Will UKIP win its first seat in parliament tonight?

LordSplodge · 4 Nov 2014 at 18:34

v0n said:
All we get is "I want out" northern circular. "I want out". Why? "Because I don't want to be ruled by EU". But why? "Because I want Britain to be out".

Without anybody, including Nigel, ever answering such simple questions, both media and us, regular people, just have to presume that at end of it all, UKIP is all about feeding pure xenophobic troll across English suburbia. And considering how carefully selective that xenophobia is, anyone with half a brain will presume that underneath that "EU" trolling, there must be uglier, darker side, one that will "sort out" the "problem" of other, non EU immigrants later. Once the Human Rights Act is "repealed" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is "withdrawn" as the manifesto indicates, perhaps?

That's where not answering simple questions leads boys. It's 40+ years since Idi Amin, we have to do better in political discourse than "because I said so".

Very well put. I eagerly await a comprehensive response from the UKIP supporters on these forums.

D.P. · 4 Nov 2014 at 20:06

Judgeneo said:
The vote is key.

A significant proportion of Scotland was fed up with the principle, and thus it was put to a vote. They voted that the arrangement was acceptable enough to continue. Had I been Scottish, I might well have voted for Independence.
The UK has never had chance, or opportunity for such a vote about the EU. When given the opportunity, I intend to vote to leave.

I don't think that this is a complicated position to hold.

People voted for parties, those parties made decisions. Thst is how democracy works.

There was no referendum to decide of the higher rate of income tax should be 40%, or what the minimum wage is, or what the national speed limits are, or the drinking age, or age of consent, or VAT rate, of fuel tax. All laws and rules are deduced upon by the government which the people elect. the same is true of the EU, people elect MEPS and the EU develop laws. Britain just wasted half their voting potential by electing UKUP MEPs that never turn up or vote against British interests.

D.P. · 4 Nov 2014 at 20:09

robgmun said:
I will hate it but i will have to accept the result of the in/out referendum if we vote to say in. Of course up until then i will campaign as much as possible to get out as i don't want to be ruled by the EU, as in principle, everything is wrong about it.

(wait for it, we're almost there.....)

We have basically had the EU referendum - A majority of people vote for Labour, Tories, Lib Dem and green parties who all don't want to leave the EU.
The democratic process has been fulfilled.

D.P. · 4 Nov 2014 at 20:14

v0n said:
I suppose the trouble many of us have is: we've tried asking you guys so many times why ("everything is wrong about EU") or which EU laws are deal breaker for you or what was taken from you by EU, what job position was stolen from you by Janek from Poland or Helenka from Czech Republic and why is UKIP's immigration policy set selectively against EU migrants, even though EU migration only accounts for minority of immigration in Britain, but we never get straight answer.

And what we want is not some "lofty" pub call to arms ("My father bled for this land and I have responsibility to do keep my fatherland proud and strong for the records, for my children, for their children") or newspeak agitation ("the faceless bureaucrats from Brussels shall not dictate me my freedoms") but straight, in particular, direct answer. But the questions are never answered and any attempt of discussion or understanding separatist stance never gets any of us anywhere.

When people point out to you that UK has one of the lower immigration percentages per capita, on continental and world scale, there is no answer. When people point out that the world "free of foreigners" UKIP promises to return to, doesn't exist anywhere in Europe outside of Russia for decades, there are no eloquent replies. When people point out that the stuff UKIP publish as their manifesto sound like drivel written by uneducated teenager (just take this bit as example - "UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA)" - so, no EU, EFTA or EEA, but they strongly believe nothing will change and EU will just trade with Britain, like nothing happened? They are going to make special exception just for us or something? Or we will cut their Wispa supplies off? WTF? ), but there is never any explanation as to how all of those miracles are meant to happen. How is the guy who visits Brussels once a months to yell obscenities at everyone going to organise this "non EU, non EFTA, non EEA" treaty. Has he spoken to anyone? No straight answer. Ever.

All we get is "I want out" northern circular. "I want out". Why? "Because I don't want to be ruled by EU". But why? "Because I want Britain to be out".

Without anybody, including Nigel, ever answering such simple questions, both media and us, regular people, just have to presume that at end of it all, UKIP is all about feeding pure xenophobic troll across English suburbia. And considering how carefully selective that xenophobia is, anyone with half a brain will presume that underneath that "EU" trolling, there must be uglier, darker side, one that will "sort out" the "problem" of other, non EU immigrants later. Once the Human Rights Act is "repealed" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is "withdrawn" as the manifesto indicates, perhaps?

That's where not answering simple questions leads boys. It's 40+ years since Idi Amin, we have to do better in political discourse than "because I said so".

Excellent Post, should be stickied IMO

Freakbro · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:26

Another day another report showing the benefit of immigration

CReAM - The Centre for Research & Analysis of Migration, purportedly an independent and interdisciplinary research centre located in the Department of Economics at University College London has announced that since 2000, immigrants have made a net £25bn contribution to the countries finances.

People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011. Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received.

So EU immigration is far more lucrative to us than non-EU

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing......But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

Our research shows that in contrast with most other European countries, the UK attracts highly educated and skilled immigrants from within the EEA as well as from outside....The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people

So, not all unskilled low paid workers we kept getting told they all are, there's a surprise......not

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

Disconnected from reality....a phrase we seem to hear quite often about UKIP supporters

Anyway, links to the full article for anyone else who feels like selectively quoting other parts to suit their agenda

http://cream-migration.org/newscreaminthenews.php

deuse · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:33

Freakbro said:
snip

And if you read the FULL report it confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150bn in the last 17 years.

So not as good as you say. Is that you Merkel? From the BBC

"As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures - which we dispute - their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population."

He said that people in the UK had to decide whether the extra pressure on schools, maternity units, and other services were worth an extra £1 a week"

The Geezer · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:39

v0n said:
I suppose the trouble many of us have is: we've tried asking you guys so many times why ("everything is wrong about EU") or which EU laws are deal breaker for you or what was taken from you by EU, what job position was stolen from you by Janek from Poland or Helenka from Czech Republic and why is UKIP's immigration policy set selectively against EU migrants, even though EU migration only accounts for minority of immigration in Britain, but we never get straight answer.

And what we want is not some "lofty" pub call to arms ("My father bled for this land and I have responsibility to do keep my fatherland proud and strong for the records, for my children, for their children") or newspeak agitation ("the faceless bureaucrats from Brussels shall not dictate me my freedoms") but straight, in particular, direct answer. But the questions are never answered and any attempt of discussion or understanding separatist stance never gets any of us anywhere.

When people point out to you that UK has one of the lower immigration percentages per capita, on continental and world scale, there is no answer. When people point out that the world "free of foreigners" UKIP promises to return to, doesn't exist anywhere in Europe outside of Russia for decades, there are no eloquent replies. When people point out that the stuff UKIP publish as their manifesto sound like drivel written by uneducated teenager (just take this bit as example - "UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA)" - so, no EU, EFTA or EEA, but they strongly believe nothing will change and EU will just trade with Britain, like nothing happened? They are going to make special exception just for us or something? Or we will cut their Wispa supplies off? WTF? ), but there is never any explanation as to how all of those miracles are meant to happen. How is the guy who visits Brussels once a months to yell obscenities at everyone going to organise this "non EU, non EFTA, non EEA" treaty. Has he spoken to anyone? No straight answer. Ever.

All we get is "I want out" northern circular. "I want out". Why? "Because I don't want to be ruled by EU". But why? "Because I want Britain to be out".

Without anybody, including Nigel, ever answering such simple questions, both media and us, regular people, just have to presume that at end of it all, UKIP is all about feeding pure xenophobic troll across English suburbia. And considering how carefully selective that xenophobia is, anyone with half a brain will presume that underneath that "EU" trolling, there must be uglier, darker side, one that will "sort out" the "problem" of other, non EU immigrants later. Once the Human Rights Act is "repealed" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is "withdrawn" as the manifesto indicates, perhaps?

That's where not answering simple questions leads boys. It's 40+ years since Idi Amin, we have to do better in political discourse than "because I said so".

Stand up and take a bow, well structured post

scorza · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:43

Freakbro said:
Another day another report showing the benefit of immigration

CReAM - The Centre for Research & Analysis of Migration, purportedly an independent and interdisciplinary research centre located in the Department of Economics at University College London has announced that since 2000, immigrants have made a net £25bn contribution to the countries finances.

So EU immigration is far more lucrative to us than non-EU

So, not all unskilled low paid workers we kept getting told they all are, there's a surprise......not

Disconnected from reality....a phrase we seem to hear quite often about UKIP supporters

Anyway, links to the full article for anyone else who feels like selectively quoting other parts to suit their agenda

http://cream-migration.org/newscreaminthenews.php

I knew someone would post this. Chairman of Migration Watch, the now Sir Andrew Green, did an excellent rebuttal of this report on the Today Programme this morning, the author of the report was almost in tears at the end of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of pressure group Migration Watch, criticised the selective use of dates, telling the BBC: "If you take all EU migration including those who arrived before 2001 what you find is this: you find by the end of the period they are making a negative contribution and increasingly so.

"And the reason is that if you take a group of people while they're young fit and healthy they're not going to be very expensive but if you take them over a longer period they will be."
...
"This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150bn in the last 17 years.

"As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures - which we dispute - their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population."

He said that people in the UK had to decide whether the extra pressure on schools, maternity units, and other services were worth an extra £1 a week.

Plus the debate on immigration has never really been about the economic benefits - it's fairly obvious that more people = higher GDP = more tax revenue for the government. Hell, even prostitutes contribute to GDP figures now, and I'm given to believe there are quite a lot of prostitutes from eastern Europe operating in the UK now so no wonder we have the fastest growing economy in Europe. The real concern over immigration has always been the social cost.

LordSplodge · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:53

scorza said:
Plus the debate on immigration has never really been about the economic benefits... The real concern over immigration has always been the social cost.

That's not how the media is playing it out, it's all about economic costs. The diatribe of "They took our jobs", "200,000 Romanians are coming for your job", and so on and so forth.

Also, what exactly is "social cost"? and how are you measuring it?

The Geezer · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:53

scorza said:
I knew someone would post this. Chairman of Migration Watch, the now Sir Andrew Green, did an excellent rebuttal of this report on the Today Programme this morning, the author of the report was almost in tears at the end of it.

I too listened to the interview but it was nothing like that, the CREAM researcher / representative stuck to the facts of the report which are hard to dispute however Sir Andrew only ever had one response "our public services can not take the pressure" did he back it up with any evidence of course he didn't.

Again anecdotal based arguments when faced with facts

Freakbro · 5 Nov 2014 at 08:55

deuse said:
And if you read the FULL report it confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150bn in the last 17 years.

Can you point out to me where in the report it shows that? I can't find it

"As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures - which we dispute - their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population."

He said that people in the UK had to decide whether the extra pressure on schools, maternity units, and other services were worth an extra £1 a week"

And as for your selective quoting of Andrew Green, hmm, even at £1 a week,they are a net contributor...sounds better than the natives who are on average a net drain, so I'm glad someone is contributing

But as I eluded too in my post, I was fully expecting a rebuttal using the same information to say exactly the opposite.....Lies, damn lies & statistics (and accountancy)

Skidder · 5 Nov 2014 at 09:14

derp moar ukippers

scorza · 5 Nov 2014 at 09:18

LordSplodge said:
That's not how the media is playing it out, it's all about economic costs. The diatribe of "They took our jobs", "200,000 Romanians are coming for your job", and so on and so forth.

Also, what exactly is "social cost"? and how are you measuring it?

That's because the media are largely in favour of migration so choose to misrepresent the argument against migration to one they can defend. Which incidentally you are now doing. I know you feel the need to stick up for your son and Polish daughter-in-law, but let's try to have a sensible debate about the actual issues eh?

There's no doubt that social cost is hard to pin down and measure, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. It's things like pressure on housing, schools, hospitals, changes in culture of an area, increases in people sleeping rough on the streets, and yes I know people don't want to hear it but the negative impact on pay and conditions that comes from a huge increase in the supply of labour.

robgmun · 5 Nov 2014 at 09:36

v0n said:
SNIP

V0n, that's a great post and i will answer it properly and fully in due coarse as it richly deserves it, it's just refreshing to someone to debate properly instead of resorting to childish name calling and throwing around labels, and on that applaud you.

On the other subject, even if we take the best estimates of 20bn over 10years, that's only 2bn per year. Where's the net cost of us being in the EU is almost 9bn. Also, people seem to be missing the point that the tax paying immigrates are usually skilled. Under a points based system a vast majority of the immigrated that are contributing to the economy will be welcomed with open arms.

The Geezer · 5 Nov 2014 at 10:24

robgmun said:
On the other subject, even if we take the best estimates of 20bn over 10years, that's only 2bn per year. Where's the net cost of us being in the EU is almost 9bn.

You seem to be forgetting the trade estimated at £70bn in your calculations.

Also, people seem to be missing the point that the tax paying immigrates are usually skilled.

Excellent, you have read the report nice to have you on board

robgmun · 5 Nov 2014 at 11:05

The Geezer said:
Excellent, you have read the report nice to have you on board

Great, so you agree with the rest of my point then, immigrants that contribute to the UK will still be able to come to the UK after we leave the EU.

SciNeT · 5 Nov 2014 at 12:42

robgmun said:
V0n, that's a great post and i will answer it properly and fully in due coarse as it richly deserves it, it's just refreshing to someone to debate properly instead of resorting to childish name calling and throwing around labels, and on that applaud you.

Oh I don't know, I think the childish "hurr durr yukeep dey raycyst innit bruv" brigade are doing themselves more harm than good, plus it always raises a bit of a smile with me, win win

deuse · 5 Nov 2014 at 12:57

Freakbro said:
Can you point out to me where in the report it shows that? I can't find it

You did read it all before posting? No? Look on the BBC for a shorter version and next time read before you post

platypus · 5 Nov 2014 at 13:08

robgmun said:
as in principle, everything is wrong about it.

Except it's anything but. In Principle, the EU is about a better Europe. Whether that bears out is of course open to interpretation.

In your opinion it might not be good to be part of the EU, but in principle? No.

platypus · 5 Nov 2014 at 13:14

scorza said:
I knew someone would post this. Chairman of Migration Watch, the now Sir Andrew Green, did an excellent rebuttal of this report on the Today Programme this morning, the author of the report was almost in tears at the end of it.

The Geezer said:
I too listened to the interview but it was nothing like that, the CREAM researcher / representative stuck to the facts of the report which are hard to dispute however Sir Andrew only ever had one response "our public services can not take the pressure" did he back it up with any evidence of course he didn't.

Again anecdotal based arguments when faced with facts

I was going to reply to that, but you did it for me Geezer. Another nonsensical, mis-representing post from Scorza.