitle him to benefits. So saves the costs of sending an officer 80 miles to pick him up.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff