Ukip
- Thread starter tillson
- Start date
I am supporter of Ukip and don't regard myself as a racist.
It is a libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union
If that excludes me, then that is political persecution and should be condemned if we live in a free society.
It is a libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union
If that excludes me, then that is political persecution and should be condemned if we live in a free society.
I strongly disagree with UKIP's policies, but support their rights in this democratic society. I understand that their stance on immigration can cause friction and I think it would be better for them if they kept that issue out of their politics. I don't see that membership of the EU and acceptance of immigrants from outside the EU are in any way politically connected.
Immigration is not the real issue. The soverignty and control of our own borders are of great concern across the poltical divide.
I agree, and clearly some people are polar opposites in opinion on this issue EU/immigration on this forum, but this is such a nice place we all get along... many sites have crazy wars over these issues and don't seem to be able to respect others different politics without resorting to silly labels and name calling etc.
I think most know my views are anti-EU and I would welcome our withdrawal from it and taking control of our borders and laws etc. I don't subscribe to the EU vision of a federal European United States which seems to be their ultimate aim. I think the project is doomed to fail because countries are just too different in so many ways, politically, socially, economically.. The EU is a nice concept but it's gone too far I think and needs to be reigned in, with clear parameters and limits set on how far our membership goes. Take the Euro.. the public is strongly opposed to it, we want to keep our pound and independence, yet the government keeps saying "when the time is right" and believes we can join! I think the fact UKIP exists and made in-roads in the MEP elections shows the strength of public opposition to government policy of further European integration. That opposition is growing steadily every year.
Some say, the key to getting "free" of the EU is to completely devolve the United Kingdom politically and break up Westminster... in other words, to have an English assembly alongside, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and let each decide their EU membership position.Westminster has too much power and is increasingly out of touch with people, with this big-3 party politics, all with pretty much the same policy on Europe.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
What's politics got to do with electric bikes. I don't care if someone is a member of Hamas, a transexual, or what as long as they contribute something useful and don't try and convert me.
According to various sources(Nostradamus, The Bible, The Mayan Civilization) sometime next monthWhich is due very soon, just waiting on the four horsemen
ps, I wonder if january sales will start before 21st of december
Last edited:
I take it tillson you're responding to that story that's just come out about a Labour-run Council where Social Services in their wisdom decided that two foster parents being UKIP members makes them unfit parents to foster non-English children, so has removed the children from them?
On the surface it does look like political correctness gone mad that story and has enraged some people. However, I think there's more to this one and it could be the media have sensationalised it to some degree and focused on the UKIP membership... I do think it does seem OTT though how they just removed the children without even discussing it or any evidence of wrong-doing or bad views held by the parents..merely being UKIP members, to a political party with tough immigration policies shouldn't make them unfit parents for non-English children! UKIP is not the BNP! What would happen then I wonder, take the kids AND put the parents in prison? heh.
The reason I say the media may have blown this one up is because the parents had only had the children a matter of weeks..and the Council's Social Services had been criticised for not considering the "cultural needs" of non-English children in some foster placements, so maybe they were a over-cautious and protecting themselves from further criticism, rather than discriminating or acting bigoted towards the parents for being opposed to multiculturalism and mass immigration. Maybe they questioned whether these views could affect the children etc. It seems the parents weren't just UKIP voters, but long-standing members, so maybe more involved in party activities.
Last edited:
The thread was in The Charging Post though Dave:
Forum: The Charging Post
A place to recharge your batteries, meet new friends and talk about things not specifically related to electric bikes.
I think the position on EU is that either you're fully behind this vision of a federal European superstate,or you're not.. you can't really be in between like the UK is...at least not with the EU on it's present course and with it's present roadmap for how the future will be..
The UK governments and mainstream parties say they support continued EU membership for UK and further integration, because they believe it's in the UK's long-term interests to remain an EU member. Some have even warned of dire consequences and a threat to the very future of the UK (in other words, an inevitable full devolution, as other countries in the UK, i.e. Scotland, may wish to remain members) if the UK votes out of the EU in a referendum.
So what would a federal European Superstate be like? Much like the United States one would imagine, and not that different to how it as at present..open borders, federal laws and a fully federalised economy and government. This would no doubt result in nation states becoming less independent or important as individual nations states, with less spending on things like military for example, much like States of the United States. I imagine it wouldn't be long before the EU had it's own military, civil aviation, space program, healthcare system etc, due to the benefits of greater scale of economy. There were indications the EU was moving towards that vision in its earlier treaty for a "Federal Europe" which made provision for a unified military, which the UK opposed and subsequently got watered down.
I think we can have all the benefits of an EU that works to the benefit of all countries and keeps Europe peaceful, friendly and an efficient place to trade and live etc.. but without complete integration and creating a federal superstate. I think the benefits of a federal system are outweighed by the costs and problems it's already creating. It seems EU countries can never agree on anything as the latest budget fiasco demonstrates, with half of Europe pushing for increased spending (because they're not net contributors) and the other half who write the cheques (including us) pushing for cuts or freezes to spending.
The UK governments and mainstream parties say they support continued EU membership for UK and further integration, because they believe it's in the UK's long-term interests to remain an EU member. Some have even warned of dire consequences and a threat to the very future of the UK (in other words, an inevitable full devolution, as other countries in the UK, i.e. Scotland, may wish to remain members) if the UK votes out of the EU in a referendum.
So what would a federal European Superstate be like? Much like the United States one would imagine, and not that different to how it as at present..open borders, federal laws and a fully federalised economy and government. This would no doubt result in nation states becoming less independent or important as individual nations states, with less spending on things like military for example, much like States of the United States. I imagine it wouldn't be long before the EU had it's own military, civil aviation, space program, healthcare system etc, due to the benefits of greater scale of economy. There were indications the EU was moving towards that vision in its earlier treaty for a "Federal Europe" which made provision for a unified military, which the UK opposed and subsequently got watered down.
I think we can have all the benefits of an EU that works to the benefit of all countries and keeps Europe peaceful, friendly and an efficient place to trade and live etc.. but without complete integration and creating a federal superstate. I think the benefits of a federal system are outweighed by the costs and problems it's already creating. It seems EU countries can never agree on anything as the latest budget fiasco demonstrates, with half of Europe pushing for increased spending (because they're not net contributors) and the other half who write the cheques (including us) pushing for cuts or freezes to spending.
Last edited:
In the above is the answer to your own post and the reason why a federal Europe is the answer.
Within a federation as in the USA the States make their own laws which can mostly overrule the central government laws. This takes care of the national differences, there are none in that system.
But the Federal Government calls the shots internationally with the power to achieve. Your proposal lacks that power so is internationally weak in the face of the giant nations and still leaves differences between European nations since there will still have to be club rules in your version of Europe
Earlier this year, the Queen paid a visit to Leicester, which was duly reported on TV news. At the end of the news item, the news reader commented that Leicester was the first city in the UK having a population where the ethnic minorities outnumbered the English. It was that word "first" that bothered me. So obviously, there are plans for many others.
Here in Boston, Lincs, officially imigrants account for 25% of the population. The truth is very different from that. Walk through town on any day of the week, and you will notice that there are few people speaking English. Polish, Russian and Latvian, but rarely English. You have only got to look at schools and Doctors waiting rooms to see we are already well outnumbered.
If I had wanted to live in a town where everyone spoke a foreign language, I would have moved to Russia, Poland or Lithuania.
I met an old guy once in Holland who had lived through German occupation during the war. After the war his country was "occupied" by British troops. He said that if you met German soldiers on the pavement, you had to step into the road. The difference with the British soldiers, was that THEY would step into the road. Walking the pavements of Boston today, I know exactly how he felt.
Here in Boston, Lincs, officially imigrants account for 25% of the population. The truth is very different from that. Walk through town on any day of the week, and you will notice that there are few people speaking English. Polish, Russian and Latvian, but rarely English. You have only got to look at schools and Doctors waiting rooms to see we are already well outnumbered.
If I had wanted to live in a town where everyone spoke a foreign language, I would have moved to Russia, Poland or Lithuania.
I met an old guy once in Holland who had lived through German occupation during the war. After the war his country was "occupied" by British troops. He said that if you met German soldiers on the pavement, you had to step into the road. The difference with the British soldiers, was that THEY would step into the road. Walking the pavements of Boston today, I know exactly how he felt.
Not "plans for many others". That "first" refers to the natural effect of birth rates which are higher until peoples achieve higher living standards. In the short term immigrant populations will rise more than the national one, and we also have movement in the form of emigration of nationals altering the balance.
I very much doubt that immigrants outnumber nationals in Boston, most such impressions being grossly inaccurate. Those impressions occur for many reasons, chief among them being that immigrants are more noticeable to nationals than other nationals, some other ethnics are more inclined to street culture, and poor, overcrowded accommodation that immigrants often suffer forces them onto the streets more.
Your comments remind me of the Welsh town of 40,000 population where the people took to the streets in a protest march against the number of immigrants that were taking over the place according to them. There were in fact 22 immigrants resident there.
Some years later a similar protest was held at Dover (population 36,500) about immigration "swamping" them. There were some 500 new immigrants temporarily there pending being redistributed around the country.
I'm proud to live in a London where a third of the population weren't born in Britain and second generation Britons are probably the minority. It doesn't bother me, 95% of us get on famously together and I wouldn't have it any different.
Perhaps I should establish a United Kingdom Integration Party, called UKIP.
.
Last edited:
Immigration 'may' be a necessity ....
Ageing of the baby boomers demands more peeps of working age paying tax than the 'nationals' can provide.
Without getting into the emotional topics of who are the scroungers and enough jobs and so on... more tax needs to come in, but then I'm sure that the maths and averages have been worked out by people a lot cleverer than me with my motley collection of certificates that includes 100 yard breast stroke.
Ageing of the baby boomers demands more peeps of working age paying tax than the 'nationals' can provide.
Without getting into the emotional topics of who are the scroungers and enough jobs and so on... more tax needs to come in, but then I'm sure that the maths and averages have been worked out by people a lot cleverer than me with my motley collection of certificates that includes 100 yard breast stroke.
This situation is only because of the UK's level of national and international spending I believe.. we're only a tiny country in reality that spends far beyond its means. That's why we need more and more foreign people and cheap labour to maintain the high level of government spending.
The solution is not to continue spending more and keep mass immigration flowing until the country no longer resembles Great Britain, it's to drastically reduce government spending and completely scale down the UK, so that we have expenditure that is proportional to the size of our country and standing in the world..we should be more like Switzerland. Get tough on welfare reform and adopt the US approach. Scrap all the military expenditure, forget fighting all these foreign wars, give up any claim over foreign islands if necessary, and just face the reality that we're no longer a superpower state that has the resources and economy the US has to do these sort of things.
I think that would mean swallowing national pride a bit, but I also think it would mean a better quality of life and better country, much like Switzerland. Lower taxes, less overcrowding, and continual drain on resources like the NHS etc.
Last edited:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I really don't think that cunning plan that will work baldrick, lol
Unless of course cold fusion as a method of giving cheap and limitless power to the world has been perfected, food grown in laboratories thats not affected by wind / rain and pestilence and world population decreases and stabilises and so on and so on.