UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

nope, what I meant to post was:

no, it's just you are and you're ignorant mates who cannot read and understand what is posted

[Bill]

Bless you, I was sure you'd try to claim a typo.

Scuffers said:

does not change the point though,

No?

And despite all these immigrant births the birth rate is still falling.

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

nope, what I meant to post was:

no, it's just you are and you're ignorant mates who cannot read and understand what is posted

want to try again?

[brenflys777]

Bill said:

I hope the out campaign's argument is better constructed than this otherwise the EU will laugh at CMD's attempts at a renegotiation because the referendum is an empty threat.

Unless a credible figure emerges from the conservatives anti EU minority and with UKIP retaining a marmite leader like Farage, I think Cameron's renegotiation is completely vacuous and will just waste time. The best chance of BREXIT at the moment seems to come from the EU taking the p-ss or from economic break up after Greece/Italy.

[Bill]

PS if we don't have all these nasty immigrants coming over and having our babies the population would be falling. As it is the fertility rate is 1.85, to have a stable population it needs to be 2.

[Bill]

brenflys777 said:

Unless a credible figure emerges from the conservatives anti EU minority and with UKIP retaining a marmite leader like Farage, I think Cameron's renegotiation is completely vacuous and will just waste time. The best chance of BREXIT at the moment seems to come from the EU taking the p-ss or from economic break up after Greece/Italy.

Yep, it would sadly ironic if the more frothing elements of the out camp ruin what chance we have.

[ATG]

As an aside, the only continent where there is still significant population growth is Africa. Global population forecasts seem to be pointing towards the world's population peaking in a few years and then starting to shrink, not because of pestilence, war and famine, but just because of the changes that accompany economic development.

[968]

Scuffers said:

sorry, you're right, I got the wrong side of the figure, it's 26.5%/73.5% Non-UK born/Uk Born.

does not change the point though, unless you're suggesting that Non-UK born immigrants are 26.5% of the population.

Edited by Scuffers on Thursday 4th June 14:54

I know I'm only a thicky but I think it does change your point quite dramatically. 27% of births does not mean that society and our infrastructure will collapse.

[Funkycoldribena]

brenflys777 said:

The best chance of BREXIT at the moment seems to come from the EU taking the p-ss

Are you saying if they take the piss or they are?

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Really ?

On page 245 you clearly referred to greater than £1.48bn per annum.

Scuffers said:

now, you compare this with the so called 'facts' of the total health tourism bill being only ~£1.4Bn PA , then it's pretty damn obvious to anybody with half a brain, that the £1.4Bn is laughly wrong when the cumulative effect of the last 10 years just in HIV patients can pretty much account for that much./quote]

no I did not, you even quoted my post, yet you still can't get it right.

Look, we are never going to bottom this one out if you willfully refuse to understand what is posted.

your either terminally stupid or willfully trying to misinterpret and thus create a bogus argument.

So you never refered to £1.48bn in your post?

Edited by Mrr T on Thursday 4th June 15:19

[Funkycoldribena]

968 said:

I know I'm only a thicky but I think it does change your point quite dramatically. 27% of births does not mean that society and our infrastructure will collapse.

Still a bloody lot though.

[TKF]

Bill said:

I hope the out campaign's argument is better constructed than this otherwise the EU will laugh at CMD's attempts at a renegotiation because the referendum is an empty threat.

I want Scuffers in charge of the out campaign.

[968]

Funkycoldribena said:

Still a bloody lot though.

Is that a metric bloody or imperial? Seriously though, is it a lot, given that the overall birth rate is declining?

[Strawman]

Also factor in that most immigrants are the right age to have children whereas the total population goes from 1 day to very old and many of those aren't going to be contributing to the birth figures.

[Scuffers]

Bill said:

PS if we don't have all these nasty immigrants coming over and having our babies the population would be falling. As it is the fertility rate is 1.85, to have a stable population it needs to be 2.

no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?

or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?

we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.

on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.

[968]

Scuffers said:

no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?

or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?

we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.

on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.

Again, being thick, I might be simplistic here but isn't it a good idea to have a society that isn't constantly ageing? I'm sure Bill said in order to have a STABLE population we need a higher birth rate than we have.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

no, why do you want to sustain the ever growing population?

or do you subscribe to the great pyramid scheme of having more young to pay for the old?

we could do with reducing the population back to the 55-55M figure, this would relieve a lot of the pressured on everything from roads/schools/NHS/etc. to housing.

on a global scale, the world's population is already well over 7Bn, it's simply unsustainable to keep on like this.

And would reduce tax receipts, whilst not doing a single thing to reduce the fixed overheads of things like "roads/schools/NHS/etc".

Do you ever think before you type? I mean, I like listening to a stream of consciousness as much as the next man, but it would be nice to stumble across a coherent thought once in a while.

[Scuffers]

TKF said:

I want Scuffers in charge of the out campaign.

1. it;s a pretty easy case to make assuming the electorate have half a brain (unlike yourself!)

for example, today's nonsense from the great EU

Court of Justice of the European Union said:

The United Kingdom cannot apply, with respect to all housing, a reduced rate of
VAT to the supply and installation of energy-saving materials, since that rate is
reserved solely to transactions relating to social housing

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/cp150065en.pdf

[Mrr T]

brenflys777 said:

I think your comment that there is an overt assumption that foreigners are work shy, low skilled & HIV riddled is unreasonable.

I haven't seen that gross generalisation from UKIP or within this thread, except from yourself.

I would disagree and a quick review of the last few pages show some kippers on the thread cannot refer to immigrants without using those words. You are clearly different.

brenflys777 said:

Taking each point individually. Work-shy - some foreigners doubtless are, but one of my concerns and UKIPs about uncontrolled immigration, is based on the complete opposite view. In my experience most economic migrants are more motivated to work which is great for the employers that take them. However it's not helpful in skewing the market and makes it very difficult to incentivise the UKs unemployed as the jobs you could encourage them to take under sanction are no longer vacant.

This is clearly a risk. The question is are there ways, with the current benefits structure, we can create these incentives. I am not sure there is. If there is not then immigration is an option if the jobs are available.

brenflys777 said:

The point about low-skilled is again something I'm not convinced by. Just because many immigrants are doing unskilled jobs doesn't mean they are unskilled themselves. If anything the massive beneficial difference in standards of living between UK and Romania for instance might encourage the skilled workers of Romania to come here for low skilled but better paid jobs. The brain drain to these countries and the difficulty of our low skilled to compete against better candidates is the problem.

This I also agree is a good point. My reply is that the economic statistics do not show it is happening. We are seeing falling unemployment, increased job vacancies, and now some increase in wage rates, despite the level of immigration.

brenflys777 said:

Finally, an overt assumption that foreigners are HIV riddled! Honestly if you think that UKIP or most UKIP voters/posters believe that then you have been wasting masses of time coming on this thread. Farage talked about a specific problem which many people including myself see as a threat to the viability of the NHS. It is a national service but expensive treatments (HIV included) become available to those who arrive in the UK and are then diagnosed. This international largesse is just one area which seems at odds with a National health service which struggles to meet the publics current demands and cannot find everything. It is a fairness issue in my opinion and whilst I thought there were better examples I don't see it as racist or xenophobic to point out something that does occur even if the exact figures are not agreed.

This may or may not be a problem. However, its evident there is no evidence to support this claim and some, which I have provided that the costs are not large. I would agree with you we are not a international health service. Therefore we should look to charge those who should be charged and only treat those who should be treated. The problem is how do we do that and if we can will the costs of the controls exceed the savings. Labours ID cards would have solved the problem but was going to cost billions.


Finally one of my principal reasons for supporting the free movement of Labour is its reciprocal.

[Scuffers]

968 said:

Again, being thick, I might be simplistic here but isn't it a good idea to have a society that isn't constantly ageing? I'm sure Bill said in order to have a STABLE population we need a higher birth rate than we have.

why?

what is wrong with a non-growing population?