UKIP propose 5 year ban on immigration if elected

[nino_savatte]

UKIP...does anyone take them seriously? Nigel Farage...what is he besides a disaffected former Tory and Thatcherite arse-licker?

I almost tend to agree with what another poster said about them: they were set up by the state to divert votes away from the BNP. But UKIP are a single issue party and a single issue party they will remain.

 

[goneforlunch]

From UKIP:

The UK Independence Party is calling for a five-year freeze on immigration into Britain and a future policy that would see migrants controlled by a points system similar to that operated by Australia and New Zealand...

The rest of the statement on the proposed policy on the 5-year immigration freeze is here.

I've heard the rumour that UKIP was set up by the establishment to occupy and isolate opponents to the EU, but that's all it is. Even if the rumour is true, at least opponents now have a political party that actually voices their concerns. And UKIP is not a single issue party, it has a full policy manifesto.

 

[nino_savatte]

And UKIP is not a single issue party, it has a full policy manifesto.

And what other policies does it have in its manifesto? It exists as a xenophobic bulwark against Europe. It's a sort of refuge for Tories who can't stomach the pro-Euro sounding noises that come from Smith Square.

 

[Fruitloop]

most anarcho-lefties are internationalists in many senses of the word. they like immigration, they like emigration, they want to support the working classes of all nations. while a nationalistic lefty might support closed borders or limited immigration and emigration, nationalistic leftism is insular and dangerous due to the pressures of international right-wing states putting pressure on an insular left-wing state in the hope that thye collapse and fail.

like people keep saying to durutti, the reason why the british left don't adopt some sort of nationalistic insular policy is because it runs counter to the instincts and politics of most british lefties.

IMO, obv

That's because a Mexican worker matters as much as a UK one. National electoral politics is a waste of time and effort anyway from a geniune left perspective, so why waste energy pandering to Mondeo-man?

 

[nino_savatte]

If anyone can find a policy on this website that isn't related to immigration, please tell me.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php

I haven't been able to find one. Even their conference section is threadbare.

 

[goneforlunch]

Try here

[From the main page: On the right hand side is a list headed About UKIP - click on UKIP - and Manifestos is another link near the top. I only found it after someone pointed it out to me.] The conference section is bare because the conference only took place at the end of last week.

I'm also in favour of this policy:

The UK Independence Party has come out strongly in favour of the Commonwealth as the key to Britain's future in a globalised economy. In a radical policy paper announced at its annual conference in London, it calls for the creation of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area and renegotiation of our relationship with the EU on a trade-only basis.

"We support what is called globalisation in its true sense – that is, the growing inter-dependence of developed, developing and undeveloped economies on the basis of free co-operation and competition," the policy paper says.

The rest of the statement is here

 

[Fruitloop]

They should ban handguns and heroin while they're at it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Try here

[From the main page: On the right hand side is a list headed About UKIP - click on UKIP - and Manifestos is another link near the top. I only found it after someone pointed it out to me.] The conference section is bare because the conference only took place at the end of last week.

I'm also in favour of this policy:

The other parties have managed to put some conference stuff on their sites. Why can't UKIP?

the creation of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area

Hmmm, this is an alternative to dealing with grubby foreigners? Better to deal with the foreigners we know (i.e. the ones we used to rule) than the ones we don't. Still, there is also the issue of so-called free trade and what it actually means. it means a lot to those who see themselves as leading proponents but to those at the bottom of the economic ladder it's business as usual.

 

[Belushi]

The UK Independence Party has come out strongly in favour of the Commonwealth as the key to Britain's future in a globalised economy. In a radical policy paper announced at its annual conference in London, it calls for the creation of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area and renegotiation of our relationship with the EU on a trade-only basis.

Have they actually asked the Commonwealth whether they want to be part of this?

 

[butchersapron]

The commonwealth? Fucking hell, did they miss the last 30 years?

 

[nino_savatte]

Surely they mean The Empire?

Imperial preference and all that - wot?

 

[tbaldwin]

most anarcho-lefties are internationalists in many senses of the word. they like immigration, they like emigration, they want to support the working classes of all nations. while a nationalistic lefty might support closed borders or limited immigration and emigration, nationalistic leftism is insular and dangerous due to the pressures of international right-wing states putting pressure on an insular left-wing state in the hope that thye collapse and fail.

like people keep saying to durutti, the reason why the british left don't adopt some sort of nationalistic insular policy is because it runs counter to the instincts and politics of most british lefties.

IMO, obv

And in my opinion, if your an Internationalist. You need to look at the International consequences of Immigration.

The problem is that large sections of the UK left are little englander's. ( Who think they are Internationalists!!!!!)

For these Little Englanders on the Left to be supporting free market immigration policies is preety sad.
It shows that some of them have a long way to go before they can genuinelly claim to be Internationalist.

 

[butchersapron]

Surely they mean The Empire?

Imperial preference and all that - wot?

It's ridicluous on so many levels, includsng of course the cultural assumptions that you mention - taking on capitals perspective for a moment, let's chuck our future hopes in with a load of third and fourth tier countries with neither the markets not the funds to do anything for anyone and that are already tied to structural changes dictated by the IMF/WB etc.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's ridicluous on so many levels, includsng of course the cultural assumptions that you mention - taking on capitals perspective for a moment, let's chuck our future hopes in with a load of third and fourth tier countries with neither the markets not the funds to do anything for anyone and that are already tied to structural changes dictated by the IMF/WB etc.

Proof (as if it were needed) that UKIP live in the past.

 

[goneforlunch]

The other parties have managed to put some conference stuff on their sites. Why can't UKIP?

Because UKIP, compared to the other parties, is a very small, underfunded party which hasn't had the time to update its website, perhaps? It does need to become more professional, possibly even more slick, to begin to answer its critics.

Hmmm, this is an alternative to dealing with grubby foreigners? Better to deal with the foreigners we know (i.e. the ones we used to rule) than the ones we don't. Still, there is also the issue of so-called free trade and what it actually means. it means a lot to those who see themselves as leading proponents but to those at the bottom of the economic ladder it's business as usual.

Don't forget this part from the UKIP statement you quoted from:

"... and renegotiation of our relationship with the EU on a trade-only basis."


No one thinks we ought to exclude trade with the EU's members. In using the "grubby foreigner" argument you're engaging in long since dead debates. If I'm to believe you, then you need to explain why the EU is good for the people of the UK.

It's ridicluous on so many levels, includsng of course the cultural assumptions that you mention - taking on capitals perspective for a moment, let's chuck our future hopes in with a load of third and fourth tier countries with neither the markets not the funds to do anything for anyone and that are already tied to structural changes dictated by the IMF/WB etc.

The Commonwealth countries are amongst the world's fastest growing economies. So what is stupid is chucking our future hopes in with the ridiculously overly protectionist EU and allowing it to dictate our trading relationships with non-EU countries.

 

[butchersapron]

The Commonwealth countries are amongst the world's fastest growing economies. So what is stupid is chucking our future hopes in with the ridiculously overly protectionist EU and allowing it to dictate our trading relationships with non-EU countries.

Are they really goneforlunch? Are they really?

And no, again from capitals persepective - you're barmy. There's quite clearly 3 blocs in formation - the EU, the US and SEA - the commonwealth isn't even in the picture. Tying yourself to the past is rarely the best option. esp for a country that's largley based on financial bollocks - and guess where the centre of that finanical bollocks is becoming? It's not Harare.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because UKIP, compared to the other parties, is a very small, underfunded party which hasn't had the time to update its website, perhaps? It does need to become more professional, possibly even more slick, to begin to answer its critics.



Don't forget this part from the UKIP statement you quoted from:

"... and renegotiation of our relationship with the EU on a trade-only basis."


No one thinks we ought to exclude trade with the EU's members. In using the "grubby foreigner" argument you're engaging in long since dead debates. If I'm to believe you, then you need to explain why the EU is good for the people of the UK.



The Commonwealth countries are amongst the world's fastest growing economies. So what is stupid is chucking our future hopes in with the ridiculously overly protectionist EU and allowing it to dictate our trading relationships with non-EU countries.

"Renegotiation" translated means "Out of Europe...wir bist kleines Englanders - verstehen sie"?

If I'm to believe you, then you need to explain why the EU is good for the people of the UK.

If I do that then you are going to have to explain why UKIP have used the word "Commonwealth" to describe a process that looks little different to Imperial Preference.

 

[bluestreak]

And in my opinion, if your an Internationalist. You need to look at the International consequences of Immigration.

The problem is that large sections of the UK left are little englander's. ( Who think they are Internationalists!!!!!)

For these Little Englanders on the Left to be supporting free market immigration policies is preety sad.
It shows that some of them have a long way to go before they can genuinelly claim to be Internationalist.

so they take a nationalist and insular position to counteract the free market effect?

poppycock balders.

there are plenty of people around here who are keen to point out that sharing aims as the BNP doesn't make you a racist. well, i throw it back, sharing a border policy with free-market capitalists doesn't make you a free-market capitalist.

 

[goneforlunch]

"Renegotiation" translated means "Out of Europe...wir bist kleines Englanders - verstehen sie"?



If I do that then you are going to have to explain why UKIP have used the word "Commonwealth" to describe a process that looks little different to Imperial Preference.

Renegotiation is impossible from within the EU, so yes, it means out of the European Union. Leaving "Europe" is impossible.

To the second point ... the empire no longer exists, so it's not imperial preference any more than a trade agreement between any other independent nations is.

Over to you ...

And how can I be a little Englander and believe in global free trade at the same time? You have your thinking mixed up.

 

[Spion]

so i do not believe the key is an internationalist intervention BUT a strictly pro working class intervention .. pointing out the reality of why immigration is happenning, its affects ( here in the donor countries inc the positive and negantoives) and working class solutions

So, what is your working class solution? If asked by a person concerned about immigration what would you tell them you think should be done about it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry, not read whole of thread.

But if this is true, are the going to confiscate our passports and ban emigration for 5 years too?

Bless 'em, they haven't really thought this through, have they?

 

[goneforlunch]

Sorry, not read whole of thread.

But if this is true, are the going to confiscate our passports and ban emigration for 5 years too?

Bless 'em, they haven't really thought this through, have they?

Considered and well argued, as ever, littlebabyjesus.

 

[nino_savatte]

Renegotiation is impossible from within the EU, so yes, it means out of the European Union. Leaving "Europe" is impossible.

To the second point ... the empire no longer exists, so it's not imperial preference any more than a trade agreement between any other independent nations is.

Over to you ...

And how can I be a little Englander and believe in global free trade at the same time? You have your thinking mixed up.

1. Leaving Europe or the EU amounts to pretty much the same thing. While one is physically impossible, the other isn't. Besides, there are many in this country (especially those in UKIP and the Tories) who don't see Britain as part of Europe. Odd, because last time I checked we were living on an island off the Northwest coast of Europe.
   
2. It's an empire in all but name...or, rather, a boys club. We can all pretend that it's still really an empire.
   
3. Because UKIP inhabits a paradoxical world where it wants everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[goneforlunch]

1. Leaving Europe or the EU amounts to pretty much the same thing. While one is physically impossible, the other isn't. Besides, there are many in this country (especially those in UKIP and the Tories) who don't see Britain as part of Europe. Odd, because last time I checked we were living on an island off the Northwest coast of Europe.
   
2. It's an empire in all but name...or, rather, a boys club.
   
3. Because UKIP inhabits a paradoxical world where it wants everything and nothing at the same time.

1. No it doesn't. Britain IS a part of Europe. Always has been and always will be, I'm very pleased to say. OK? It is also a part of the European Union with many, especially its mainstream politicians, keen to remain so. However, why that should be in the British people's interests is not clear.
   
2. What is?
   
3. Absolute bollocks.

If I'm to believe you, then you need to explain why the EU is good for the people of the UK.

Answer that satisfactorily and you win the argument and I'll be happy to concede. Simple, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Is it worth looking at the "Aliens" Act of 1905 - which were the first restrictions on immigration since the Napoleonic era?

 

[butchersapron]

Is it? They were largely ignored.

 

[nino_savatte]

1. No it doesn't. Britain IS a part of Europe. Always has been and always will be, I'm very pleased to say. OK? It is also a part of the European Union with many, especially its mainstream politicians, keen to remain so. However, why that should be in the British people's interests is not clear.
   
2. What is?
   
3. Absolute bollocks.

Answer that satisfactorily and you win the argument and I'll be happy to concede. Simple, but I won't hold my breath.

Come off it, UKIP and the Tories constantly bitch about Europe and if one unpacks much of what is said, one finds that there is a good deal of xenophobia at the heart of it all. Europe is wrong, Europe is evil and the EU is Satan's handmaiden.

What is?

I don't think I could have made it any clearer. How about reading my post - eh?

Absolute bollocks.

Such insight. UKIP want to be free of the EU but want to use it for trade purposes. That sounds like a paradox to me. It sounds as though someone doesn't know whether they want a shit or a haircut.

It's going to be one of those "answer my question and I'll answer yours". How juvenile, how tedious. UKIP want nothing more that to tell everyone how bad the EU is and how we would be so much better winding back the clock to the days of Empire. There is little to convince me that UKIP is anything other than a marginal party of cranks, Tory rejects and people who are too gutless to join the BNP.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

1. 
   Answer that satisfactorily and you win the argument and I'll be happy to concede. Simple, but I won't hold my breath.

1. 
   
   Three for starters:
   
   1. It provides the people of the UK with the right to live and work anywhere in the EU.
   
   2. The Court of Human Rights provides guarantees that we would otherwise not have as the UK has no constitution.
   
   3. Those living in more deprived areas benefit from EU handouts where the UK government systematically failed to provide investment for decades - hence the areas are so deprived.
   
   Anybody care to add?

 

[goneforlunch]

Three for starters:

1. It provides the people of the UK with the right to live and work anywhere in the EU.

2. The Court of Human Rights provides guarantees that we would otherwise not have as the UK has no constitution.

3. Those living in more deprived areas benefit from EU handouts where the UK government systematically failed to provide investment for decades - hence the areas are so deprived.

Anybody care to add?

1. That also applies to members of EFTA countries, and is not therefore a benefit of being an EU member.

2. The Court of Human Rights has done nothing to promote the British people's rights since it came into being. There are more restritions on us now than there have ever been before.

3. British people living in more deprived areas don't benefit because we are NET contributors to the EU budget. We give the EU money and it gives some of it back with conditions as to how we might spend it. That's not a benefit, it's an imposition.

Yeah, anybody care to add?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

3. British people living in more deprived areas don't benefit because we are NET contributors to the EU budget. We give the EU money and it gives some of it back with conditions as to how we might spend it. That's not a benefit, it's an imposition.

People in deprived areas aren't net contributors.

People in rich places like London are. And quite rightly so.

As for point 2, you are very wrong - I'll provide a link when I have time.

Here's a link found at random - protecting UK citizens from extra-judicial execution:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/009.html

Oh, and...

4. Limits on the working week and minimum holiday guarantees.