Nigel Farage MEP

ewan whose army

comongethappy wrote: »

Your bro may love UKIP..... UKIPs members don't love him.

Yet another sacking.... (You'd think a pattern has well formed.)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/28/ukip-councillor-sacked-newly-elected

The political earthquake has been so strong not even UKIP are immune to it.

Seriously though, I bet many people are starting to regret their vote for them/.

Its the same one I mentioned, however he has not been sacked not just suspended

dlouth15

ewan whose army wrote: »

Also consider the fact any job being given to a Non EU national has to prove they couldn't give it to a Non-EU national. Say me and this Iranian were applying for a job, we have similar degrees and both did well in the interview, the Iranian would have no chance since they would have to hire me a UK citizen.

Is that strict enough for you ?

You're OK with the principle that employers should hire one of our own over an outsider. You differ only in how you define "one of our own".

You: "one of our own" = European i.e. not Iranian, Indian, African etc.
Ukip: "one of our own" = British but allowing immigration based on skills but not biased necessarily towards "European" candidates.

What I'm trying to work out, is how Ukip's position is the more xenophobic. It is, after all, how most countries around the world operate.

sin_city

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say he doesn't know much about Japan.

He taught English there for a while and was there on holidays...have you been there?

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

You're OK with the principle that employers should hire one of our own over an outsider. You differ only in how you define "one of our own".

You: "one of our own" = European i.e. not Iranian, Indian, African etc.
Ukip: "one of our own" = British but allowing immigration based on skills but not biased necessarily towards "European" candidates.

What I'm trying to work out, is how Ukip's position is the more xenophobic. It is, after all, how most countries around the world operate.

You've outlined how it's the more xenophobic position very neatly yourself in that post, unless you believe that UKIP are advocating looser immigration controls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

He taught English there for a while and was there on holidays...have you been there?

Personal tourism stories are of little worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

You've outlined how it's the more xenophobic position very neatly yourself in that post, unless you believe that UKIP are advocating looser immigration controls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The first priorities Europeans as immigrants allowing them unrestricted access. Non-Europeans must qualify to enter Britain, must not displace a European from a job.

The second policy places all countries on an equal footing, entry being merit based.

I would regard the second as fairer and less xenophobic than the first.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

The first priorities Europeans as immigrants allowing them unrestricted access. Non-Europeans must qualify to enter Britain, must not displace a European from a job.

The second policy places all countries on an equal footing, entry being merit based.

I would regard the second as fairer and less xenophobic than the first.

Only if one completely ignores the fact that UKIP's policy involves very much tighter immigration controls, which, rather impressively, you appear to be doing.

One policy allows free movement to any EU citizen, the other blocks free movement for everybody but Brits (and maybe Irish, 'cos we're nearly Brits, right?). One policy starts with the idea that some non-Brits whose countries have signed up to a particular set of rules (including reciprocity) have a reasonable subset of the rights of UK citizens - the other policy starts with the idea that all foreigners are equally bad, and should all be stopped unless needed by native Brits.

I'm not really sure why you're trying to pretend that's not what's happening - it's the point of the exercise, after all, and it is pretty much written on the tin - Britain for the British.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo

dlouth15 wrote: »

The first priorities Europeans as immigrants allowing them unrestricted access. Non-Europeans must qualify to enter Britain, must not displace a European from a job.

The second policy places all countries on an equal footing, entry being merit based.

I would regard the second as fairer and less xenophobic than the first.

In other words, remove the UK from free trade and movement of people across Europe. You do realise that it is likely to work in reverse so all those ex-pats on the Costa Del Sol will be shipped back to blightly unless they have a skillset Spain needs!

dlouth15

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In other words, remove the UK from free trade and movement of people across Europe. You do realise that it is likely to work in reverse so all those ex-pats on the Costa Del Sol will be shipped back to blightly unless they have a skillset Spain needs!

I happen not to agree with the policy for various reasons. However in terms of fairness, I can't see how a policy that gives priority to members of other European countries simply on the basis that they are members of those countries.

Australia used to have a policy of favouring immigration from certain European countries. People from these countries could freely enter Australia. It was justified on the basis that there was a shared culture between Australia and parts of Europe that other groups such as Asians did not share. It was known as the White Australia policy. Quite correctly, this was considered racist and xenophobic and has been discontinued.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

I happen not to agree with the policy for various reasons. However in terms of fairness, I can't see how a policy that gives priority to members of other European countries simply on the basis that they are members of those countries.

And yet you don't see a problem with a policy that gives priority to citizens of one country simply on the basis that they are citizens of that country?

A Dub in Glasgo

dlouth15 wrote: »

However in terms of fairness, I can't see how a policy that gives priority to members of other European countries simply on the basis that they are members of those countries.

Reciprocity

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet you don't see a problem with a policy that gives priority to citizens of one country simply on the basis that they are citizens of that country?

That is the norm for any independent country. We don't call the immigration policy of, for example, Canada unfair because they don't have open door immigration from the rest of the world. We don't call them xenophobic either. Their immigration policy is, for the most part, based on merit and the labour requirements of that country.

dlouth15

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Reciprocity

Your point being that if it is based on reciprocity it is therefore fair, right?

I don't agree.

If a country wanted to favour immigration from a particular poor country, it could enter into a reciprocal agreement with that country knowing that the migration would be primarily one way. This would disadvantage potential immigrants from other countries. The White Australia policy could have been conducted on the basis of reciprocal agreements with predominantly white European countries. Labour shortages in Australia would have ensured that most of the migration was into Australia. Though based on reciprocity, the policy would still have been quite rightly labelled unfair and racist.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

That is the norm for any independent country.

And reciprocity is the norm in the EU. I wasn't talking about norms; I was talking about discrimination based on citizenship. You described as unfair a policy based on EU citizenship, while not seeing any issue with a policy based on national citizenship. Both seem equally arbitrary to me.

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

.................
I'm not really sure why you're trying to pretend that's not what's happening - it's the point of the exercise, after all, and it is pretty much written on the tin - Britain for the British.

cordially,
Scofflaw

...and then, of course, there's the fact of the evident confusion in the party over who is and is not "British".

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

And reciprocity is the norm in the EU. I wasn't talking about norms; I was talking about discrimination based on citizenship. You described as unfair a policy based on EU citizenship, while not seeing any issue with a policy based on national citizenship. Both seem equally arbitrary to me.

I don't see reciprocity as necessarily fair. See my response to A Dub in Glasgo.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't see reciprocity as necessarily fair.

And I don't see discrimination against foreigners as fair.

dlouth15

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I don't see discrimination against foreigners as fair.

Well this is the policy of the EU as a whole. It discriminates against non-Europeans trying to get in in favour of Europeans already in Europe. Xenophobic according to you?

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well this is the policy of the EU as a whole. It discriminates against non-Europeans trying to get in in favour of Europeans already in Europe. Xenophobic according to you?

It's discriminatory, sure. My point is that it's less discriminatory than a one-nationality policy.

A Dub in Glasgo

dlouth15 - I am a little confused, do you want to open up the borders to everyone or close the borders to everyone?

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's discriminatory, sure. My point is that it's less discriminatory than a one-nationality policy.

Do you feel you are victimised by the immigration policies of any country that places any barrier to your free entry and participation (or not) on a par with its citizens?

oscarBravo

opo wrote: »

Do you feel you are victimised by the immigration policies of any country that places any barrier to your free entry and participation (or not) on a par with its citizens?

I can't parse that, sorry.

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't parse that, sorry.

Enjoy your stay in Ireland.

jank

househero wrote: »

And Hitler just wanted to make Germany proud again.


Hahaha. No seriously Farce has the support of every racist in England, UKIP is dangerous now they have the support of the ex Nick Griffin voters.

I dislike every single far right politician as they are borderline racists supported by sun readers who have no idea how their own economy works, let alone grows. Immigrants have made the working class of England wealthy, happy to invade 1/3rd of the world take all it's wealth, then close the door...

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid. England is hated enough as it is.

Can you elaborate on this please? Immigration actually affects the working class population much more than any other class of people hence why most objection to large scale immigration stems from that side. Ironically the people who benefit most are big business and corporations, you know the guys the left hate as immigration drives down wages and increases competition in the labour market.

I have used this case many times as an example but the white-only immigration policy that was introduced in Australia was passed by a left wing labour party under pressure from the trade unions as they wanted to protect their members wages from any large scale immigration from Asia. It was the right leaning liberal party that finally did away with it. Even now, Tony Abbott the right leaning PM of Australia has relaxed rules for sponsorship of would be immigrants and has been critised by this by... yes you guessed it the left. So I presume the left are racists?

This is the key issue that most people miss when talking about immigration. It is not that people hate the Poles or Eastern Europeans in themselves or in isolation, its just some people resent them taking up jobs, hospital beds, welfare payments, school places that they may rightly or wrongly see as their own. There is finite amount of resources in a state so when competition for them increases people lose out and get pissed off. The manifestation of this is a backlash against large scale immigration which at the end may turn out to be racism but it does not start out as that. Its the key point that most people miss.

jank

Also, all this talk about the rise of Facism and Hitler and so on. It is just idiotic scaremongering. Hitler did not shy away from the fact that he wanted to create a German Reich fit for purpose for 1000 years in eastern Europe through the means of war and conquest. He was a war monger from day one.

UKIP have been old school non-interventionist since day one. They were against the Iraq war for example and more famously against action in Syria and Ukraine, yet good old enlightened Tony Blair invaded the place and Cameron was itching to get involved in Syria.

So if UKIP are the war mongers, what does that make New Labour and the Tories?

There are valid criticisms to be made of UKIP policy but throwing out the old tired labels is pretty pathetic.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's discriminatory, sure. My point is that it's less discriminatory than a one-nationality policy.

Here in Australia what nationality you come from is not determined or consequential in the decision that you get a permanent visa or not.

If you are educated, have relevant work experience, have a clean criminal record and of good health then you will get a visa if of course those skills are needed. It does not matter if you are from Kenya or Ireland.
This is what UKIP favour.

I think people are wanting to have their cake and eat it too regarding this specific point.

sin_city

Both my girlfriend and my brother’s girlfriend are from non-EU countries. Both have Masters Degrees and many years’ experience but it is easier for a non-skilled worker from Romania or Bulgaria to come and work in Ireland than it is for them.

Everyone against UKIP…do you support this type of discrimination?

jank

This is not even talking about the number of hoops that a non eu partner of an Irish person has to get through. My friend is bringing his fiancé back to Ireland for one of his friends wedding. She is Indonesian and has a university degree yet it took two letters from a TD to the dept. of foreign affairs to grant her a temp visa just to visit the country.... Crazy stuff!

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well this is the policy of the EU as a whole. It discriminates against non-Europeans trying to get in in favour of Europeans already in Europe. Xenophobic according to you?

One could argue that it's not xenophobic, since the principle is one of EU membership rather than some idea about who counts as 'foreign'. Free movement isn't an immigration policy as such, it's a free market in jobs (not welfare). The right of free movement to another EU country is dependent on being able to support oneself economically, and on the reciprocity of the arrangement.

And that reciprocity, which is required to make the EU a single labour market, is not the same as arranging a reciprocal "right of free movement" with a country where the movement will all be one way. The EU's free movement is two-way: the number of UK citizens living in other EU countries is almost exactly the same as the number of non-UK EU citizens living in the UK, at 2.2m and 2.3m respectively.

There's some ripe red herrings being thrown here, but I'm afraid they don't disguise the smell.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ewan whose army

househero wrote: »

And Hitler just wanted to make Germany proud again.


Hahaha. No seriously Farce has the support of every racist in England, UKIP is dangerous now they have the support of the ex Nick Griffin voters.

I dislike every single far right politician as they are borderline racists supported by sun readers who have no idea how their own economy works, let alone grows. Immigrants have made the working class of England wealthy, happy to invade 1/3rd of the world take all it's wealth, then close the door...

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid. England is hated enough as it is.

I find this post rather offensive. Have you ever been to England, watched question time or anything? You would find that 99.5% of the English can't stand Griffin. He only became a MEP due to PR he had like 3% of the vote in the election, people were horrified when their protest actually elected him.

I am going to question the claim that immigration has made the working class "wealthy" , having a load of unskilled immigration made the job market even worse and when the recession hit it was damn hard for someone without a degree to even find a job. Even Labour admit their immigration policy was a mess. Immigration can benefit a country, open doors immigration doesn't. I can't think of a country that has open doors immigration, Ireland doesn't have it.

happy to invade 1/3rd of the world take all it's wealth, then close the door...

Thats defamatory, why should you have to use the actions of our ancestors to accuse us of being racist. The UK is the most densely populated place in the EU its just not fair to use the actions of the elite centuries ago in this way.

England is hated enough as it is.

Call me old fashioned, but isn't that statement racist in itself?