UKIP a change on the political horizon or not.

[SocketRocket]

UKIP used to get money from the EU ?!

Surely they wouldn't take funds from the group they want the country to leave ?

They have quite a few Euro MPs. I guess they think its best to work from inside the organisation.

 

[Foxholer]

It's still £1M that won't be going into UKIP coffers!

You've still not answered either of those questions I posed the other night btw!

Seems like my stalker has returned. Get this! I have had enough of you and your silly policy of constantly trying to discredit everything I post. I will be placing you on my ignore list right now and there you will stay so I wont need to read any more of it.

Seems that's a 'No I couldn't' then!

Not so much a stalker btw. as simply trying to get rid of the smell of manure! And if you can't/won't answer those simple questions, then manure is certainly the call!

Quite 'happy' to accept reasoned arguments (and there are some) backed up by evidence, but not the propaganda being spouted by some!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That still doesn't explain the fact they UKIP are so anti EU and want the country to leave the EU yet happily take them money from them ?! How hypocritical is that - hopefully losing that money will be the first steps of the shrivelling away with Farage at the bottom

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Been in Belgium and the Netherlands for a week and curiously driving through Calais docks I saw not one of those desperate hordes trying to get into the UK. And weirdly - close to where we were staying in Belgium - and close to the German border so a long way from the coast what did I come across - a large camp for immigrants to Belgium. And I'm not aware that it was some form of transit camp as they headed on there way to the coast of La Manche.

Now from what some say you might not think that some immigrants to the EU are actually happy to stay in a country other than Britain. No - they are all on their way here. Well they are not - strange as it may seem Belgium is a civilised and attractive Western European country - with welfare and benefits systems. And I think that some forget that as far as immigration control goes the UK is rather unique in that there is a 20mile wide stretch of water separating us from the rest of Europe. For the rest there is no border control - and they just deal with the immigration card they are dealt. But of course we are somehow different and should be allowed to play to different rules. And all week I found myself wondering why.

 

[Foxholer]

That still doesn't explain the fact they UKIP are so anti EU and want the country to leave the EU yet happily take them money from them ?! How hypocritical is that - hopefully losing that money will be the first steps of the shrivelling away with Farage at the bottom

They have, or at least Farage has, been quite open about the fact that, while they are distinctly anti-EU, they will 'take advantage' of all the 'benefits' that are provided. I'm pretty sure that there'll be a deal done to resurrect that funding! And, with the increased support from within UK, they won't lack for funds anyway - at least enough to keep Farage in beers! Hypocritical? Yes. But a further example of why your 'don't trust any of them' approach is quite reasonable!

 

[SocketRocket]

Been in Belgium and the Netherlands for a week and curiously driving through Calais docks I saw not one of those desperate hordes trying to get into the UK. And weirdly - close to where we were staying in Belgium - and close to the German border so a long way from the coast what did I come across - a large camp for immigrants to Belgium. And I'm not aware that it was some form of transit camp as they headed on there way to the coast of La Manche.

Now from what some say you might not think that some immigrants to the EU are actually happy to stay in a country other than Britain. No - they are all on their way here. Well they are not - strange as it may seem Belgium is a civilised and attractive Western European country - with welfare and benefits systems. And I think that some forget that as far as immigration control goes the UK is rather unique in that there is a 20mile wide stretch of water separating us from the rest of Europe. For the rest there is no border control - and they just deal with the immigration card they are dealt. But of course we are somehow different and should be allowed to play to different rules. And all week I found myself wondering why.

There are a great deal of non EU immigrants that are arriving in many other countries, many more than here in fact. I dont believe that is in doubt, is it? I am not sure if these other countries are completely happy with the situation though.

The current political debate is regarding the net numbers that come to the UK each year, currently around 250K. Mostly by EU member states. Is this a number we can absorb over time? Is it wrong or even racist to have concerns on this?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There are a great deal of non EU immigrants that are arriving in many other countries, many more than here in fact. I dont believe that is in doubt, is it? I am not sure if these other countries are completely happy with the situation though.

The current political debate is regarding the net numbers that come to the UK each year, currently around 250K. Mostly by EU member states. Is this a number we can absorb over time? Is it wrong or even racist to have concerns on this?

No - but why would should our concerns be any greater or given any greater attention than those of, say, Belgium - for whom there is no such thing as border control. Can Belgium absorb the numbers entering their country. Maybe not. But they are having to find some way of doing it because other than building a great big fence around their country they have to. And likewise numbers entering UK may be difficult to absorb - but we are no different from many EU countries other than we have our boundary fence. Most find homes and are happy to stay places nowhere near UK. We are not unique - why do we think we should be treated uniquely by the rest of the EU. Cameron is I think in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that somehow he can get things changed. Leave EU if you want but I for one am not going to be suckered into believing that migrants are flooding into and through Western Europe just to get to Britain - because it just isn't true.

 

[SocketRocket]

No - but why would should our concerns be any greater or given any greater attention than those of, say, Belgium - for whom there is no such thing as border control. Can Belgium absorb the numbers entering their country. Maybe not. But they are having to find some way of doing it because other than building a great big fence around their country they have to. And likewise numbers entering UK may be difficult to absorb - but we are no different from many EU countries other than we have our boundary fence. Most find homes and are happy to stay places nowhere near UK. We are not unique - why do we think we should be treated uniquely by the rest of the EU. Cameron is I think in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that somehow he can get things changed. Leave EU if you want but I for one am not going to be suckered into believing that migrants are flooding into and through Western Europe just to get to Britain - because it just isn't true.

As I said the UK issue is more about numbers and EU immigration. Belgium is a fairly small country and I guess they would have problems with large numbers of people coming to their country and using their public services. The issue that is causing so much unrest in the Uk and especially England is the number of EU citizens coming here and how we are unprepared to absorb these numbers. The people coming as asylum seekers are very small in comparison, we should have systems to deal with their requests though. Whats the alternative?

I did read that the Netherlands are looking into new regulations to speed up the process of political asylum requests. I did work in Belgium some time ago and found they had enough problems living with each other, never mind foreigners.

 

[SocketRocket]

Trying to take more of a detached view on the immigration issue, is there really a problem?

There is no doubt a very large number of people in the country are not happy with the levels of immigration we have experienced during the last decade. So why are they unhappy and are their concerns justified or not?

It's a fact that we have had around 4 million net immigrants come to these shores over the last decade and are currently still getting around 200K per annum. Peoples concerns are that these numbers have put a great strain on public services like the NHS, housing and education and has kept down pay rates in lower paid employment. Some also believe that it has assisted to create a situation where many people have been almost encouraged to stay at home on benefits while immigrants do the lower paid jobs.

Are these real concerns or are they propaganda from the Tories and UKIP, hyped up by the likes of the DM. Are they driven by underlying racist tendencies and a dislike of Johnny Foreigner?

We are told there is a need for these immigrants to create a supply of labour that will pay taxes to support the ageing population. Is this really the case as our birth rates seem quite high, we had 813,200 births in 2012. The use of immigrants to meet demand is reasonable if they go back to their previous countries before growing old, otherwise they add to the ageing population and we would need an continual exponential increase in numbers to meet demand.

There seems to be two fairly polarised views on the subject that are moving further apart all the time. Who's right or wrong, or is there a bit of truth in both arguments?

 

[Fish]

Trying to take more of a detached view on the immigration issue, is there really a problem?

There is no doubt a very large number of people in the country are not happy with the levels of immigration we have experienced during the last decade. So why are they unhappy and are their concerns justified or not?

It's a fact that we have had around 4 million net immigrants come to these shores over the last decade and are currently still getting around 200K per annum. Peoples concerns are that these numbers have put a great strain on public services like the NHS, housing and education and has kept down pay rates in lower paid employment. Some also believe that it has assisted to create a situation where many people have been almost encouraged to stay at home on benefits while immigrants do the lower paid jobs.

Are these real concerns or are they propaganda from the Tories and UKIP, hyped up by the likes of the DM. Are they driven by underlying racist tendencies and a dislike of Johnny Foreigner?

We are told there is a need for these immigrants to create a supply of labour that will pay taxes to support the ageing population. Is this really the case as our birth rates seem quite high, we had 813,200 births in 2012. The use of immigrants to meet demand is reasonable if they go back to their previous countries before growing old, otherwise they add to the ageing population and we would need an continual exponential increase in numbers to meet demand.

There seems to be two fairly polarised views on the subject that are moving further apart all the time. Who's right or wrong, or is there a bit of truth in both arguments?

It would seem there's an issue also when our jails are full (as always) and we have too many foreign national criminals in them who should be deported and its costing us £850m a year to manage them!

Can't see what's so difficult myself, all paperwork done whilst the foreign national offender is serving their sentence, once completed, taken directly to the airport and flown out, simples :smirk: Why let them out only for them to not report back and abscond because they know their fate, its ridiculous and in some cases, puts the public's safety at further risk :angry:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29715630?ocid=socialflow_twitter

 

[Doon frae Troon]

What I find very unsettling is the inclusion of UKIP and the Lib Dems in the BBC political televised debate for the 2015 election and the exclusion of the UK's third largest political party.

 

[SocketRocket]

What I find very unsettling is the inclusion of UKIP and the Lib Dems in the BBC political televised debate for the 2015 election and the exclusion of the UK's third largest political party.

I can only guess it's due to them not being a party for the whole of the UK.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Actually after watching this it has changed my view on it all and I may vote UKIP. As Mike Read singing in a cod Jamaican accent has really changed my mind on the credibility of the party and the sanity of their supporters.

[video=youtube_share;Xqs9OSbWluQ]http://youtu.be/Xqs9OSbWluQ[/video]

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I can only guess it's due to them not being a party for the whole of the UK.

Democracy oot the windae then as the Tories do not represent the whole of the UK.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I can only guess it's due to them not being a party for the whole of the UK.

They'll be a party that could affect the whole of the UK if they win 20 seats in May 2015.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cks-labour-tories-ahead-polls-time-1950s.html

And look at the mess Westminster got itself into by ignoring the nationalists for too long. Don't the wider UK electorate need to know what the SNP would campaign for were UK to vote to leave the EU for instance.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Democracy oot the windae then as the Tories do not represent the whole of the UK.

Well the Tories did get over 16% of the Scottish votes in 2010. How many votes did the SNP get outside Scotland?

Of the overall UK vote in the last General Election SNP received 1.7% of the total compared with the BNP's 1.9%!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

No!

Since it would not be relevant to the rest of us. By the way the referendum went against independence.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No!

Since it would not be relevant to the rest of us. By the way the referendum went against independence.

It would be if the SNP said they would immediately campaign for a referendum on independence from the UK on the grounds that the decision to leave the UK was contrary to the will of the majority of the Scottish electorate (if indeed any EU referendum that was the case)

BTW - I know that the referendum went against independence - that's my point - with 20 seats the SNP could certainly influence votes taken at Westminster as well as campaign for a ref if UK votes to leave EU. Both of which would affect the rest of the UK.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Democracy oot the windae then as the Tories do not represent the whole of the UK.

Much as I'd rather listen to the SNP than UKIP in any debate, I think that if it's a debate between national parties then you have to only have parties that are national, in that anyone watching the debate can vote for. Not sure how many people would tune in to hear someone from a party that they can not vote for or who does not 'directly' have any influence on what happens where they live.

Possibly there should be some more 'regional' debates taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in which the major parties are represented and also the more relevant local parties as well?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It would be if the SNP said they would immediately campaign for a referendum on independence from the UK on the grounds that the decision to leave the UK was contrary to the will of the majority of the Scottish electorate (if indeed any EU referendum that was the case)

BTW - I know that the referendum went against independence - that's my point - with 20 seats the SNP could certainly influence votes taken at Westminster as well as campaign for a ref if UK votes to leave EU. Both of which would affect the rest of the UK.

But under the present system and even after Devo Max a further referendum would need to be sanctioned by that lot at Westminster.

20 seats may have an influence but not enough, I would suggest, to get another vote on independence so soon after the last one.