Rochester by Election - UKIP will lower house prices

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not quite.

What he actually advocates is a permit like system that Australia operates.

Deportation sounds better, I grant you, but it's simply not what is being suggested here. I'm sure you also know this already, hence your careful, edited quoting of the article.

Here's the clip (first video)
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-11-19/controversy-after-ukips-reckless-comments-on-polish-plumbers/

I think in the near term we would have to have a transitional period, and I
think we should probably allow people who are currently here to have a
work permit at least for a fixed period.

What happens when that fixed period expires, Graham?

Cyberman60

Linton wrote: »

And if the Somali family, having recovered from the trauma of an escape from a nightmare, is hard working, active in the community and care about their new homeland's future?

A UKIP voter would see them first and foremost as immigrants, of which there are too many. I would prefer to have as neighbours people who dont judge on that basis.

The reality is that many people that come here for 'asylum' are devout muslims, do not believe in democracy but Islamic rule , do not integrate, cannot speak English, so are unable by their circumstances not to make much contribution, and thus will be a burden to us for a very long time, as well as probably intensely dislike our way of life while trying to change our laws to theirs (halal meat, subjugation of women, Sharia Law etc). I don't particularly want a neighbour like that thanks.

Moby

Cyberman60 wrote: »

My bigotted reality is that many people that come here for 'asylum' are devout muslims, do not believe in democracy but Islamic rule , do not integrate, cannot speak English, so are unable by their circumstances not to make much contribution, and thus will be a burden to us for a very long time, as well as probably intensely dislike our way of life while trying to change our laws to theirs (halal meat, subjugation of women, Sharia Law etc). I don't particularly want a neighbour like that thanks.

Fixed your post for you;)

Cyberman60

Mandelbrot wrote: »

Displaying your own tendencies, Moby?

Cyberman60 didn't say 'all', or even 'most', but 'many'.
That is a reality, as those who live in areas where such immigrants reside, and who have unbiased eyes, will be able to attest.

Indeed !! At last people are waking up to the reality, but rather late in the day, in the same year that we incorporated Sharia law for divorce into English Law. A step too far IMO as it treats muslim women second class in divorce law.

Now why would we in a country where we all want equality methinks, create an unequal situation for muslim women ?

lisyloo

And if the Somali family, having recovered from the trauma of an escape from a nightmare, is hard working, active in the community and care about their new homeland's future?

Linton - do you think we ought to take in the entire worlds traumatised (of which there are millions) without any control?
Or do you think some kind of controls (like perhaps agreements with other countries) would be a good idea?

If we do decide as a nation to take in lots of people then we need to be prepared to pay for it and plan the infrastructure for it, so our healthcare/roads/infrastructure doesn't just grind to a halt.

Personally I don't agree with totally uncontrolled immigration without any planning for them.
I personally would be willing to lower my standard of living but I think many people in the UK would not.

Linton

lisyloo wrote: »

Linton - do you think we ought to take in the entire worlds traumatised (of which there are millions) without any control?
Or do you think some kind of controls (like perhaps agreements with other countries) would be a good idea?

.....

The way I look at these sort of questions is to consider where the forces of technology and economics are taking us and ride with them rather than emulate Canute. It seems pretty clear to me that the long term future will inevitably be one in which people world wide have freedom of movement.

So the question isnt how do we stop mass immi/emi-gration happening, but rather how do we allow it to happen with minimal problems to our best advantage. So I am coming from a different starting point to UKIP. I see immigration and emigration as fundamentally good things and immigrants as no worse as people than the current UK population, Some may well be better as at least they have had the initiative to try and improve their lot.

So what do we do? Cant say I have a full consistent plan of action. The first thing which would be useful is to have our leaders show a bit of leadership rather than simply following the mob. Tell people straight that immigration is fundamentally unstoppable, and trying to greatly restrict or stop it would be very much against our interests.

I can believe that we need number controls for the time being for both practical and social reasons. But the driving force should be what net immigration can we manage, not how much can we stop. Points system yes, but flexible enough so that genuine spouses for example should have a pretty easy entry. I dont have much problem with unemployment pay requiring a number of years payment of NI, though that would probably be more to disarm the rabble rousers than have any real impact on numbers wanting to enter.

I have no problem with unrestricted EU entry. Its essential for a true common market. There may need to be short term restrictions for new EU members so there are no step changes but not for those countries which are fully integrated into the EU.

Moby

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Indeed !! At last people are waking up to the reality, but rather late in the day, in the same year that we incorporated Sharia law for divorce into English Law. A step too far IMO as it treats muslim women second class in divorce law.

Now why would we in a country where we all want equality methinks, create an unequal situation for muslim women ?

Accepting that there is an issue does not mean that the solutions as offered by UKIP and their sympathisers are the correct ones. I feel it is very very dangerous to generalise stereotypes about a race or religion. It is not helpful because it creates discord. Fact is we are a multi cultural society, whether many like it or not. That is not going to change. The reality of the mass movement of peoples throughout the world chasing economic resources is going to make sure of that. Those in power in Europe know this. The UK imposing it's own restrictions and trying to push back the reality of change will in the long term prove pointless. UKIP promising otherwise is specious. They represent an emotional, gut reaction against change but in the long term will not be able to influence anything....the Chinese will see to that;)

The_White_Horse

everyone knows there is an unholy alliance between the lefty appeasers and the right wing jihadist nutters. Who knows why. Probably because in the diseased mind of the lefty jihadi john, hacking off heads as he pleases, is better than Thatcher. The lefty allowed the Peadostani's to abuse kids for years for fear of offending them. The Lefty is a dangerous beast - make no mistake.

There is a reason for UKIPs rise, and the main one is the Lefty and their morally superior attitude. Look at Brown and his bigoted woman comment.

If you pour lemonade into beer, you get a nice a shandy. If you pour in too much, you get watered down horrible beer. Enough said.

TickersPlaysPop

Anyone can pick any topic or particular comments and spin it to the extreme.

The fact is, UKIP on the scene is allowing the Conservative party to be more right wing on certain issues, where they would otherwise sit in the middle ground.

This is also playing out in the EU where anti EU parties gained more seats in the EU election. I think the EU is now listening more to concerns, and John Major on Andrew Marr show said a lot do sensible things about the topic. Such as the EU constitution being based on 4 founding principles, free movement of people being one of them, the other 3 have not yet been honoured by all member states.

Basically we need UKIP as a threat, we need them to win seats, and we need them
to do well (but not win!) in the general election to give the UK a chance to negotiate a better deal.

jjlandlord

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

The fact is, UKIP on the scene is allowing the Conservative party to be more right wing on certain issues, where they would otherwise sit in the middle ground.

Except that the middle ground is where general elections are usually won.
If the Tories try to align with UKIP (and it seems they are) they'll probably lose more that they'll gain.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

to give the UK a chance to negotiate a better deal.

But what 'better deal' would that be?
The UK already arguably has the best deal, and I think that the goal of the EU is not to create special rules for each individual country.

The 'concerns' seem either fabricated or created by the very countries that complain.


An informative article from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29995641

I think the logical conclusion was reached 50+ years ago but it somehow still causes arguments:
"In 1961, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan persuaded his reluctant cabinet that Britain could not, on its own, compete politically or economically with the two super powers - the US and the Soviet Union.

The only viable alternative was to apply to join the European Community (EEC)."
...
"We did not join, as some believe, a trading body that has somehow transformed itself into a political entity.

"Ever closer union" is at the very start of the Treaty of Rome."