Do you consider UKIP good or bad? Watch

geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#941
Report 3 years ago
#941
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I am asking if Tim Aker is wrong.

You are saying discrimination laws concerning race would not be abolished. Tim Aker said that he would abolish them and felt that they were unnecessary.

Did Tim go off script?
FFS can you read the message where I painstakingly copy pasted quotations. It's my most recent reply to you before this.

Read your first question in that message.

Read my response.

Paraphrased roughly:

Q. Under UKIP would discrimination be illegal
A. No

What bit of that do you not get?
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#942
Report 3 years ago
#942
(Original post by geokinkladze)
FFS can you read the message where I painstakingly copy pasted quotations. It's my most recent reply to you before this.

Read your first question in that message.

Read my response.

Paraphrased roughly:

Q. Under UKIP would discrimination be illegal
A. No

What bit of that do you not get?
Seems to me that, as far as you know, UKIP would not get rid of laws concerning racial discrimination.

Which would mean that Tim Aker was wrong in what he said.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#943
Report 3 years ago
#943
(Original post by geokinkladze)
What you are proposing is extremely unlikely...as I've said Cameron wouldn't agree to something IF he didn't think he could win a referendum. By not agreeing to something he can say he didn't get a negotiation and therefore there is no referendum. That is his get out.
So you're proposing Cameron will come back, say negotiations have failed but not offer a referendum because he said initially he'd only hold one if negotiations succeeded (which doesn't even make logical sense itself)? :confused:
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#944
Report 3 years ago
#944
(Original post by billydisco)
So you're proposing Cameron will come back,say negotiations have failed, but not offer a referendum because he only said he'd hold one if negotiations succeeded (which doesn't even make logical sense itself)? :confused:
He won't offer a referendum until AFTER he has negotiated with the EU. He won't have negotiated with the EU unless he gets what he wants.

Does that make sense? (I don't mean do you agree, do you think it is a good policy etc, just Do you understand what he is planning to do?)
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#945
Report 3 years ago
#945
(Original post by Misovlogos)
If one simply assumes that a body of people has an absolute claim to residence in a state, then you skip over the entire argument to be had. Why do they have a greater claim than anyone else? I'm not saying they don't, I'm only saying you need to produce an argument.
????

I'm not here to answer your silly philosophical questions. We have finite resources in this country and therefore every time the population increases, it reduces the resources per person.

More people = less space per person.
More people = more demand on NHS
More people = more demand on housing/more housing needed (which I am against)
More people = more people on the road
More people = more people using the police
More people = more on social welfare
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#946
Report 3 years ago
#946
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Seems to me that, as far as you know, UKIP would not get rid of laws concerning racial discrimination.
Under existing UK law is discrimination on the grounds of Race illegal?

Let's dispense with the formality, of course it is.

So if under UKIP, such discrimination would NOT be illegal, how do you come to the conclusion that you move from one to the other by not getting rid of such laws?

You ARE slipping. :eek:
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#947
Report 3 years ago
#947
(Original post by geokinkladze)
He won't offer a referendum until AFTER he has negotiated with the EU. He won't have negotiated with the EU unless he gets what he wants.

Does that make sense? (I don't mean do you agree, do you think it is a good policy etc, just Do you understand what he is planning to do?)
I know he won't offer a referendum until after negotiations, thats what ive said all along? :confused:

I was simply saying he could get a pathetic concession at negotiations and claim we dont need one.

I thought you were saying he would only give a referendum if negotiations were successful (which doesnt make sense).

0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#948
Report 3 years ago
#948
(Original post by geokinkladze)
So if under UKIP, such discrimination would NOT be illegal
Right we got there eventually.

So under UKIP, it would be okay for an employer not to employ a person just because they are black. Regardless of whether they were born in the UK or had just immigrated.
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#949
Report 3 years ago
#949
(Original post by Leeds98)
I work in manufacturing and engineering the EU is a massive burden on my employer and competitors from waste to recruitment. They're are plenty of people out of work yet companies are still bringing in EU labour? Why because its basic supply and demand, overloading the labour market to drive down wages and employment terms. The left have abandoned this industry just like fishing ect. There was a walkout at lindsey oil refinery because new work was given to a Portuguese contractor under EU directives 600 jobs, the left wing didnt want to touch it tho for fear of looking like little englanders. Labour have abandoned the working class which is why shed loads of the working class have shipped over to UKIP where they won't be called racists for bringing up legitimate immigration worries.
I assume the Portuguese contractor got the job because it was the best bid. The Portuguese contractor could hire British workers if it wants to and just because a contractor is UK based, it does not mean they will hire more British workers than a foriegn contractor.

EU rules also means UK companies can bid for work in other EU countries.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#950
Report 3 years ago
#950
(Original post by billydisco)
I know he won't offer a referendum until after negotiations, thats what ive said all along? :confused:
No you said this:

(Original post by billydisco)
No. They have said they will first try and negotiate to get what we want, if they do not get what we want, then its a referendum.

What the **** is the point of having a referendum if you just got the negotiations you wanted???
Note you are implying if he gets what he wants there won't be a referendum. You've got it entirely the wrong way round.


(Original post by billydisco)
I was simply saying he could get a pathetic concession at negotiations and claim we dont need one.
He won't do that, unless he wants to bring the government down. He has promised a referendum AFTER he has negotiated. He can't pretend he hasn't negotiated if our relationship with the EU changes.

However he CAN pretend he hasn't negotiated if our relationship doesn't change.

(Original post by billydisco)
I thought you were saying he would only give a referendum if negotiations were successful (which doesnt make sense).
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's clear you don't understand politico speak. Let me try and explain.

Cameron will try and thrash out a deal through backdoor negotiations.

If a deal is on, he will negotiate and take his negotiation to a referendum.

If no deal is on he won't negotiate. There is no referendum until AFTER the negotiation, so his get out is to say "I haven't negotiated yet".

It is the reason why Eurosceptics want a deadline nailed down.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#951
Report 3 years ago
#951
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Right we got there eventually.
YOU got there eventually, I was already there after answering your question first time around.

(Original post by InnerTemple)
So under UKIP, it would be okay for an employer not to employ a person just because they are black.
It would be ok for an employer to hire whoever they so wished. I would guess UKIP would make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants though. They aren't that Libertarian.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#952
Report 3 years ago
#952
(Original post by geokinkladze)
It would be ok for an employer to hire whoever they so wished. I would guess UKIP would make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants though. They aren't that Libertarian.
It already is illegal to hire illegal immigrants!

So why is Farage so ashamed of his comments on this matter? Why did he try and backtrack?
0
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#953
Report 3 years ago
#953
(Original post by billydisco)
????

I'm not here to answer your silly philosophical questions. We have finite resources in this country and therefore every time the population increases, it reduces the resources per person.

More people = less space per person.
More people = more demand on NHS
More people = more demand on housing/more housing needed (which I am against)
More people = more people on the road
More people = more people using the police
More people = more on social welfare
So, just to clarify, you don't have an argument? Why should anyone listen to you then?
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#954
Report 3 years ago
#954
(Original post by InnerTemple)
It already is illegal to hire illegal immigrants!
Sheesh, I know, but in the preceding sentence I commented on them making it legal to hire whoever you wanted.

(Original post by InnerTemple)
So why is Farage so ashamed of his comments on this matter? Why did he try and backtrack?
He didn't backtrack IMHO. That's what you called it.. and if you dig back through this thread you will note I made a comment about how it is laughable when someone misrepresents what you say, and then when you attempt to clarify, they accuse you of backtracking.

You did it yourself.. you said he was having a separate conversation about race. But it wasn't how I saw it.. and if I tried to explain how I saw it to you.. you'd likely accuse me of backtracking on his behalf.

Completely laughable.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#955
Report 3 years ago
#955
(Original post by geokinkladze)
No you said this:



Note you are implying if he gets what he wants there won't be a referendum. You've got it entirely the wrong way round.




He won't do that, unless he wants to bring the government down. He has promised a referendum AFTER he has negotiated. He can't pretend he hasn't negotiated if our relationship with the EU changes.

However he CAN pretend he hasn't negotiated if our relationship doesn't change.



That's exactly what I'm saying. It's clear you don't understand politico speak. Let me try and explain.

Cameron will try and thrash out a deal through backdoor negotiations.

If a deal is on, he will negotiate and take his negotiation to a referendum.

If no deal is on he won't negotiate. There is no referendum until AFTER the negotiation, so his get out is to say "I haven't negotiated yet".

It is the reason why Eurosceptics want a deadline nailed down.
If the Tories get in and a referendum doesn't take place, I think a LOT of Tory voters would switch to UKIP.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#956
Report 3 years ago
#956
(Original post by billydisco)
If the Tories get in and a referendum doesn't take place, I think a LOT of Tory voters would switch to UKIP.
I don't see how he can avoid a referendum on that basis. However he may not get a referendum vote through Parliament. I don't know whether all his backbenchers would support it. Can he rely on Ken Clarke's vote for a referendum? There may be a few others as well. There may be one or two opposed to referenda in principle.
0
reply
EllieC130
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#957
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#957
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
Why? You're welcome to be completely and utterly despondent about our future, but please tell us why.
So this was on a day when I felt kind of exasperated with the whole thing but even now I stand by the fact that none of the main parties seem to give me much hope. I'd probably go with green if I HAD to vote but that's probably only because I don't know enough about them to get put off.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#958
Report 3 years ago
#958
(Original post by EllieC130)
So this was on a day when I felt kind of exasperated with the whole thing but even now I stand by the fact that none of the main parties seem to give me much hope. I'd probably go with green if I HAD to vote but that's probably only because I don't know enough about them to get put off.
It's the nature of our system that political parties must be subject to scrutiny. Such scrutiny often involves negative attacks and twisting of words.

If you don't like how the system works then refuse to play ball.. simply look at each party and what they claim to stand for. Then look at their actions and try to understand what they actually stand for. Then finally look at how they are portrayed by the media. If you think the media misrepresent the party, support them.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#959
Report 3 years ago
#959
(Original post by billydisco)
If the Tories get in and a referendum doesn't take place, I think a LOT of Tory voters would switch to UKIP.
Possibly, but from Cameron's point of view he will already have achieved what he set out to achieve.

If people vote for the tories because they misunderstand what they said (and you know full well how easy that is) it's not the tories fault is it? They're hardly likely to lose any sleep over it.
0
reply
Smonnie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#960
Report 3 years ago
#960
(Original post by geokinkladze)
It's ok to admit you don't know how Local Authorities plan for school places.

But believe me, they do. It's not just birthrate (birthrate, if you think about it, gives them 5 years to plan). There are also such things as new housing developments to consider.

LEA's put a lot of work into planning, they have it down to a fine art form. Uncontrolled migration, however, is the factor they can't plan for.
I just did, didn't I? How would I know - I don't work for an LEA.

I would suggest that they would look at EU migration patterns and use that to plan.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (50)
73.53%
Leave (18)
26.47%

Watched Threads

View All