Discussion of other UK political parties
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#272559
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I looked up free movement of people. There's a very good chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... ber_states" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Switzerland, Iceland and Norway seem to be subject to the same free moving Europeans as we do- albeit with a longer transitional period.

Do UKIP know?
Aren't UKIP in favour of leaving the EEA also? I thought they were, maybe I'm wrong, I find it very hard trying to keep up with Fargle's constant flip-flopping.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#272561
They're in favour of being like Switzerland which (as far as I can tell) achieves much the same thing as the EEA countries by bilateral treaties with other member states.

They seem to have a bit more leeway- they got 3 extra years to allow unrestricted movement to Poles etc. And 2 extra years re Bulgarians/Romanians.

I mean, seriously? Is that it? All that fuss over that? Why don't the Tories just call them on it?
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#272585
Cue Emmett......
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#272601
As a member of the EU, Britain has lost control of her borders. Some 2.5 million immigrants have arrived since 1997 and up to one million economic migrants live here illegally. Former New Labour staff maintain that this policy has been a deliberate attempt to water down the British identity and buy votes. EU and human rights legislation means we cannot even expel foreign criminals if they come from another EU country. This is why immigration control is so essential and overdue. UKIP will:

· End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.

· Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence
Such hyperbole
· Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such amnesties merely encourage further illegal immigration
Will you conflate genuine asylum seekers seeking political refuge? Or will it be send 'em back?
· Enforce the existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees until Britain replaces it with an Asylum Act. To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers will be held in secure and
humane centres until applications are processed, with limited right to appeal. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first ‘designated safe country’ they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have had their application refused will be required to leave the country, along with any dependants. We oppose any amnesties for failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.
Prisons for migrants?

· Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future British courts will not be allowed to
appeal to any international treaty or convention that overrides or sets aside the provisions of any statue passed by the UK Parliament
Jesus
· End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies
Not racist then?
· Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years. Currently, British benefits can be claimed by EU citizens in their arrival year
EU residents aren't guaranteed benefits. It's a fallacy to say otherwise.

Fargle seems in favour of the EEA in terms of cost and trade. I really don't think they've considered the level of free movement that would still take place with a reduced membership. They really are idiots.
 
By ezinra
Membership Days Posts
#272612
· Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years.
Then EU citizens shouldn't have to pay UK national insurance for five years either. I suspect the British exchequer would lose out.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#272640
For UKIP to implement the said proposals, they would not only "have to leave the EU" as they put it in their own vision of things, but they would effectively end the Common Travel Area as we know it. Ever since the partition of Ireland nearly a century ago, there has never been a permanent residency or passport check on those crossing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Not even during the height of the troubles - there have been checkpoints set up on border roads in the past for customs & security purposes (not only the troubles on both sides, but also more recently in the Republic to prevent the spread of foot & mouth disease), but that's it as much as I'm aware.

If UKIP wanted to implement control of the country's border as they propose to do so, then if the Irish Republic was to remain in the EU (highly likely, they won't be leaving the EU simply if the UK pulled out anyway) the UK would effectively have to set up checkpoints on all public roads where the border goes across it. Otherwise it doesn't take a genius to realise that a major back door would be left open by such "undesirable" immigrants from certain EU countries simply landing in say Dublin, take a trip up north and either remain in Northern Ireland or catch a flight or boat across to Britain; travelling by air might be a bit harder as normally you're asked for some form of photo ID, but the ferry to say Stranraer or Liverpool would be piss easy to do, buy your ticket and on you go!

Therefore to properly enforce what they propose, they would have to break with nearly a century's relatively hassle-free cross border travel to the chagrin of the Irish government (who would have no desire to see such happen at least to Northern Ireland), almost all northern nationalists (should be too hard to see why they would be pissed off) not to mention a good amount of unionists whom would regularly go cross-border for business and/or pleasure (extra inconvenience if nothing else), with a consequential impact on the economy of border areas on both sides, one which the Troubles on its own caused significant hardship.

The problem of private properties that straddle the border with each part being in both countries would also pose additional headaches - take a lane up to a bit of farmer's land on the southern end, cross the border over private land and take a different lane off the farm in Northern Ireland. There's quite a few about, not to mention places like the village of Pettigo which straddles the border with one part in Co. Fermanagh (NI) and another in Co. Donegal (RoI) with the international border running across the middle of its main street.

The Labour party understands this. The Conservatives understand this. The Lib Dems understand all of the above. With UKIP what you have are policies that are written on the back of a packet of fags.
By mojojojo
Membership Days Posts
#272652
They only need enough in the way of 'policy' to convince enough of the hard of thinking to vote them onto the Euro expenses gravy train (to use their language). It's not like they have to implement anything.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#272677
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Did the DUP tell them to fuck off?
I suspect the DUP would only be too happy to do then what they did to TUV in the last Assembly Elections - thump them at the ballot box.
However a TUV-UKIP tie up would concern the DUP - and UUP - in that UKIP would be very likely to throw as much money as they could into a TUV/UKIP candidate (likely Jim Allister, TUV leader) that the TUV currently don't have, and that it would easily match the funds that the DUP election machines would have. The major concern for the UUP is that their current EU parliament seat, which is valuable to them with a limited NI Assembly presence and no MPs at Westminster, would be vulnerable to vote-grabbing by TUV/UKIP which even under STV could see someone else, most likely the SDLP, gain the third and final seat if the TUV/UKIP gained a high enough amount of first preference votes, leaving a possible scenario of the 3 MEP seats in NI being distributed with two to nationalist candidates and one unionist - leaving accusations aimed at TUV/UKIP of splitting votes & preferences in such a way to suddenly only elect one unionist (DUP) MEP and the quarrels among unionists that would be epically major, tearing rightly into each other.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#272686
mojojojo wrote:They only need enough in the way of 'policy' to convince enough of the hard of thinking to vote them onto the Euro expenses gravy train (to use their language). It's not like they have to implement anything.
Very true. Though I guess if your representatives are going to act like dickheads you'll want to make sure they're paid well in doing so.
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#272952
@gallaghereditor: Foster couple lose three children for being Ukip members. Social workers said it signalled 'racism'. The @telegraph splash tomorrow.
Duh, UKIP are pretty racist. However, I'm sure that would not be the only reason.
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#272964
By Sam MarsdenLast Updated: 10:11PM GMT 23/11/2012
A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.

The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, the couple said they feared that there was a black mark against their name and they would not be able to foster again.

Last night campaigners representing foster parents described the decision as “ridiculous” and warned that it could deter other prospective foster parents from volunteering.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the actions of Rotherham borough council as “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind”.

Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, said: “I will be very concerned if decisions have been made about the children's future that were based on misguided political correctness around ethnic considerations.

"Being a supporter of a mainstream political party is not a deal-breaker when it comes to looking after children if it means they can have a loving family home.”

The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire.

The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.

They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.

They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.

However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.

They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.

The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’

“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that.

"I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”

The wife said she told the social worker and agency official: “These kids have been loved. These kids have been treated no differently to our own children. We wouldn’t have taken these children on if we had been racist.

”The boy was taken away from them the following day and the two girls were removed at the end of that week."

The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.”

The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears, although not in front of the social worker.”

Her husband added: “If we were moving the children on to happier circumstances we would be feeling warm and happy. To have it done like that, it’s beyond the pale.”

The couple said they had been “stigmatised and slandered”.

A spokesman for Rotherham metropolitan borough council said last night: “After a group of sibling children were placed with agency foster carers, issues were raised regarding the long-term suitability of the carers for these particular children.

"With careful consideration, a decision was taken to move the children to alternative care. We continue to keep the situation under review.”

Ukip was once considered a single-issue fringe party but is now part of Britain’s political mainstream, with some recent national polls putting its support as high as nine per cent.

Its manifesto includes a demand for Britain to pull out of Europe and to curb immigration. It is also critical of multiculturalism and political correctness.

The party has three peers in the House of Lords, all defectors from the Conservatives, and 12 MEPs, although it has never won a seat in the Commons. It has a candidate in next week’s by-election in Rotherham.

Mr Farage said: “I am outraged politically and very upset for them. I think this is the kind of thing where we need some sort of decree from a Government minister that Ukip is not a racist party.

“This is political prejudice of the very worst kind. It is just a bloody outrage.”

He pointed out that Ukip has a black candidate in the forthcoming Croydon North by-election.

David Goosey, the chairman of the trustees at Community Foster care, an independent fostering charity, said: “If this is accurate and there are no other extraneous matters that have concerned the authorities, then it is completely ridiculous and no self-respecting authority should be stopping people fostering on the grounds of their membership of Ukip.”

Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making?

“Otherwise it’s very difficult to fathom.”
 
By dailyheil
Membership Days Posts
#272967
UKIP are going to milk this for all it's worth even then it does strike me as a little odd and there has to be more of this than meets the eye
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#272970
Especially as the council states there were reasons (not singular) as to why they weren't deemed suitable in the long-term. Instead of raising the issue with the local authorities, they've ran off to the Tory press.
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
#272973
Can't help but think there's something we're not being told here. Obviously timed to coincide with the by-election.
 
By dailyheil
Membership Days Posts
#272976
Ah the bastards, first Respect with their leaflet then UKIP with this "persecution" story really worried Labour will lose this one it'll be Bradford West all over again.
Last edited by dailyheil on Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 21
The Sun

As a step down from regular cigarettes, they are h[…]

Mail Online and Adblockers

I see Mail Online is now blocking anyone with an A[…]

Winterval Bingo

Dragonist! :P Coming over here, burning our […]

Boris Johnson

The right wing media were quick enough to apportio[…]