The Student Room Group

Do you consider UKIP good or bad?

Scroll to see replies

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?)
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
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:
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).

:smile:
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.
Reply 945
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.
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).:smile:


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.
Original post by InnerTemple
Right we got there eventually.


YOU got there eventually, I was already there after answering your question first time around. :wink:

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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply 957
UKIP is basically a spin-off hardline Tory party. Most of their MP's are past-Conservative sadly because recently the Tories have taken a more liberal stance and want to steal as many voters as possible.

UKIP does not have many policies though. All I can see is a set-in stone Immigration and 'pull out of the EU policy' but I can't see any long term economic plan like the Conservatives (my party), however, I would like a Tory-UKIP coalition!
Original post by Smonnie
I just did, didn't I?


I know, and I was saying it's ok, it's not a failing.

Original post by Smonnie
How would I know - I don't work for an LEA.


Neither do I.. but I at least avail myself of facts before jumping to conclusions, which...

Original post by Smonnie
I would suggest that they would look at EU migration patterns and use that to plan.


...you clearly don't. If central government can't plan immigration a few years ahead what chance do LEA's have?

If an immigrant family turns up part way through the academic year and needs their children educated, it's the LEA's problem. That's one immigrant family. Now multiply that up. Immigrants tend towards communities.. it's human nature for them to want to stay in areas where others with their nationality/culture also live. This leads to the burden being disproportionately weighted on a few local authorities.

This is why you have some people in the UK thinking "there is no immigration problem" whilst others are thinking "the country is swamped". Both of them are wrong.. the country isn't swamped, but local areas are. And that IS a problem for those areas, as they can't cope.

Labour have admitted that when in power they encouraged immigration into marginal seats because migrants tend to vote labour. The sting in the tail is that previously staunch labour voters in those seats have turned to UKIP.
Original post by geokinkladze
...


I'm not jumping to any conclusions - I find it odd that you have decided that I am.

I have already said I would favour an 'immigration of talents'. The point that I am making is that immigration is far from the most important issue in this country, and that people talk about 'immigrants putting pressure on xyz" without talking about the inherent issues in the xyz system.

Quick Reply

Latest