UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
SpeedMattersNot said:
Guam said:
Still the biggest concerns for the UKIP supporters is immigration? I can understand wanting independence from the EU, but the hassle surrounding them about immigration is difficult for me to grasp. 
mrpurple said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Guam said:
Still the biggest concerns for the UKIP supporters is immigration? I can understand wanting independence from the EU, but the hassle surrounding them about immigration is difficult for me to grasp. steveT350C said:
Current UK immigration policy discriminates against people who are from a country outside of the EU.
Is that really why people are voting UKIP? Because it's discriminatory against non EU immigrants? Strange then that it's not mentioned on UKIP's fabulous website; UKIP Website said:
Protect Our Borders
issues_immigration.png
• Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.
• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
• A points-based visa system and time-limited work permits.
• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?issues_immigration.png
• Regain control of our borders and of immigration - only possible by leaving the EU.
• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.
• A points-based visa system and time-limited work permits.
• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
SpeedMattersNot said:
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances."
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_fre...
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
read further please"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Eta, or better, read mr purple's bit below. He has the luxury of wisdom on his side
Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 31st August 21:23
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Well I suppose our learned friends quite like it that way or perhaps they work pro bono? We should be able to say "thanks but no thanks" and that should be the end of it, regardless of whether they come from the EU or elsewhere."Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Think of it in terms of your house - would you let everybody in just because they knocked at your door or say no but do please come back in 3 years time?
SpeedMattersNot said:
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I'm under the impression that we cannot.
Please feel free to correct me.
don4l said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I'm under the impression that we cannot.
Please feel free to correct me.
don4l said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I'm under the impression that we cannot.
Please feel free to correct me.
I think mrpurple covers it neatly below.
mrpurple said:
I think I am right in saying that we can if they have a serious criminal record, but then they can appeal several times and then we can exclude them, but not permanently... although equally I could be wrong in that.
That is also my understanding, so I don't see the problem?Scuffers said:
Lol
So, all we need to do is issue some 400,000 exclusion orders every year?
Who are we, in this matter? Where is that number plucked from? So, all we need to do is issue some 400,000 exclusion orders every year?
If they're not eligible for entry, then sure - what's stopping you (or us) ?
mrpurple said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Well I suppose our learned friends quite like it that way or perhaps they work pro bono? We should be able to say "thanks but no thanks" and that should be the end of it, regardless of whether they come from the EU or elsewhere."Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Think of it in terms of your house - would you let everybody in just because they knocked at your door or say no but do please come back in 3 years time?
I originally asked in this topic why immigration in the poll provided in Guam's link, to the Daily Mail, indicated quite a large percentage of the UKIP supporters biggest concern is immigration.
I asked why that is and so far I feel quite let down. I can only assume that there are no UKIP supporters on this forum, whose biggest political concern is about immigration.
steveT350C said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
read further please"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Eta, or better, read mr purple's bit below. He has the luxury of wisdom on his side
Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 31st August 21:23
Immigration is going to be a big issue at the next election and this isn't just an issue of concern to UKIP folks. No sane person would want a blanket ban/restriction on immigration but there is nothing wrong in wanting the best and brightest to come to Britain whilst still controlling the flow of the rest. Cameron will probably make another 'keynote' speech and hope this all goes away.
http://www.conservativehome.com/
http://www.conservativehome.com/
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 31st August 22:55
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 31st August 22:55
SpeedMattersNot said:
don4l said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I hear a lot of people saying that "we've lost control of our borders". What do they mean by this? I recently drove from the UK to Germany, via France, Belgium and Holland but did not once have to produce my ID to anyone...except when leaving the UK and trying to re-enter it...how much more control do we need?
The ability to say no.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I'm under the impression that we cannot.
Please feel free to correct me.
I think mrpurple covers it neatly below.
mrpurple said:
I think I am right in saying that we can if they have a serious criminal record, but then they can appeal several times and then we can exclude them, but not permanently... although equally I could be wrong in that.
That is also my understanding, so I don't see the problem?Scuffers said:
Lol
So, all we need to do is issue some 400,000 exclusion orders every year?
Who are we, in this matter? Where is that number plucked from? So, all we need to do is issue some 400,000 exclusion orders every year?
If they're not eligible for entry, then sure - what's stopping you (or us) ?
mrpurple said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Well I suppose our learned friends quite like it that way or perhaps they work pro bono? We should be able to say "thanks but no thanks" and that should be the end of it, regardless of whether they come from the EU or elsewhere."Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Think of it in terms of your house - would you let everybody in just because they knocked at your door or say no but do please come back in 3 years time?
I originally asked in this topic why immigration in the poll provided in Guam's link, to the Daily Mail, indicated quite a large percentage of the UKIP supporters biggest concern is immigration.
I asked why that is and so far I feel quite let down. I can only assume that there are no UKIP supporters on this forum, whose biggest political concern is about immigration.
steveT350C said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, yes, that's a nice quote to grab but if you probe further it actually reads;
"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
read further please"Lifelong exclusion orders cannot be issued under any circumstances. Persons concerned by exclusion orders can apply for the situation to be reviewed after three years. ".
Granted I've not read further, but to me that suggests that it's taking into account that it can't be permanent. I don't see a problem with this. If they're still not suitable, then keep turning them away...keep saying no.
Eta, or better, read mr purple's bit below. He has the luxury of wisdom on his side
Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 31st August 21:23
Guam said:
You don't like people mentioning gambling, because you inform us that you had a problem with it. Fair enough, I respected your statement and dropped you an email apologising; I'd never have mentioned the subject with you again.But now you're the one bringing it up. So I have to assume that the subject of gambling isn't that painful for you, contrary to your previous statement.
With all that in mind, I'll offer you the same - £50 to the winner's charity. Can't say fairer than that. And if you're not prepared to take the bet because you can't face the idea of gambling, perhaps you'd drop the subject.
Entirely up to you, but you're coming across as more than a little hypocritical. Make your mind up and stick to it.
"Eight of the ten seats that Ukip are most likely to win in 2015 are Labour-held"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
SpeedMattersNot said:
Stuff
"That is also my understanding, so I don't see the problem?" ............ as I said before.....No should mean no regardless of country of origin - end of."quite a large percentage of the UKIP supporters biggest concern is immigration." .... just one aspect of a whole raft of issues we (the UK)can not control whilst in the EU i.e. wattage of vacuum cleaners etc etc I can't speak for other, or the poll, but for me, control of borders / immigration is only one of many (just look at the myriad of EU rules, regs etc) that we (the UK) have to conform to whether we want to or not.
"If I've missed something obvious, I apologise."....no need to apologise none of us are perfect
steveT350C said:
"Eight of the ten seats that Ukip are most likely to win in 2015 are Labour-held"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
If there is only a kernel of truth in this article, is it any wonder?http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/10028...
Sean Thomas in the DT said:
The self-loathing of the British Left is now a problem for us all
It’s often been observed that a certain type of British Lefty hates Britain – and that they reserve particularly hatred for Englishness. Back in 1941 George Orwell made this acute remark:
England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.
So what’s new? The difference today is that this shame and self-hatred now dominates Left-wing thought, whereas it was once balanced by the decent Left: who were proud to inherit the noble traditions of radical English patriotism.
Evidence for this disease is all around us, but shows up particularly in two red-button issues-of-the-day: the independence referendum, and the appalling revelations from Rotherham.
First, Scotland. The latest polls show that the United Kingdom is close to breaking up. This is a remarkable state of affairs when you consider that, a year ago, polls were two to one against partition. How has this occurred? Because we have allowed the British Labour party to lead the No debate.
This was a disastrous decision, given that, as Orwell noted, Labourites and Lefties revile and deride so many of the things perceived as quintessentially British. Take your pick from the monarchy, the flag, the Army, the history of rampant conquest, the biggest empire in the world, the supremacy of the English language, anyone who lives in the countryside, the national anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, a nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef – all this, for Lefties, is a source of shame.
The result, north of the Border, is plain to see. Whenever the passionate and patriotic SNP asks the No campaign for a positive vision of the UK (instead of dry economic facts, and negative fear-mongering) all we hear is silence, or maybe a quiet murmur about “the NHS”. Yes, the NHS. For many Lefties, the NHS – an average European health system with several notable flaws – is the only good thing about Britain. It’s like saying we should keep the United Kingdom because of PAYE. Thus we tiptoe towards the dissolution of the nation.
There is a deep irony here. If Scotland secedes it will hurt the Labour Party more than anyone, electorally. But such is the subconscious hatred of Britain and Britishness in Lefty hearts, I believe many of them think that’s a price worth paying: just to kick the “Tory Unionists” in the nuts, just to deliver the final death-blow to British “delusions of grandeur”.
It is a tragic state of affairs. And yet there is worse. Rotherham.
We don’t need to rehearse the facts. We’ve all read them, and reeled away in horror. The interesting question is how and why would any country allow the racialised gang-rape of its own daughters?
Why? Because too many in that country, especially on the Left, most especially in the Labour Party, despise their own ordinary people: the white working classes.
Take this comment by Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn, and Home Secretary from 1997-2001, when the Rotherham atrocities were beginning. “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent.” It is almost unimaginable that any senior politician would say this of his own people in America, Russia or France. Yet here it comes straight out of the mouth of a very senior politician indeed – along with many other expressions of Guardianista sneering: at the white working classes with their “chav culture”, “BNP values”, “Gillian Duffy bigotry” and so forth.
What kind of message does Straw’s statement send to everyone else? It says that the English are dislikeable, that they are to be feared, and contained, to be treated with contempt. It says that the ordinary English are a nasty race who need to be diluted by mass immigration; it says, in particular, that poor white English people are especially worthless.
And thus, Rotherham.
Yes, it’s infinitely depressing. But we cannot give in to despair. Instead we could listen again to George Orwell, who once said that, however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is “a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia”. Orwell wrote those words seventy years ago. It is time we paid attention, and turned the tide.
It’s often been observed that a certain type of British Lefty hates Britain – and that they reserve particularly hatred for Englishness. Back in 1941 George Orwell made this acute remark:
England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.
So what’s new? The difference today is that this shame and self-hatred now dominates Left-wing thought, whereas it was once balanced by the decent Left: who were proud to inherit the noble traditions of radical English patriotism.
Evidence for this disease is all around us, but shows up particularly in two red-button issues-of-the-day: the independence referendum, and the appalling revelations from Rotherham.
First, Scotland. The latest polls show that the United Kingdom is close to breaking up. This is a remarkable state of affairs when you consider that, a year ago, polls were two to one against partition. How has this occurred? Because we have allowed the British Labour party to lead the No debate.
This was a disastrous decision, given that, as Orwell noted, Labourites and Lefties revile and deride so many of the things perceived as quintessentially British. Take your pick from the monarchy, the flag, the Army, the history of rampant conquest, the biggest empire in the world, the supremacy of the English language, anyone who lives in the countryside, the national anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, a nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef – all this, for Lefties, is a source of shame.
The result, north of the Border, is plain to see. Whenever the passionate and patriotic SNP asks the No campaign for a positive vision of the UK (instead of dry economic facts, and negative fear-mongering) all we hear is silence, or maybe a quiet murmur about “the NHS”. Yes, the NHS. For many Lefties, the NHS – an average European health system with several notable flaws – is the only good thing about Britain. It’s like saying we should keep the United Kingdom because of PAYE. Thus we tiptoe towards the dissolution of the nation.
There is a deep irony here. If Scotland secedes it will hurt the Labour Party more than anyone, electorally. But such is the subconscious hatred of Britain and Britishness in Lefty hearts, I believe many of them think that’s a price worth paying: just to kick the “Tory Unionists” in the nuts, just to deliver the final death-blow to British “delusions of grandeur”.
It is a tragic state of affairs. And yet there is worse. Rotherham.
We don’t need to rehearse the facts. We’ve all read them, and reeled away in horror. The interesting question is how and why would any country allow the racialised gang-rape of its own daughters?
Why? Because too many in that country, especially on the Left, most especially in the Labour Party, despise their own ordinary people: the white working classes.
Take this comment by Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn, and Home Secretary from 1997-2001, when the Rotherham atrocities were beginning. “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent.” It is almost unimaginable that any senior politician would say this of his own people in America, Russia or France. Yet here it comes straight out of the mouth of a very senior politician indeed – along with many other expressions of Guardianista sneering: at the white working classes with their “chav culture”, “BNP values”, “Gillian Duffy bigotry” and so forth.
What kind of message does Straw’s statement send to everyone else? It says that the English are dislikeable, that they are to be feared, and contained, to be treated with contempt. It says that the ordinary English are a nasty race who need to be diluted by mass immigration; it says, in particular, that poor white English people are especially worthless.
And thus, Rotherham.
Yes, it’s infinitely depressing. But we cannot give in to despair. Instead we could listen again to George Orwell, who once said that, however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is “a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia”. Orwell wrote those words seventy years ago. It is time we paid attention, and turned the tide.
steveT350C said:
"Eight of the ten seats that Ukip are most likely to win in 2015 are Labour-held"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
That is a rehash of an 18 month old Guardian article.http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/ukip-...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/...
However the polls suggest that around 10% of UKIP supporters voted Labour in 2010 and between 43-60% (depending on the poll you believe) voted Conservative. They are picking up some votes from former Labour supporters but will it really be enough to lose Labour seats?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/05/analysis-ukip-...
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/24/where-ukip-get...
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/blogs/thepoli...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff