Good explanation Chris but the party prisoners still won't get it.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Jenny is NOT a member of the Conservative party Chris - ask her.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I have just got my summer Bulletin from Brussels,did you know that Mr Jerzy Buzek who is the President of the European Parliament and was not elected into his position so cannot be removed.Well he gets paid more then Mr Obama the USA president.And again in this Bulletin Mr Nigel Farage of UKIP said, "And it is true he really does have the charisma of a damp rag" The President of the European Parliament has imposed the maximum,possible fine of 10days allowances on Mr Farage and told it must never happen again.
In return Mr Farage has wrote this"Quite how they are going to enforce this we will find out when I have recovered from my plane crash,he goes on to say "This is the new face of the EU, where criticism is not allowed.Yet when Dany Cohn-Bendit abused the Czech President,Vaclav Klaus that was fine".
But I am glad to say that Mr Farage will carry on in his own way and geting his views over(Same as myself you could say.
He goes on to say ."In a series of speeches two years ago I predicted the demise of Greece trapped inside the prison of nations that is the Euro. I intend to return to the supject when I am back.Expect the European Parliament to not be very happy!.
Mr N Farage- Co-President of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
certainly not the retiring type is nigel farage.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Chris
You seem hell bent on causing as much offence as you possibly can. I gave you the courtesy of a full and 'defensive' post trying to drum it through some fairly obnoxious insults that UKIP is not at all xenophopbic, but that many in this country are concerned not with Johnny Foreigner invading our space, but concerned that too many people in this country are quite happy to enter EU economics without thinking the consequences through. You, for example.
Next time I shall not bother with trying to give a rational and reasoned debate but will give you the two word answer that your nasty jibes merit.
True friends stab you in the front.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
time to call a halt on the agressive stuff i think.
Just to clarify Vic, I think you are actually referring to Herman Van Rompuy,
the President of Europe, who apparently is the highest paid leader in the western world.
Which of course makes it even stranger that virtually nobody outside of Brussels has even heard of the bloke!
Xenophobia is basically being unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign. Based on that definition UKIP fails to make the grade and Chris erroneously made the accusation. However,, swap foreign for European Union and the cap fits.
As for trading with the Commonwealth, I used to think we should do more and sever our dependence on European trade. But, over the years, amny studies have conclusivley proven this would be an economic disaster for the UK. Membership of NAFTA has also been touted as an alternative, but this too is completely impractical as it would mean an almost complete dependance on the U.S. for trade. We have no natural trading alliance with Mexico, unless of course we aim to get Ginsters to export pasties to the only other country in the world where they are enjoyed!
My view is UKIP are misguided and hanging on to an idea that is so out of vogue with voters under 40 that they will become ever more marginalised at elections. I don't think the public see any relevance of their European policy to vote for them substantally at local elections and even when it comes to the European parliamentary elections they don't exactly sweep the board.
Good luck to those who buy into this party's ideals but also get ready to follow the SDP into a puff of smoke at some point.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Corncerning e.u. policies of imposing fines to make people shut up and not critisize the e.u. system, it is a nasty and fatal 1984 tactic to destroy Democracy in any of its even limited manifestations, and to destroy freedom of speech.
As for critisizing UKIP and calling our thinking xonophobia, I have already decided not to even bother discussing with such people when I know that they are fully aware what UKIP stand for.
As for e.u., it is a system of meglomania, that will end in due course of time, albeit the hard way.
Personally I do not even present my economic ideas anymore on the Forum, as it lead nowhere, so I keep them for myself nowadays. I have better do to with my talent!
Sid, I think it`s wishful thinking on your part that UKIP, at some point, will be disappearing into a "puff of smoke". At this moment in time the party is still growing and all the time we are in the EU that will continue to be the case. Unless of course we are given that referendum and it`s the peoples decision to retain our membership. Both of which being highly unlikely!
With regard to your comments about UKIP not "exactly sweeping the board" at the last European Elections, it`s true we didn`t win, but we increased our share of the vote and for a so called "minor party" to beat both Labour and the Lib-dems in a national election has to tell you something surely?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
From the UKIP Manifesto 2010.
The existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees must be enforced until such time as Britain withdraws from the Convention and replaces it with an Asylum Act. To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers would be held in secure, humane processing centres until applications are processed, with limited appeals. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first 'designated safe country' that they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have already had their applications refused would be required to leave the country, along with any dependents.
Except where visa waiver agreements have been concluded with other countries, all travellers to the UK will be required to obtain a visa from a British Embassy or High Commission. All non-work permit visa entrants to the UK (except where reciprocal arrangements exist) will be required to have taken out adequate health insurance. Student visas would require face to face interviews.
UKIP would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future the British courts would not be allowed to appeal to any international treaty or convention to override or set aside the provisions of any statue passed by Parliament.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Why did you not go on to the end.Reintroduce The"Primary Purpose Rule"(Abolished by the Labour Government) whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen will have to convince the admit-miting officer that marriage, not residence ,is their primary purpose in seeking to enter the Uk.
As we have just seen in Hastings over 300 such marriages went ahead and now it is hope to stop it happing again .
End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and nationl government and all the publicly funded bodies.I think that is right to do so.
If you are going to write about what it tells you in the UKIP MANIFESTTO please write it all just like I done last May.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I do think I quoted enough to show the flavour of the proposals. As a comparison try this (and I will not post the whole of their manifesto either).
BNP Manifesto 2005.
3. Under present circumstances we would abide by our obligations under the 1951
United Nations Convention on Refugees. We recognise the existence of
legitimate international refugees from persecution and war, but point to the fact
that international law provides that such persons must be given - and must seek refuge in the nearest safe country. So, unless a flood of refugees from a civil war in France or Denmark shows up on our shores, these refugees are simply not Britain's responsibility and have no right to refuge here.
This is not a position of callousness: it is a principled stand that all the problems
of the world are neither Britain's fault nor our responsibility - or even in our
capacity - to solve. In order to further the proper handling of refugees in the
appropriate place (not in the advanced Western societies to which they gravitate
out of economic self-interest) we will be prepared to contribute funds to refugee
relief programmes which respect these principles.
4. We will reform the laws and law enforcement of the UK so that, with respect to
refugees and illegal immigrants, there are no blind eyes turned to violations, no
amnesties to reward law-breaking, and no extensive appeals against legal
decisions. We will place the burden of proof upon the claimant to prove his or
her legitimate presence in this country. We will require persons whose cases are
pending to be held in refugee centres, not at large in the community.
5. We will impose a permanent lifetime ban on re-entry into Britain for any reason on any person found guilty of having violated British entry or immigration laws, enforced by instant deportation.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
What is your point you are trying to make?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all good intellectual stuff from chris and vic, gone over my head.
just one point though, it was realised by the last government that multiculturalism was dead in the water and we had to go ahead as one.
the new government sees things differently, when one of the new intake said that he would not discuss anything with someone that had his or her face covered he was slaughtered by his own party.
seems that we are back to square one with a divided britain.
As Vic has said Mr. P. just what is the point you are trying to make?
Or are you simply one of the "let `em all in brigade" whatever the consequences for our future generations?
We all know how good Labour were at supposedly managing immigration, telling us one thing and then the exact opposite happening. Although as we all know only too well, that really was part of their social engineering plans of course. ( and of which nobody had voted for! )
Howard, it was actually realised by th Briutish people, not the Labour Government or any other band of politicians to be fair. MP's and in particular, Labour MP's, responded ONLY because they knew it would cost them seats in an election they were already likely to lose. There is little or no credit due to LAbour on this matter.
Let's not praise any politicians on this subject. We, the people, made our feelings known first.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I didn't think I was a racist, nor particularly xenophobic, but I can't see much wrong with either manifesto there.
The main point is that we have allowed and seem to continue to allow, far too many people in, whose only purpose is to be a financial burden on the state.
People with qualifications, people who want to work, people who pay taxes, I don't have a problem with at all; the illegals, ones perhaps who have come in to England on the back of a truck, or thrown their passport away on the plane here, or those come here with the aid of people-traffickers, should be sent straight back to the country they came from, for them to take responsibility for them.
We cannot house the world's refugees here.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Both Sid and Roger are right and I feel the same way,Game,Set, and Match.Thank you.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Blimey fair bit to reply to;
Firstly, I do understand that UKIP did well in the KCC election
but Still fell far short of getting anywhe
r near winning seat.
get nowt for 2nd
On the local election side town council there is now many issues developed.
Chris has muddied the waters which I don't blame him, but I think everyone will see through it.
But before that I think we shouldn't pick out a few good cllrs s there are more that have not been mentioned IE john goodwin, Sue ANicholas to name a few.
On the town council(if everyone was honest, but I doubt they will be)
There are 18 cllrs
11 labour(of which 4 support the indy party) 6 indy and 1 tory
I have to say found it strange Jennie Morgan standing for Tories at District(was she member of tories the question i ask now after rogers posting) then stood as indy party on town. but I have a lot of respect for Jenny, we have had many conversations over the years and I think we share many visions.
So this is an interesting set up, how it will pan out we are yet to see.