Why the UKIP will never work....

[FredClogs]

XJ Flyer said:

No Sharia is all part of the same culture that brought the food assuming that is anyone prefers curried lamb/goat to fillet steak and chips or roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.

I like them both - what does that make me?

[BGARK]

FredClogs said:

Culture (infact the entirety of human experience) expands, conquers, conglomerates, fractures and continues in that cycle ad infinitum.

The idea that anything is ever going to stop and remain in a stable no changing state is terrifying, almost as terrifying as the people who wish it.

There is no multi or mono cultural paradigm, there is just culture expanding, conglomerating and fracturing - two steps forward one step back, it's evolution.

[DeanR32]

don4l said:

DeanR32 said:

Where abouts are you from Don4l? I bet if I walked into one of these ukip get together, I'd get a few double takes with my trendy beard (my missus said it's trendy anyway)

Edited by DeanR32 on Friday 28th November 07:44

I'm on the Surrey/Hampshire border - in Michael Gove's constituency.

No, where do you originate from? You said you came here in 75? Where from?

[don4l]

DeanR32 said:

No, where do you originate from? You said you came here in 75? Where from?

Ireland.

I've just realised that it was 1976, not 75.

[sidicks]

don4l said:

Ireland.

I've just realised that it was 1976, not 75.

Ah suddently your story is beginning to fall apart!

[Countdown]

XJ Flyer said:

No Sharia is all part of the same culture that brought the food assuming that is anyone prefers curried lamb/goat to fillet steak and chips or roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.

Is the steak halal?

[XJ Flyer]

CamMoreRon said:

XJ Flyer said:

CamMoreRon said:

I've lived in Essex 4 years, now. I bet I could walk through any town here and find you 10 people who don't want to see immigrants based purely on racial prejudice in 2 minutes.

Being that you've obviously set yourself up as judge and jury,to decide who is and who isn't a 'racist',based on your own obviously socialist integrationist ideology,that isn't surprising.

The fact is 'multi' culturalism by definition means the opposite of integration.IE more than one and all different according to their own.Or to put it another way the antithesis of socialism.

Hahaha! Thanks for that.. I needed a good laugh this morning.

I don't look at certain people and go "racist" / "not racist" because you never know from appearances; such things, however, become immediately obvious when you talk to people.

I think you're confused about your idea of Socialism, and of multiculturalism. A multicultural society means many different cultures integrated in to one society, not a jumble of separate societies each with their own different cultures.

It is that contradiction contained in the integrationist agenda which is in large part pouring petrol on a fire.Multi means more than one and 'culture' in this case 'includes' 'societal' values and norms.In which case as the solution in Yugoslavia proves segregation and recognition that 'society' and 'culture' are the same things is the definition of 'mutli cultural' not integration.Which as the situation in America proves is the only way you'll make large scale immigration work in the long term.That and the realisation,that there is a point,where the numbers of immigration,turn the indigenous community into a foreign culture in its own country.

[BGARK]

JustAnotherLogin said:

the fact that British culture is already an assimilation of bits from many other nations

No it is not.

Care to name another country in the world where the reverse of your point is true?

[DeanR32]

And you got welcomed with open arms into society. My dad had been part of society for roughly 15 years before you came here (from St Lucia). It seems my old man had it a fair bit harder getting accepted than you did.

[King Cnut]

BGARK said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

the fact that British culture is already an assimilation of bits from many other nations

No it is not.

Care to name another country in the world where the reverse of your point is true?

Pardon?

[BGARK]

King said:

Pardon?

Don't be pedantic, we can all hark on about where people have moved over 1000's of years, you know what I mean.

The indigenous population of any country is still always made up primarily if one group that's been there for a very long time.

[Mrr T]

XJ Flyer said:

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that we're discussing EU immigration allowed by the 'free movement' of 'workers' that 'movement' isn't 'supposed' to provide voting rights and therefore electoral influence in national elections/policy.

Having said that it is no surprise or coincidence that the pro immigration agenda is usually,if not always,supported and never opposed,by those of non indigenous origins in positions of power and their socialist allies.

So no under present rules there is no way to deny 'eligible' non indigenous representation in government.However that doesn't mean that I have to support the idea in the case of that representation voting on immigration policy.In view of the obvious conflict of interest which that creates,in the case of any potential government policy of closing our borders to further immigration.

Only XJ can post with confidence on a topic on which he a) clearly knows nothing and b) could not even be bothered to do any research.

So the correct answer is that EU immigrants have no rights to vote in UK Parliamentary elections, only local and EU Parliament elections, unless, they have British citizenship.

This requires 5 years residency unless married to a UK citizen (when its 3 years) and a large fee.

Which is what I said.In which case,as I said,what gives the EU immigrant community allowed in under EU freedom of movement,the right to have any say whatsoever in our national immigration policy.While,as I said,the issue of non indigenous MP's,especially those elected by and representing large immigrant communities,being able to decide immigration policy,is an obvious conflict of interest in which case they shouldn't be allowed to vote on that issue.

Did you read my post.

I SAID EU IMMIGRANTS HAVE TO BE RESIDENT FOR 5 YEARS AND PAY A LARGE FEE TO GET UK CITIZENSHIP ONLY THEN CAN THEY VOTE IN A UK PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.

So EU immigrants will not have any influence on UK immigration policy.

[XJ Flyer]

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that we're discussing EU immigration allowed by the 'free movement' of 'workers' that 'movement' isn't 'supposed' to provide voting rights and therefore electoral influence in national elections/policy.

Having said that it is no surprise or coincidence that the pro immigration agenda is usually,if not always,supported and never opposed,by those of non indigenous origins in positions of power and their socialist allies.

So no under present rules there is no way to deny 'eligible' non indigenous representation in government.However that doesn't mean that I have to support the idea in the case of that representation voting on immigration policy.In view of the obvious conflict of interest which that creates,in the case of any potential government policy of closing our borders to further immigration.

Only XJ can post with confidence on a topic on which he a) clearly knows nothing and b) could not even be bothered to do any research.

So the correct answer is that EU immigrants have no rights to vote in UK Parliamentary elections, only local and EU Parliament elections, unless, they have British citizenship.

This requires 5 years residency unless married to a UK citizen (when its 3 years) and a large fee.

Which is what I said.In which case,as I said,what gives the EU immigrant community allowed in under EU freedom of movement,the right to have any say whatsoever in our national immigration policy.While,as I said,the issue of non indigenous MP's,especially those elected by and representing large immigrant communities,being able to decide immigration policy,is an obvious conflict of interest in which case they shouldn't be allowed to vote on that issue.

Did you read my post.

I SAID EU IMMIGRANTS HAVE TO BE RESIDENT FOR 5 YEARS AND PAY A LARGE FEE TO GET UK CITIZENSHIP ONLY THEN CAN THEY VOTE IN A UK PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.

So EU immigrants will not have any influence on UK immigration policy.

I know that's what I said.The issue and my point being that doesn't seem to 'stop' 'them' and their supporters from thinking that 'they' 'do' have the right to tell us how to run our own immigration policy.Wether it be those immigrant communities when they are here or their own governments by way of EU dictat.To the point where you can bet that any tv news discussion concerning the EU immigration issue will include the predictable interview with EU immigrant/s asking the question would it be a good idea to send them back or stop them coming here.No surprise what the answer always is.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 28th November 13:01

[King Cnut]

BGARK said:

Don't be pedantic, we can all hark on about where people have moved over 1000's of years, you know what I mean.

The indigenous population of any country is still always made up primarily if one group that's been there for a very long time.

Not being pedantic. He wasn't talking about population he was talking about culture.

Culture changes even if the population remains the same. A lot of culture comes from outside. For instance, the population didn't change much in Tudor times but the culture changed with the arrival of protestantism. Protestantism wasn't an english idea, it came from abroad and completely changed the face of Britain (and we're still dealing with the consequences).

You can't predict or control what culture is going to do, even if you closed the borders tomorrow. Controlling population doesn't control culture. As culture changes someone will always gets left behind and become unhappy.

[BGARK]

King said:

You can't predict or control what culture is going to do, even if you closed the borders tomorrow. Controlling population doesn't control culture. As culture changes someone will always gets left behind and become unhappy.

You can always pick the good bits though, with no control you have no choice. Who is anyone to force me to like something?

"Culture" is just a nonsensical word for stuff we don't really need. Just like religion and art.

[CamMoreRon]

XJ Flyer said:

It is that contradiction contained in the integrationist agenda which is in large part pouring petrol on a fire.Multi means more than one and 'culture' in this case 'includes' 'societal' values and norms.In which case as the solution in Yugoslavia proves segregation and recognition that 'society' and 'culture' are the same things is the definition of 'mutli cultural' not integration.Which as the situation in America proves is the only way you'll make large scale immigration work in the long term.That and the realisation,that there is a point,where the numbers of immigration,turn the indigenous community into a foreign culture in its own country.

You say "integrationist" like it is a bad thing to want others to integrate with our society. You're wrong, however: multicultural implies that multiple cultures are accepted by one society and are therefore integrated in to an inclusive environment. It does not imply that many sub-cultures are operating in isolation from each other.

Your use of the word "indigenous" reeks of nationalism. Trace back through your family tree and see where you came from: are you an indigenous Brit, or were your ancestors French, German, or Scandinavian?

[BGARK]

CamMoreRon said:

Your use of the word "indigenous" reeks of nationalism. Trace back through your family tree and see where you came from: are you an indigenous Brit, or were your ancestors French, German, or Scandinavian?

I think some of you are just not right in the head, when it was 10,000's people arriving into the UK (like our forefathers) it was manageable.

As it has increased to 100,000's (very quickly!) it is not manageable or sensible any longer, nothing to do with the "people", there are just too many of whoever they are!

Is this too complicated for you to understand?

[XJ Flyer]

King said:

BGARK said:

Don't be pedantic, we can all hark on about where people have moved over 1000's of years, you know what I mean.

The indigenous population of any country is still always made up primarily if one group that's been there for a very long time.

Not being pedantic. He wasn't talking about population he was talking about culture.

Culture changes even if the population remains the same. A lot of culture comes from outside. For instance, the population didn't change much in Tudor times but the culture changed with the arrival of protestantism. Protestantism wasn't an english idea, it came from abroad and completely changed the face of Britain (and we're still dealing with the consequences).

You can't predict or control what culture is going to do, even if you closed the borders tomorrow. Controlling population doesn't control culture. As culture changes someone will always gets left behind and become unhappy.

Or to put it another way historic precedent shows that outside foreign influence has had a detrimental destabilising influence on the country.So instead of learning from that by reducing those outside pressures and influences you're saying lets apply even more and greater outside pressures on the indigenous culture and society.In which case the issues of British Jihadists,caused by Muslim societal alienation,as opposed to the historic internal religious tensions between Catholic and Protestant,seems to be at least one of the results.Great idea.

[King Cnut]

XJ Flyer said:

Or to put it another way historic precedent shows that outside foreign influence has had a detrimental destabilising influence on the country.So instead of learning from that by reducing those outside pressures and influences you're saying lets apply even more and greater outside pressures on the indigenous culture and society.In which case the issues of British Jihadists caused by Muslim societal alienation as opposed to the historic internal religious tensions between Catholic and Protestant seems to be the result.Great idea.

No, I didn't say I want to bring in outside influences, you're putting words into my mouth. I was making a more general claim. i.e. you can't decide what beneficial bits of culture you want to keep and eliminate the negative bits of culture you don't like. It doesn't work that way. Culture just happens, you don't get to choose it.

Try it this way. Do you like music? If you do, what style of music? Whatever your answer is, I'll be able to describe how that music has been influenced by non-british cultures AND how that music has in turn influenced british society.

You can't go back to a perfect ground zero when culture wasn't influenced from outside.

[Countdown]

ISIS endorse UKIP