Ukip

Sampong

I think it's important to realise the reason why UKIP has recently come under attack and why some posters on here continually try to make delibarate attempts to spread lies and misinformation about the party. It has nothing to do with the fact that, now they are gaining momentum as a political partyu they come under closer "scrutiny". They have always been under scrutiny.

The real reason why there is a constant barage of attacks is becuase those responsible for the said attacks hope that UKIP will spend so much time defending themselves against the lies that they won't be able to talk about their policies.

All political parties have a right to be heard in the political spectrum.

The endless postings if smear stories on here amount to nothing more than trying to shout the party down in an attempt to hide their policies and principles, because UKIP haters know that if more people realise that their policies are actually in line with what a lot of the population believe - then they will of course gain more ground.

I rarely agree with anything George Galloway says, but he is bang on with his points in this episode of Question Time, where he addresses the deplorable way in which Farage was attacked in Scotland, and criticises the SNP leader in his handling of he matter aferwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAGGxgrR4qo

burnleymik

UKIP on Immigration:

UKIP Immigration Policy is currently undergoing a review and update. The full policy will be published in due course. Meanwhile this is a statement of principles on which the detailed policy will be based.

1. UKIP calls for an end to the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration. Since 1997 immigration has added almost four million new people to the British population; this figure does not include illegal immigrants, the exact number of which is unknown but is probably at least one million and possibly much higher.

2. Britain is very densely populated. England, where the majority of people live, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world: more densely populated than China, India and Japan. We simply cannot sustain the level of immigration that adds another one million people to the population every four to five years. This puts an intolerable burden on our infrastructure and public services.

3. UKIP would introduce a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement (with some exceptions) until we regain control of our borders, put in effective immigration controls, and deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. Overstaying a visa would become a criminal offence.

4. Any future immigration for permanent settlement must be on a strictly limited and controlled basis where that can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy. Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

5. Meanwhile UKIP would enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force.

6. Measures would be taken to identify illegal immigrants and remove them to their country of origin. Exceptions may be made in limited circumstances, but there would be no general amnesty for illegal migrants.

7. EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits).

8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable. UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.

None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union.

Sensible?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

burnleymik wrote: »

Sensible?

Bonkers.

Complete economic suicide.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Bonkers.

Complete economic suicide.

Seems to work for Australia?

rabbit_burrow

They lost their credibility in number 1 by plucking a number out of thin air. As a student mathematician/statistician it really irks me when people start spouting stats with nothing to back it up.

Number 2 isn't a policy, it's a statement.

Number 3 is wishy-washy (UKIP will introduce a freeze, but with some exceptions - so not a proper freeze then?)

Number 4 - immigrants (non-EU ones) aren't even allowed to work for a period of time.

Number 5 - what on earth makes them think that anyone will want to after everything they plan to do?

Good luck with number 6, how they think they'll be able to identify them is beyond me (perhaps those with a slight accent and darker skin colour?)

Number 7 - "providing they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits" (legislation could be changed to make it nearly impossible for them to fulfil those terms)

Number 8, I am actually speechless.

ess0two

Never had you down for a UKIP fanboy Graham.

That's a realistic dagger for a fancy dress:cool:

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Bonkers.

Complete economic suicide.

But if we have the ability to control immigration, then surely the flow can be controlled to suit the UK economy.

The major problem is that, currently we don't have that control. You seem to be taking the position that if we just open the doors to everybody in Europe, it will somehow result in a net gain for the economy.

Meanwhile it is becoming more difficult for people outside of the EU with required skills to enter the UK.

Nobody can really argue that mass immigration from within the EU has brought in high numbers of unskilled labor. Meanwhile we have over a million young people unemployed.

Mass EU immigration doesn't seem to have filled skills shortages;

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/workingintheuk/shortageoccupationlistnov11.pdf

armour

After 6 pages of carp about reaching for a phone/ giving a nazi salute a sensible post outlining UKIPs immigration policy. Whilst I don't agree with all of the policy, I'd be interested to know, Rabbit Burrow, why point 8 makes you speechless.
Therea May has plenty to say about it;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/theresa-may-human-rights-abu-qatada
Perhaps some people should consider the 'human right' of someone to NOT be (falsely) branded a racist.

Sampong

armour wrote: »

After 6 pages of carp about reaching for a phone/ giving a nazi salute a sensible post outlining UKIPs immigration policy. Whilst I don't agree with all of the policy, I'd be interested to know, Rabbit Burrow, why point 8 makes you speechless.
Therea May has plenty to say about it;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/theresa-may-human-rights-abu-qatada
Perhaps some people should consider the 'human right' of someone to NOT be (falsely) branded a racist.

It should be noted that there wouldn't be a void in legislation which would protect people's human and civil rights - but we would be withdrawing from flawed legislation which comes from the EU. Legislation which as, Theresa May points out in that video - has cost the taxpayer £1.7 million.

burnleymik

Sampong wrote: »

But if we have the ability to control immigration, then surely the flow can be controlled to suit the UK economy.

This is a very valid point and one I think needs re-iterating. Some kind of control is required, but as of right now that control is in the hands of the EU and we need it back to find the happy medium to suit us as a nation.

I also agree that we are probably losing lots of valuable skilled people from outside the EU because the policy is now so tightened down.