Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
mrpurple said:
XJ Flyer said:
It is difficult to see how UKIP can possibly be any different obviously being firstly lumbered with the UK federalist ideology which makes England a net contributor to the UK budget in just the same way as the EU one.
Secondly an immigration policy which is set by the CBI being all about over supply of the labour market to keep wage levels lower than they would otherwise be.
Thirdly still being full on believers in the global free market economy wether in or out of the EU.UKIP shows all the signs of just another Party in which it is the CBI who run the country not the elected government.
Not sure UKIP are great lovers of the CBISecondly an immigration policy which is set by the CBI being all about over supply of the labour market to keep wage levels lower than they would otherwise be.
Thirdly still being full on believers in the global free market economy wether in or out of the EU.UKIP shows all the signs of just another Party in which it is the CBI who run the country not the elected government.
"Ukip's Nigel Farage Slams CBI as 'Out of Touch with Reality on Europe"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-...
s2art said:
Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.
These countries are often listed as examples that the UK should follow, having of course no problems with EU, strong controls etc.I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.
Interesting to note then that the Australia immigration target this year is set at 189,000. As a proportion of the population that is 4 times higher than the UK target and roughly what the UK has achieved (both between 0.8% and 0.9% of the population)
XJ Flyer said:
If we're going to have an Australian type system then that would obviously include the possibility of retrosepctive re patriation assuming that anyone's work permit status changes.In this case EU withdrawal.
The fact is the pro immigration agenda that permeates every level of this country's government and the CBI means UKIP can't call for any immigration policy which includes any possility of retrospective re patriation,because of the precedent that sets regarding the status of every immigrant community and our ridiculous definition of nationality.
While it seems equally obvious that UKIP isn't about stopping the issue of over supply of the labour market by cheap immigrant labour.More like trying to attract the non EU immigrant vote who see EU immigration as being at the expense of yet more non EU immigration.
It's not really "retrospective." Prosecuting people for being here without a visa when they didn't need one would be retrospective. Countries change their visa rules all the time and sometimes that means people who have lived there for years can no longer do so. That's usually the intention. The fact is the pro immigration agenda that permeates every level of this country's government and the CBI means UKIP can't call for any immigration policy which includes any possility of retrospective re patriation,because of the precedent that sets regarding the status of every immigrant community and our ridiculous definition of nationality.
While it seems equally obvious that UKIP isn't about stopping the issue of over supply of the labour market by cheap immigrant labour.More like trying to attract the non EU immigrant vote who see EU immigration as being at the expense of yet more non EU immigration.
All Reckless said was that this policy would be applied to those already here, sympathetically after a transition period, and the media somehow heard that UKIP would be going to be forcibly rounding up EU nationals and shipping them off home, and chose to introduce emotive words like "deportation" and "repatriation" which are more often associated with the BNP.
The whole saga was a case study in a (fortunately unsuccessful) attempt by the media to manipulate the outcome of the by election by telling a very carefully selected version of the truth in a very deliberate way.
JustAnotherLogin said:
These countries are often listed as examples that the UK should follow, having of course no problems with EU, strong controls etc.
Interesting to note then that the Australia immigration target this year is set at 189,000. As a proportion of the population that is 4 times higher than the UK target and roughly what the UK has achieved (both between 0.8% and 0.9% of the population)
Comparing Apples with Pears?Interesting to note then that the Australia immigration target this year is set at 189,000. As a proportion of the population that is 4 times higher than the UK target and roughly what the UK has achieved (both between 0.8% and 0.9% of the population)
It is points based entry to the 5th largest country by physical size. Furthermore their target is under their own control, and can be changed at a moments notice if the underlying predictions they are based on are revised.
mrpurple said:
NicD said:
King 
said:
said: No, it isn't a dumb question. Until UKIP nails down precisely the type of people it wishes to limit immigration to, it's immigration policy can't be assessed. Just saying it'll be 'like Canada's or Australia's is a cop out.
It's time for UKIP to produce hard policy detail, not airy fairy wish lists.
You have named yourself well!It's time for UKIP to produce hard policy detail, not airy fairy wish lists.
a proclamation from a king or is it a
'It is time ....'King said:
said:mrpurple said:
NicD said:
King said:
said: No, it isn't a dumb question. Until UKIP nails down precisely the type of people it wishes to limit immigration to, it's immigration policy can't be assessed. Just saying it'll be 'like Canada's or Australia's is a cop out.
It's time for UKIP to produce hard policy detail, not airy fairy wish lists.
You have named yourself well!It's time for UKIP to produce hard policy detail, not airy fairy wish lists.
a proclamation from a king or is it a
'It is time ....'Esseesse said:
Hmmm when you type in 'cameron juncker' into Google, it's noted at the bottom that some results have been removed due to this right to be forgotten thing.
If you search for just 'cameron' or 'juncker' there is no such notice.
Wonder what they'd rather we don't read.
I read about the EU pressuring Google to apply it's censorship to it's .com results, not just for .co.uk. So I searched there to check the differences in results... in the UK results, each link in the top 10 centres around hostility between the 2 men, in one way or another. The US results are not entirely made up of, but are dominated by the Cameron/Juncker high five encounter.If you search for just 'cameron' or 'juncker' there is no such notice.
Wonder what they'd rather we don't read.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
CCHQ must be busy pasting links to Google to have them removed.
AJS- said:
XJ Flyer said:
If we're going to have an Australian type system then that would obviously include the possibility of retrosepctive re patriation assuming that anyone's work permit status changes.In this case EU withdrawal.
The fact is the pro immigration agenda that permeates every level of this country's government and the CBI means UKIP can't call for any immigration policy which includes any possility of retrospective re patriation,because of the precedent that sets regarding the status of every immigrant community and our ridiculous definition of nationality.
While it seems equally obvious that UKIP isn't about stopping the issue of over supply of the labour market by cheap immigrant labour.More like trying to attract the non EU immigrant vote who see EU immigration as being at the expense of yet more non EU immigration.
It's not really "retrospective." Prosecuting people for being here without a visa when they didn't need one would be retrospective. Countries change their visa rules all the time and sometimes that means people who have lived there for years can no longer do so. That's usually the intention. The fact is the pro immigration agenda that permeates every level of this country's government and the CBI means UKIP can't call for any immigration policy which includes any possility of retrospective re patriation,because of the precedent that sets regarding the status of every immigrant community and our ridiculous definition of nationality.
While it seems equally obvious that UKIP isn't about stopping the issue of over supply of the labour market by cheap immigrant labour.More like trying to attract the non EU immigrant vote who see EU immigration as being at the expense of yet more non EU immigration.
All Reckless said was that this policy would be applied to those already here, sympathetically after a transition period, and the media somehow heard that UKIP would be going to be forcibly rounding up EU nationals and shipping them off home, and chose to introduce emotive words like "deportation" and "repatriation" which are more often associated with the BNP.
The whole saga was a case study in a (fortunately unsuccessful) attempt by the media to manipulate the outcome of the by election
It seems clear that was exactly what Reckless was referring to in the case of the blanket work permit status,that is automatically granted on the basis of EU membership,obviously being removed in the case of our EU withdrawal on that same basis.
In which case it was wrong for Farage not to make it clear that there is nothing wrong about the idea that EU withdrawal would/should automatically mean the end of the permission to work here granted on that basis both in the case of new entrants and existing ones.In which case there is no reason why the the words deportation or repatriation should be viewed any differently here than they would be in the case of the same rules and words applying in other countries like Australia or NZ etc.Therefore I'd say that it was Farage who would be letting down a large proportion of his voter base by not sticking to his policy by taking too much notice of that pro immigration agenda propaganda in this case.
The result being what 'seems' like a UKIP policy of saying that all EU immigration,that arrives up to the point of any date of EU withdrawal,would be able to stay.
Assuming that Farage is saying that wouldn't be the case and that Reckless was in fact expressing a justified position in the form of the definition of 'retrospective' which I've described,that would certainly be consistent with an Australian/NZ etc type immigration policy.IE blanket permission to work here based on EU membership should provide no guarantee on that permission to stay being maintained assuming we leave the EU.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 27th November 01:39
s2art said:
Amateurish said:
s2art said:
Australia, Canada etc seem to have no problem in defining precisely what the controls are, so why should we.
I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.
If you think that repatriating (some) EU immigrants is a good idea, then you might have to break some bad news to the 2m Brits living abroad in the EU! I imagine there will be some repatriation in the future as the system will be based upon work permits. Many already here will apply for residency, and most will get it.
mrpurple said:
How have I insulted you? Commenting on how you deliberately choose spell your pseudonym? If that insults you then all I can say is it is probably just as well you are not a kipper.
I deliberately choose to spell my pseudonym in the correct fashion: It's the anglo-saxon form of King Canute. C-n-u-t is the accepted spelling these days. The automatic censor conflates c-n-u-t with c-u-n-t because it's a dumb machine. Assuming you're not a dumb machine, what's your excuse?Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
How have I insulted you? Commenting on how you deliberately choose spell your pseudonym? If that insults you then all I can say is it is probably just as well you are not a kipper.
I deliberately choose to spell my pseudonym in the correct fashion: It's the anglo-saxon form of King Canute. C-n-u-t is the accepted spelling these days. The automatic censor conflates c-n-u-t with c-u-n-t because it's a dumb machine. Assuming you're not a dumb machine, what's your excuse?Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
sidicks said:
Amateurish said:
Why is it "meaningless"? It is totally reasonable to have different immigration controls for different countries. E.G. one might allow uncontrolled immigration from Ireland, and zero immigration from Syria.
Because the value from immigration comes from the functions that these people can do, not what country they are from.
King said:
said: I deliberately choose to spell my pseudonym in the correct fashion: It's the anglo-saxon form of King Canute. C-n-u-t is the accepted spelling these days. The automatic censor conflates c-n-u-t with c-u-n-t because it's a dumb machine. Assuming you're not a dumb machine, what's your excuse?
Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
It certainly seems as though you are a typical anti-UKIP supporter who expects UKIP to provide the fine details of (perfectly credible) UKIP policies whilst the other main parties are allowed to make vague statements on similar areas of debate.Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
NicD said:
Sorry, you are too late for that - read the earlier hundreds of posts.
It's all been said.
btw, we cant choose much in life, but we CAN our ph handle, and you chose ...., so don't expect an easy ride.
Looks like you're right.It's all been said.
btw, we cant choose much in life, but we CAN our ph handle, and you chose ...., so don't expect an easy ride.
I wasn't expecting the handle to send the auto censor into self-destruct.
FredClogs said:
sidicks said:
Amateurish said:
Why is it "meaningless"? It is totally reasonable to have different immigration controls for different countries. E.G. one might allow uncontrolled immigration from Ireland, and zero immigration from Syria.
Because the value from immigration comes from the functions that these people can do, not what country they are from.mrpurple said:
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
How have I insulted you? Commenting on how you deliberately choose spell your pseudonym? If that insults you then all I can say is it is probably just as well you are not a kipper.
I deliberately choose to spell my pseudonym in the correct fashion: It's the anglo-saxon form of King Canute. C-n-u-t is the accepted spelling these days. The automatic censor conflates c-n-u-t with c-u-n-t because it's a dumb machine. Assuming you're not a dumb machine, what's your excuse?Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
King said:
said:mrpurple said:
How have I insulted you? Commenting on how you deliberately choose spell your pseudonym? If that insults you then all I can say is it is probably just as well you are not a kipper.
I deliberately choose to spell my pseudonym in the correct fashion: It's the anglo-saxon form of King Canute. C-n-u-t is the accepted spelling these days. The automatic censor conflates c-n-u-t with c-u-n-t because it's a dumb machine. Assuming you're not a dumb machine, what's your excuse?Either you don't know your history - which doesn't sit well for someone who paints himself as a patriotic UKIP supporter - or you don't know how to spell a basic four letter word.
Are you a typical UKIP supporter?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff