Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UKIP propose 5 year ban on immigration if elected

bluestreak said:
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.

My position is not that of UKIPs.
It is not a Nationalist position. It does not put the so called National Interests of the UK first. It is clearly an Internationalist position.

And supporting a free market policy on migration under capitalism,is directly supporting free market capitalism.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
People in deprived areas aren't net contributors.:rolleyes: People in rich places like London are. And quite rightly so.
It still isn't a benefit to the British people. The money contributed to the EU budget should be spent on the British people, some of it in deprived areas. Poor people would do better that way. And any money that is sent to other EU member states should be administered by a British government, not the EU, to protect it from fraudsters.
Here's a link found at random - protecting UK citizens from extra-judicial execution:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/009.html
So it protects the memories of IRA members who never even saw themselves as being British anyway. You really scraped the barrel with that one.
Oh, and...

4. Limits on the working week and minimum holiday guarantees.
Which would be fine if the world began and ended with the EU, but it doesn't. Any democratic government with the interests of its people in mind would set reasonable working conditions or risk being rejected in an election. Who needs patronising bureacrats to dictate their "work/life balance"?
nino_savatte said:
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. :rolleyes:
UKIP opposes the EU and it needs opposing. It's corrupt, bureacratic, anti-democratic, amassing itself real police state powers, and as a force for good it's useless, but you can call it bitching if you prefer. As for the Tories, they oppose the EU by barely enough to fool their grassroots supporters. They signed 3 EU treaties, each of which gave away huge slices of British independence and sat idly by whilst Labour signed 3 more, and they have succeeded for years in belittling the debate after deliberately choosing to deceive the people. Even their opposition to the Constitution was late and is muted. You are so wrong about the Tories!

THE EU IS WRONG, IMO. I have absolutely no problem with individual European countries. I have never said that the EU is evil, and anyone that takes that line is being over dramatic and foolish. So please, if you want to argue my points, use my descriptions and don't project your own interpretations onto me.
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. :D
UKIP doesn't want to use any country other than for a mutually beneficial trade agreement, and the other EU members would be "using" Britain even more because we import so much more than we export to other EU states. That's not a paradox.
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.
So you can't say how you think the EU benefits Britain. Fine. And do stop going on about the Empire. You seem obsessed with it and it's absurd when you're arguing a position I haven't taken, but that you'd like me to take, that mainly exists only in the imagination of europhiles and not mainstream eurosceptic opinion. And I haven't joined the BNP because I don't support their aims. Gutless I'm not. :D
 
goneforlunch said:
Any democratic government with the interests of its people in mind would set reasonable working conditions or risk being rejected in an election. Who needs patronising bureacrats to dictate their "work/life balance"?
By your reasoning, who needs patronising governments to dictate their work/life balance?:confused:

You make no sense.

BTW you fall into the nationalist's trap when you assume that there is such a thing as a shared 'national interest' between a millionnaire in Belgravia and a factory worker in Doncaster. The factory worker in Doncaster has much more in common with another factory worker in Bilbao than with the factory's owner in London.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
By your reasoning, who needs patronising governments to dictate their work/life balance?:confused:

You make no sense.

BTW you fall into the nationalist's trap when you assume that there is such a thing as a shared 'national interest' between a millionnaire in Belgravia and a factory worker in Doncaster. The factory worker in Doncaster has much more in common with another factory worker in Bilbao than with the factory's owner in London.

But what if the factory worker in Doncaster is the student son of the millionaire in Belgravia????
And the afther and son are plotting to put the factory worker out of work....

Actually erm sorry....
 
tbaldwin said:
But what if the factory worker in Doncaster is the student son of the millionaire in Belgravia????
And the afther and son are plotting to put the factory worker out of work....

Actually erm sorry....

Likely.

Fucking hell.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
By your reasoning, who needs patronising governments to dictate their work/life balance?:confused:

You make no sense.

BTW you fall into the nationalist's trap when you assume that there is such a thing as a shared 'national interest' between a millionnaire in Belgravia and a factory worker in Doncaster. The factory worker in Doncaster has much more in common with another factory worker in Bilbao than with the factory's owner in London.

I don't want anyone dictating my life/work balance but since we need employment laws, I'd rather they were dictated by a democratically elected government.

And you chose a very strange example in citing a factory worker in Bilbao, since it's one of the most fiercely nationalistic regions in the EU.
 
goneforlunch said:
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.

That's wrong. Where's your evidence of this?
 
goneforlunch said:
UKIP opposes the EU and it needs opposing. It's corrupt, bureacratic, anti-democratic, amassing itself real police state powers, and as a force for good it's useless, but you can call it bitching if you prefer. As for the Tories, they oppose the EU by barely enough to fool their grassroots supporters. They signed 3 EU treaties, each of which gave away huge slices of British independence and sat idly by whilst Labour signed 3 more, and they have succeeded for years in belittling the debate after deliberately choosing to deceive the people. Even their opposition to the Constitution was late and is muted. You are so wrong about the Tories!

THE EU IS WRONG, IMO. I have absolutely no problem with individual European countries. I have never said that the EU is evil, and anyone that takes that line is being over dramatic and foolish. So please, if you want to argue my points, use my descriptions and don't project your own interpretations onto me.

UKIP doesn't want to use any country other than for a mutually beneficial trade agreement, and the other EU members would be "using" Britain even more because we import so much more than we export to other EU states. That's not a paradox.

So you can't say how you think the EU benefits Britain. Fine. And do stop going on about the Empire. You seem obsessed with it and it's absurd when you're arguing a position I haven't taken, but that you'd like me to take, that mainly exists only in the imagination of europhiles and not mainstream eurosceptic opinion. And I haven't joined the BNP because I don't support their aims. Gutless I'm not. :D

UKIP is a party of Little Englanders and the mentality of the Little Englander dominates any discussion of Europe. It's small-minded and petty; it's bigoted and xenophobic.

You say that you "I have absolutely no problem with individual European countries". So what's the problem with a group of European countries? Like it or not, we live in Europe and not off the eastern seaboard of the USA. I don't think the EU is perfect but, at the same time, I don't think it's as bad as UKIP pretends.

And do stop going on about the Empire. You seem obsessed with it

Well, how about you tell me how the Commonwealth came into being? If I stop "going on about Empire" you have to stop crapping on about Europe. Deal? Forget it, you UKIPers are single-mindedly obsessed with Europe and foreigners.

I have never said that the EU is evil, and anyone that takes that line is being over dramatic and foolish.

To hear Farage and his band of nutters talk, anyone would think that Europe was evil. Though there never appears to be any distinction made between Europe and the EU (or even the EC..which is much worse as it is unelected).

It's corrupt, bureacratic, anti-democratic, amassing itself real police state powers,

So how is UKIP democratic? Tell me how UKIP MEPs serve their constituents in Strasbourg? They don't. Furthermore, how has the EU "amassed real police state powers"? Aren't you being overdramatic? That's a common UKIP tactic: engage in scaremongering.
So please, if you want to argue my points, use my descriptions and don't project your own interpretations onto me.

I'm not projecting anything onto you. As for your points, they tend to orbit the same object: Europe. Indeed, you only have one point: Europe is bad.

So you can't say how you think the EU benefits Britain.

[
  1. The European Court of Human Rights
  2. The ability to travel anywhere in the European Community without having to get a visa.
  3. The Euro (we don't have it, mores the pity. It makes life a lot easier when travelling through Europe)
  4. EU handouts for deprived areas.
  5. European Working Time Directive


No benefits? You exaggerate.

And I haven't joined the BNP because I don't support their aims. Gutless I'm not.

Maybe not but there are some head-the-balls in UKIP who are. UKIP are also a wee bit sexist too. How many women members does UKIP have?
 
goneforlunch said:
I don't want anyone dictating my life/work balance but since we need employment laws, I'd rather they were dictated by a democratically elected government.

And you chose a very strange example in citing a factory worker in Bilbao, since it's one of the most fiercely nationalistic regions in the EU.

If it wasn't for the European Working Time Directive, your cronies in industry would be exploiting workers even more than they do today. Your "democratically elected government" in the 80's crushed the unions and introduced the flexible labour market. People in this country work longer hours for less pay and have fewer public holidays than our European counterparts. Tell me how this aids the all-important productivity?
 
goneforlunch said:
And you chose a very strange example in citing a factory worker in Bilbao, since it's one of the most fiercely nationalistic regions in the EU.
If one wishes to show the strength of one's point, one needs to show that it is true in the most difficult of circumstances - the internationalist truth that group interests straddle national borders is true even in the Basque Country; similarly, regarding my other point, people's rights to due process need to be protected even when they are suspected terrorists.

But I shall leave you there. I am in fact not a fan at all of the EU as it is essentially a club for the promotion of capitalist values. But it does provide protection for workers within capitalism that the UK's traditionally harsh, laissee faire version of capitalism has historically been very backward in providing.
 
bluestreak said:
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

instead of talking in cliche and jargon why do you not actully dispute my position - which if you bothered to read it you would see is nothing like you allege

it is
internationalist
anti nationalist
and anti immigration THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF NEO LIBERAL restructuring

your post suggest that it is obvious that imm/emigration is internationalist and aids teh w/c globally ... nonsense .. mixing and exchange are, yes i would suggest, GOOD, but it is extremely intelectually lazy to NOT look at the differrent forms of migration and the differrent functions migration plays

until you and the rest of the muddled middle class left and @s understand this the BNP will make hay and your dwindling numbers will dwindle further
 
october_lost said:
This thread was started by a leftist :eek:

yes why not? it is to again illustrate how important has become the immigration debate in this country and how the left are being totally eclipsed

p.s. i am though suproise suprise not of the muddled middle class liberal nonsense that has somehow been become/taken over the left
 
Fruitloop said:
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?


"so why waste energy pandering to Mondeo-man?"


what a stupid thing to say ( p.s. were you being ironic?)

assuming no irony, how the fuck do you change society if you write of the majority? how fucking arrogent can you get!
 
Spion said:
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?

oh jaysus i have stated this mant times on mnay threads BUT sorry i do not recognise your name so fair play

a working class solution means initially analysing how what capitla does affects the w/c

and it is totally obvious that FOR ALL TEH BENFITS of immigration, it is currently being used to curb wage growth and more importantly to divide and rule .. we have 3 milllion increasingly embitterred people .. not embitterred aganist the state as in the 8ts , but against immigrnats

so i reject that we call for immigration control .. i think that these help discipline the w/c

to me a w/c solution is to USE migration and the abuse and hypocrisy that is fundamnetal to it for a real attack on the fuckers who run this country

it means campiagns against cowboy emplyers campaigns against agencies recruiting abroad it means campaigning for better labour rights campaigning that nurses should be trained here not imported etc etc

this should all be 'our' territory .. instead we have kept quiet and allowed the far right to steam in and racialise and de-class the debate .. crazy!
 
durruti02 said:
so i reject that we call for immigration control .. i think that these help discipline the w/c
Agree

durruti02 said:
it means campiagns against cowboy emplyers
Well, that's in the ABC of trade unionism, or should be

durruti02 said:
campaigns against agencies recruiting abroad
Don't agree. You turn up outside a labour agency with your placards and it's only going to look like you're attacking foreign workers. It looks like 'workers' immigration control'

durruti02 said:
it means campaigning for better labour rights
Another one from the ABC, tho I think you should make clear that there should be a huge recruiting drive of immigrant workers to the TUs and generally to build solidarity between existing residents and new migrants

durruti02 said:
campaigning that nurses should be trained here
ABCs again

durruti02 said:
not imported etc etc
Again, it's 'workers' immigration control' and if you start campaigning against foreign workers you'll end up with the BNP standing next to you at your protest. They'll love it

I think you some basic TU-ism ideas here, but you also have some nationalist ones. I also think that if you didn't start all your threads by haranguing your own personal vision of what 'the left' is and instead set out what you actually wanted then you might have got a lot further
 
Donna Ferentes said:
I wonder if anybody can guess what theme dominates all others in the list of threads started by durruti02?

I'm saddened to see this dig from you, Donna.

Are you unaware of Nino's endless attempts to silence opposition to his unique point of view by using precisely this same argument?
 
durruti02 said:
yes why not? it is to again illustrate how important has become the immigration debate in this country and how the left are being totally eclipsed

p.s. i am though suproise suprise not of the muddled middle class liberal nonsense that has somehow been become/taken over the left
No mate learn to swim the tide :D your a soft lefty whose accepted right wing cliches on immigration. Move on
 
Lock&Light said:
I'm saddened to see this dig from you, Donna.

Are you unaware of Nino's endless attempts to silence opposition to his unique point of view by using precisely this same argument?

How typical: you don't contribute anything to the thread but can't resist an opportunity for a cheap shot. You're a fucking moron.
 
october_lost said:
No mate learn to swim the tide :D your a soft lefty whose accepted right wing cliches on immigration. Move on

I am inclined to agree with you here october. Durruti is a bit of a soft leftie, thats why he is opposed to my more authoritarian leanings on the subject.
And that does leave him in a difficult position.
On one hand his desire for Social Justice means that he agrees with me that Large Scale Economic Migration is a National and International disgrace.
But on the other he does not want to take effective action to stop it, as he knows the means of doing that would be difficult.
 
nino_savatte said:
You say that you "I have absolutely no problem with individual European countries". So what's the problem with a group of European countries? Like it or not, we live in Europe and not off the eastern seaboard of the USA. I don't think the EU is perfect but, at the same time, I don't think it's as bad as UKIP pretends.
I am very, very happy to be living in Europe, I'd have left otherwise, and you can believe that or not. Suit yourself. I am, however, very unhappy about being ruled by EU institutions which sideline democracy, and with it the democracy that has made Britain the largely peaceful country that it was. Can you see the difference?

I accept that you were not happy with what that system gave the people, but do you really think that rule by politicians and bureacrats, amongst them past and present British incumbents like Mandelson, Kinnock, Leon Brittan, and Chris Patten, and Thatcher, Major, etc, and via the EU will improve our situation? The employment rights you are so pleased with can be taken away, and not being a democracy, the people's only recourse will be through direct action. And how the fuck did the USA get into this?
Well, how about you tell me how the Commonwealth came into being? If I stop "going on about Empire" you have to stop crapping on about Europe. Deal? Forget it, you UKIPers are single-mindedly obsessed with Europe and foreigners.
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how the Commonwealth came into being; it's mostly made up of former British colonies and membership is entirely voluntary. So what? Do you have a problem with Britain forming trade agreements with Commonwealth members? And those "foreigners" now have as much influence over what happens in Britain under the QMV system as anyone we could elect now.
To hear Farage and his band of nutters talk, anyone would think that Europe was evil. Though there never appears to be any distinction made between Europe and the EU (or even the EC..which is much worse as it is unelected).
I wish Farage was a better leader, and UKIP was a better party. Sadly imo the alternatives are much worse, and the party frequently makes the distinction between the EU and Europe, something you frequently fail to do yourself, so please don't lecture others on this point. And the EC is one of the most powerful institutions in the EU.
So how is UKIP democratic? Tell me how UKIP MEPs serve their constituents in Strasbourg? They don't. Furthermore, how has the EU "amassed real police state powers"? Aren't you being overdramatic? That's a common UKIP tactic: engage in scaremongering.
MEPs don't serve their constituents because they have so little power. I vote for UKIP because it is the only credible party I know of that opposes the EU (though there is a very small handful of individuals in the mainstream parties that do too) and they at least are amongst those who do what they can to expose the EU for what it is. And no I'm not being overdramatic. The EU has amassed itself the right to a lot of power over its citizens. And it would all be fine under a benign leadership, but what if it's not in the future? It's not democratic, so what then? No one is scaremongering, we'll leave that to the europhiles, who told the voters that they'd be "left out in the cold" if they voted "no" to the Common Market, and "3 million jobs would be lost" if we left.
I'm not projecting anything onto you. As for your points, they tend to orbit the same object: Europe. Indeed, you only have one point: Europe is bad.
Wrong. Europe is fine, the EU is bad for the British people imo. SEE THE DISTINCTION? (It's for the rest of the people in the EU's member states to define their own relationships with it.) We'd only disagree if I engaged in other debates and I respect the views of the members of this forum and see no need to anyway debate the mostly classic arguments anyway.
Maybe not but there are some head-the-balls in UKIP who are. UKIP are also a wee bit sexist too. How many women members does UKIP have?
There are odd people in EVERY party, but I have absolutely no idea how many women are in UKIP. But as a woman, I haven't come up against even the slightest amount of what I'd see as prejudice. I would not support the party anyway if it promoted all women shortlists or any other kind of politically correct doctrines.
That's wrong. Where's your evidence of this?
The restrictions? The right to free speech is more restricted, the right to peaceful protest is more restricted, even the right to send a simple email is subject to the threat of official snoopers, and I don't even want to think about biometric ID cards which are planned all over the EU and beyond. Oh, and our right to trial by jury will gradually disappear when the EU justice system is rolled out, and the government has already taken advantage of it in its treatment of suspected terrorists.

I'll take ECL over Corpus Juris and the ECHR every single time.
If it wasn't for the European Working Time Directive, your cronies in industry would be exploiting workers even more than they do today. Your "democratically elected government" in the 80's crushed the unions and introduced the flexible labour market. People in this country work longer hours for less pay and have fewer public holidays than our European counterparts. Tell me how this aids the all-important productivity?
And they did it because the unions brought the country to its knees with strikes in the 1970s. We were the "sick man of Europe". I think Thatcher was arrogant and went too far and drove the previously sceptical unions into the arms of the EU. But Thatcherism hasn't exactly been rolled back under the EU privatisation programme has it? And you don't know what would have happened had we not joined the EU. I agree with Littlebabyjesus; the EU is run by capitalists, albeit with just enough to keep the socialists happy. But I don't think any of them are working in the interests of the people as much as they are working in their own interests.

As for public holidays, what is more important is how many the majority of countries which are outside of the EU take. We have already lost most of our manufacturing base to cheaper marketplaces.
 
goneforlunch said:
I am very, very happy to be living in Europe, I'd have left otherwise, and you can believe that or not. Suit yourself. I am, however, very unhappy about being ruled by EU institutions which sideline democracy, and with it the democracy that has made Britain the largely peaceful country that it was. Can you see the difference?

I accept that you were not happy with what that system gave the people, but do you really think that rule by politicians and bureacrats, amongst them past and present British incumbents like Mandelson, Kinnock, Leon Brittan, and Chris Patten, and Thatcher, Major, etc, and via the EU will improve our situation? The employment rights you are so pleased with can be taken away, and not being a democracy, the people's only recourse will be through direct action. And how the fuck did the USA get into this?

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how the Commonwealth came into being; it's mostly made up of former British colonies and membership is entirely voluntary. So what? Do you have a problem with Britain forming trade agreements with Commonwealth members? And those "foreigners" now have as much influence over what happens in Britain under the QMV system as anyone we could elect now.

I wish Farage was a better leader, and UKIP was a better party. Sadly imo the alternatives are much worse, and the party frequently makes the distinction between the EU and Europe, something you frequently fail to do yourself, so please don't lecture others on this point. And the EC is one of the most powerful institutions in the EU.

MEPs don't serve their constituents because they have so little power. I vote for UKIP because it is the only credible party I know of that opposes the EU (though there is a very small handful of individuals in the mainstream parties that do too) and they at least are amongst those who do what they can to expose the EU for what it is. And no I'm not being overdramatic. The EU has amassed itself the right to a lot of power over its citizens. And it would all be fine under a benign leadership, but what if it's not in the future? It's not democratic, so what then? No one is scaremongering, we'll leave that to the europhiles, who told the voters that they'd be "left out in the cold" if they voted "no" to the Common Market, and "3 million jobs would be lost" if we left.

Wrong. Europe is fine, the EU is bad for the British people imo. SEE THE DISTINCTION? (It's for the rest of the people in the EU's member states to define their own relationships with it.) We'd only disagree if I engaged in other debates and I respect the views of the members of this forum and see no need to anyway debate the mostly classic arguments anyway.

There are odd people in EVERY party, but I have absolutely no idea how many women are in UKIP. But as a woman, I haven't come up against even the slightest amount of what I'd see as prejudice. I would not support the party anyway if it promoted all women shortlists or any other kind of politically correct doctrines.

The restrictions? The right to free speech is more restricted, the right to peaceful protest is more restricted, even the right to send a simple email is subject to the threat of official snoopers, and I don't even want to think about biometric ID cards which are planned all over the EU and beyond. Oh, and our right to trial by jury will gradually disappear when the EU justice system is rolled out, and the government has already taken advantage of it in its treatment of suspected terrorists.

I'll take ECL over Corpus Juris and the ECHR every single time.

And they did it because the unions brought the country to its knees with strikes in the 1970s. We were the "sick man of Europe". I think Thatcher was arrogant and went too far and drove the previously sceptical unions into the arms of the EU. But Thatcherism hasn't exactly been rolled back under the EU privatisation programme has it? And you don't know what would have happened had we not joined the EU. I agree with Littlebabyjesus; the EU is run by capitalists, albeit with just enough to keep the socialists happy. But I don't think any of them are working in the interests of the people as much as they are working in their own interests.

As for public holidays, what is more important is how many the majority of countries which are outside of the EU take. We have already lost most of our manufacturing base to cheaper marketplaces.

None of this alters the fact that UKIP is a party of extremely narrow interests. It's Thatcherism in aspic.

Public holidays are important and make for a more productive and more contented workforce. This obsession with the work ethic has to stop.

And they did it because the unions brought the country to its knees with strikes in the 1970s. We were the "sick man of Europe".

Do you know any other tunes on that violin of yours? Funny how folk like you always spout this infernal nonsense. Why is it that you find it hard to acknowledge the fact that British management also needs to shoulder some of the blame.
Wrong. Europe is fine, the EU is bad for the British people imo.

Unpack the rhetoric and there is no distinction.

I wish Farage was a better leader, and UKIP was a better party. Sadly imo the alternatives are much worse, and the party frequently makes the distinction between the EU and Europe, something you frequently fail to do yourself, so please don't lecture others on this point. And the EC is one of the most powerful institutions in the EU.

Well he isn't and your party looks set to occupy the backwaters of British political thought. I hear nothing from UKIP but the same stuff over and over again. The EU isn't perfect but UKIP sitting in the very parliament that it despises smacks a little of hypocrisy...if not hypocrisy then it's all a bit "Yah Boo Sucks". I'm well aware of what the EC is thanks.

There are odd people in EVERY party, but I have absolutely no idea how many women are in UKIP. But as a woman, I haven't come up against even the slightest amount of what I'd see as prejudice. I would not support the party anyway if it promoted all women shortlists or any other kind of politically correct doctrines.

So I guess you missed that documentary on the Beeb a few years ago then? :D The attitude of most, if not all, your MEPs towards women is positively stone age.

I accept that you were not happy with what that system gave the people, but do you really think that rule by politicians and bureacrats, amongst them past and present British incumbents like Mandelson, Kinnock, Leon Brittan, and Chris Patten, and Thatcher, Major, etc, and via the EU will improve our situation? The employment rights you are so pleased with can be taken away, and not being a democracy, the people's only recourse will be through direct action. And how the fuck did the USA get into this?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
 
nino_savatte said:
Why is it that you find it hard to acknowledge the fact that British management also needs to shoulder some of the blame.

I don't. My father was a shop steward in the car industry in the 1970s. I know the management bears a lot of the blame.
 
I would put this down to stright up desperation by UKIP, and an attempt to nick BNP voters. One thing on the horizon for UKIP is the GLA Elections next year- where they got 2 people elected in 2004. If the BNP get in and they dont- i can see trouble ahead for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom