Farage to Launch Brexit Party Today

[peterb]

Thanks for the correction, but I meant what I said, which was 2010 election, not the referendum.

The post was about LibDems making promises and breaking them, because they didn't expect to be on power to be able to implement them.

They got caught out in the 2010 election, when they ended up in coalition with Cameron and, what happened? In order to sesl the coalition deal, both Cameron and Clagg had to compromise. Neither got everything they wanted.

Hmm, but that was my point - the same scenario played out in the referendum. Cameron called the referendum, not expecting to lose, and the leave faction didn't expect to win. Both sides were wrong-footed by the result.

However the 2016 referendum was about 12 years too late - the referendum that would really have mattered was the one on Maastricht, and the second opportunity might have been Lisbon. On both of those we would have had a chance to at worst, delay the political integration, and remain in the "Common Market".

[outwar6010]

I didn't say he said I was racist but he labelled UKIP racist, and the direct inference of that transfers to anyone supporting them.

And is the exwctly the same cheap, nasty shot that HAS been directed at me, ma ny times, because I argued for something seen as anti-EU, and long, LONG before I ever voted UKIP. Which, for the record, has only ever been in EU elections and I am not and never have been either a member or in any other way associated with them, or any other right wing party, other than Conservative and that is limited to voting in elections.

UKIP posters weren't xenophobic towards eastern Europeans, and that poster feztured a PHOTO, not a made-up image, of the significant numbers of illegal migrants heading through Eastern Europe to Western Europe, most notably Germany, due to Merkel's open arms policy .... which, by the way, has been a major bone of contention with German voters and is a major factor in Merkel's most recent election kicking which is which Merkel lost the party leadership to AKK and is having to stand down in 2021.

The issue UKIP raised was never racist against Easter Europeans. What it was was anti-Freedom of movement. It was a policy objection. A objection to a core EU principle. However, due to our moronic government not implementing the Accession countries temporary limitations like almost all other EU countries did, we ended up not with the 50,000-75,000 immigrants that the government predicted, but the 750,000 we got, over that period ..... most of whom were Eastern European because, first, they dominated that bock of EU accession countries and, second, the relative economic conditions made it a vety tempting proposition.

And as a result, for many years in succession, Eastern Europe dominated the migration into the UK from EU countries.

So .... if you're going go tfy to make a point about excessive numbers using the pervectly legal freedom of movement rules to come here, which countries do you cite? Those not coming in large numbers, or those topping the list?

Obviously, the latter, no matter who it was. It just happened to be Eastern Europe. And oc those numbers, of course, a very small but nasty proportion happened to be from crime gangs from those countries. The problem there, again, is that with EU freedom of movement, it is far harder to keep criminals out that would otherwise be the case, were there no presumption of freedom of movement.

Back to posters ..... do you deny that the EU has a manor issue protecting it's external borders? I presume not. Sure, it's eased off now, in no small part due to several easrern European EU countries defying Brussels quite openly and closing their borders.

The problem there is two-fold. First, the EU, by it's own Schengen rules, is supposed to have secure external borders, in order to remove internal borders and facilitiate freedom of movement, both of goods and people.

But they didn't.

Had Brussels spent a fraction of the time worrying about securing their external borders with southern neighbours, like the Med routes from north Africa, that they have about worrying about the post-Brexit border between NI and the RofI, we wouldn't have had those massive marching centipedes of illegal migrants and there'd have been nothing to photograph for that UKIP poster.

But again, just to stress it, that photo was about the illegal migrant problem, not Eastern European migrants who were legally coming here.

The common theme, however, should be obvious :-

1) The volume, and NOT the race or country of origin, of migrants using FoM rules after their accession .... i.e. an objection to the nature of and effects from EU policy, not the migrants

2) EU external borders and their huge-scale breach, and then noth Brussels but especially Merkel's knee-jerk reaction, thereby creating an ongoing risk (and not much more than risk) for us when, due to that policy's abject failure, the illegal migrant/asylum-seeker risis hit. That is, again, an EU policy issue.


And as you may have noticed, UKIP (old version, in those days) was an anti-EU party and is more than entitled to try to make the point, using factual representations, i.e. posters of what was actually happening.

There was nothing racist about it. But it does make for an easy, nasty and cheap smear, to say "Ooooh, look foreigners, it must be racist."

No. It's not anout who or where from. It's about how many, and over what time period.

If the huge numbers had been Dutch, or Danes, that would have been the example used. If there hadn't been huge numbers, it wouldn't have been much of an issue in the first place. But thd large volume was comjng from where it was coming from, and if the objection is numbers of net EU migration per year, and you cite numbers, you can't ignore where they come from. It's simply a fact.


And as for Labour promptly booting out people complained about for anti-semiticism, have you heard the views of leading jewish Labour MP's? The complaints of inaction, investigations blocked, nothing happening for months, even years?

Well ukip(as are most if not all leave organisations) objectively are racist and it's only gotten worse as time has past. I mean they have tommy robinson and the current leader has called islam a death cult. The tories had all the power to do what they wanted with eastern european migrants. We had control over our borders but the government did nothing.

I mean whats wrong with people coming here anyway? Also ask your self why they would suppress studies like this? Could it be that they wanted to scapegoat the effects of austerity on migrants and refugees?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7932001.html




Channel 4 have a very interesting video on leave tactics.


This article shows the billboard I was referring too earlier.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...112722799.html

[Galant]

Widdecombe is joining the Brexit party...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48034732

That's quite the move and adds weight to the legitimacy of the Brexit party.

She says she'll still vote Tory locally, but wants to see the Brexit party win big in the EU elections.

[rob4001]

Channel 4 have a very interesting video on leave tactics.

C4 John Snow 'I've never seen so many white people' so no biased there I guess.

[Saracen999]

Well ukip(as are most if not all leave organisations) objectively are racist and it's only gotten worse as time has past. I mean they have tommy robinson and the current leader has called islam a death cult. The tories had all the power to do what they wanted with eastern european migrants. We had control over our borders but the government did nothing.

I mean whats wrong with people coming here anyway? Also ask your self why they would suppress studies like this? Could it be that they wanted to scapegoat the effects of austerity on migrants and refugees?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7932001.html




Channel 4 have a very interesting video on leave tactics.


This article shows the billboard I was referring too earlier.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...112722799.html

Most if not all Leave organisations "objectively racist"?

Not true.

UKIP gone that way since Farage left? Agreed on that, and I said so earlier.

What's wrong with people coming here anyway?

If you quote me then ask that, you clearly didn't read what I said.

What's wrong is not people coming here (we need them) and it's certainly not the race, religion or nationality of people coming here.

The issue is the rate of immigration. It's the sheer volume over a given period. It doesn't matter what race, reliion, etc, but it does matter when the volume is high enough over a timeframe that is short enough that it exceeds oyr ability to build sufficient infrastructure to cope with it.

A country's needs vary over time. Immediately after WW2 we needed significant immigration, so we encouraged it. No problem. In the last 20-30 years that need is much lower than it was, yet rates have increased.

And, for the record, no the Tories didn't have control over borders, not in relation to EU citizens.

Freedom of movement gives Eu citizens the right to come here, unless they fall foul of built-in resyrictions, like serious criminal records.

And sure, there are "emergency brake" procedues, which any member state can apply for, for a lim7ted period ... if they qualify. Cameron did. The decision is the EU's and Cameron was told "no". Even some EU leaders, that were in the Council at the time, have since publicly commented that that was a mistake, that the misread the situation here ajd, but for that, Remain might have won the referendum, if indeed there had still been one.

The simple fact is that Cameron didn't have that control.

There's certainly an argument to be had over how many in a given period (a year, several years, decade, whatever) is too many, not enough or jyst right, but it simply isn't the case that control rests in this country. We negotiated that (and much more) away in the various cumulative EU treaties. And THAT is the essence of the reasons to Leave.

Immigration level is a symptom, not the cause. And level of immigrationbover time, the rate of immigration is not in any way, shape or form racist because it has zero relationship to race.

Let me put that another way.

If I were to invite the first 6 people to show up at my door on Saturday after 6pm to a free dinner, then turn away numbers 7 to 50, that isn't racist. It still isn't racist if the first six all happen to be the same race as me.

After all, I only have 6 spare places. After that .... try the following weekend.

However, if I turn away any of the first six on the grounds that I don't like their race, then that is racist.


Note: As a private home, I'm fully entitled to select dinner guests on whatever grounds I like. A private home differs in that from a country or, say, a restaurant. Even the restaurant is entitled to turn away anybody if they're full. What they cannot do (legally) is turn away people because of their race (or religion, nationality, or any other factor as defined in anti-discrimination legisation).

Of course, if in 6 months I've bought a bigger house and a table that seats 12, I might invite "first 10" plus wife and self, but right now, when the table is full, the table is full.

And, for the record, I don't give a hoot about race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, weight, political views (*) or any other such factor I can think of. Well, rampant BO might do it, so wash first, m'kay?

(*) Political views except, perhaps, Remainers .... so political discussions are banned at my table.

[adidan]

Freedom of movement gives Eu citizens the right to come here, unless they fall foul of built-in resyrictions, like serious criminal records.

As a point of note, any host EU nation under current EU legislation can remove another EU national for much less than criminal behaviour.

If you haven't found a job within 6 months, do not have the means to support yourself and/or become a burden on the host country's welfare system you can be deported.

Whether this is done or not is down to the host nation.

[Saracen999]

As a point of note, any host EU nation under current EU legislation can remove another EU national for much less than criminal behaviour.

If you haven't found a job within 6 months, do not have the means to support yourself and/or become a burden on the host country's welfare system you can be deported.

Whether this is done or not is down to the host nation.

Agreed. But that doesn't amount to control of borders.

How about this.

I have eniugh funds to buy a residence in .... oh, .... Italy. Say, Tuscany. I have no criminal record, and enough funds and/or income, to feed myself and pay my bills. So, I go live in Tuscany.

Is my presence reducing available housing stock by one? Yup. Because I bought that house/flat, a local csn't. If I get sick, am I going to a local doctor/hospital? Sure. I have insurance so the costs aren't a problem but, any time a doctor, nurse or member of admin staff spends with me is time they cannot spend with a local. I drive, so I'm adding to road wear and congestion, my kids have to go to school somewhere, and I do doubt use loads of other local resources.

But, I have means to support myself and haven't made any welfare claims at all. Also, I'm paying lcal taxes, supporting lical businesses like restaurants and shops by using them.

Am I a burden? Probably not.

But what if 100,000 like me show up in Tuscany? Or 5 million?

Given time, schools, hospitals etc can be built, and doctors, nurses and admin staff recruited. Houses can be built, roads repaired and so on. Given time.

Which was my point. Immigration under control = good. Immigration not under control at least potentially = bad.

Further, large numbers of extra people in an area might be economically beneficial, but that still doesn't mean it's necessarily welcome.

For instance, if you live in a small, quiet village (say, 1000 people) and developers get permission to build 5000 new homes on the outskirts, all thos3 extea people bring in money spent in shops and loads of extra taxes to local government. The only problem is that those living there originally because they wanted a small, sleepy, quiet village no longer live in one.

Again, being concerned about immigration isn't simply racism. It isn't, for me at least, about who. It's about how many, and how many in a small period of time. i.e. it's about rate.

If I live in a quiet village, I don't care (*) what my neighbour's race, religion, etc is .... but I do care if the entire character of the village changes due to loads more building.


(*) Actually, I do care. It's hard to think of a better outcome than a nice Chinese family one side of me, a nice Asian/Indian family the other side and a nice Italian over the road. They wouldn't have finished moving in before they got the first dinner invites. We could make a good start on a 'foods of the world' club. And I don't care how good restaurants are, they rarely match up to home-cooked food and that is especially true (in my experience) of Indian and Chinese food.

My mouth is watering just thinking about it.

[adidan]

Agreed. But that doesn't amount to control of borders.

How about this.

I have eniugh funds to buy a residence in .... oh, .... Italy. Say, Tuscany. I have no criminal record, and enough funds and/or income, to feed myself and pay my bills. So, I go live in Tuscany.

Is my presence reducing available housing stock by one? Yup. Because I bought that house/flat, a local csn't. If I get sick, am I going to a local doctor/hospital? Sure. I have insurance so the costs aren't a problem but, any time a doctor, nurse or member of admin staff spends with me is time they cannot spend with a local. I drive, so I'm adding to road wear and congestion, my kids have to go to school somewhere, and I do doubt use loads of other local resources.

But, I have means to support myself and haven't made any welfare claims at all. Also, I'm paying lcal taxes, supporting lical businesses like restaurants and shops by using them.

Am I a burden? Probably not.

But what if 100,000 like me show up in Tuscany? Or 5 million?

Given time, schools, hospitals etc can be built, and doctors, nurses and admin staff recruited. Houses can be built, roads repaired and so on. Given time.

Which was my point. Immigration under control = good. Immigration not under control at least potentially = bad.

Further, large numbers of extra people in an area might be economically beneficial, but that still doesn't mean it's necessarily welcome.

For instance, if you live in a small, quiet village (say, 1000 people) and developers get permission to build 5000 new homes on the outskirts, all thos3 extea people bring in money spent in shops and loads of extra taxes to local government. The only problem is that those living there originally because they wanted a small, sleepy, quiet village no longer live in one.

Again, being concerned about immigration isn't simply racism. It isn't, for me at least, about who. It's about how many, and how many in a small period of time. i.e. it's about rate.

If I live in a quiet village, I don't care (*) what my neighbour's race, religion, etc is .... but I do care if the entire character of the village changes due to loads more building.


(*) Actually, I do care. It's hard to think of a better outcome than a nice Chinese family one side of me, a nice Asian/Indian family the other side and a nice Italian over the road. They wouldn't have finished moving in before they got the first dinner invites. We could make a good start on a 'foods of the world' club. And I don't care how good restaurants are, they rarely match up to home-cooked food and that is especially true (in my experience) of Indian and Chinese food.

My mouth is watering just thinking about it.

I get what you're saying but EU freedom of movement, I would argue, is different to immigration as we have the same rights.

UK citizens have been living and working on the mainland thanks to this arrangement. Unfortunately for some, they've been doing it so long they weren't allowed to take part in the referendum which seems ludicrous.

Have there been problems? Sure. Some areas saw a big influx of workers from the EU but those areas were not given the support from our Government to help deal with an increased demand on resources. That is a failing of our Governments, not of the principle of the Freedom of Movement.

I wouldn't say someone is rascist in one of those areas, I would say they have been let down by their own Government, as too are the workers that have moved to that area.

Anyway, without even leaving at the moment Europeans coming to the UK has tanked. I don't blame them. Has it changed overall migration? Not really, seeing as the rest of the world numbers have increased.

The UK is odd though, we don't actually know who is and is not here, some other countries in the EU know exactly who is living in them. This is bad as we're left to bandy about guesstimates which is never an efficient way to deal with a situation.

I am biased though, my partner is a European, lived and worked here for years, made a real life difference to many peoples lives. Now she tries to ignore Brexit because when she does think about it she feels like she's being shat on by a country she's dedicated so much to.

[Corky34]

But, I have means to support myself and haven't made any welfare claims at all. Also, I'm paying lcal taxes, supporting lical businesses like restaurants and shops by using them.

Am I a burden? Probably not.

I'm not sure there's a probably to it, you're defiantly not, in fact you're contributing more to the country than you're taking because of all those taxes and jobs you've created by using those local businesses, restaurants, shops, and the hospital that your insurance enabled you to pay for treatment in. Suggesting someone who can support themselves would be a burden sort of blows a big hole in the trickle down economics ethos that's dominated UK political think for the last 40 years.

That's not to say i disagree that building the infrastructure to support a large and sudden influx of people can prove problematic, however that's never really happened, for over a decade migration to the UK has stood around the 200k mark and before that (back to 97) it was around 150k, and that (I'm guessing as I've not researched properly) was only really possible because the economy could support those extra jobs.

FYI I'm not saying concern over immigration is racism just in case what I've said is misinterpreted, I'm saying that immigration can be managed if there's the will to do so, and that public concerns over immigration had been at historically low levels until 2000 when political rhetoric increasingly focused on immigration.

[pp05]

I think the most insidious thing about UKIP as was - apparenlty now the Brexit party - is the obvious conflict of interest in them standing for European elections ... "We don't think the EU works for Britain, so vote to send us to the EU where we can make sure the EU doesn't work for Britain".

They're not there to represent British interests in the EU, and it's frankly dishonest of them to stand for election to a position where they can have no positive impact whatsoever on whether the UK remain in, or leaves, the EU. It's one of the most blood-boiling things about the whole toxic nonsense.

*ahem* and perhaps now it's clear why I've been keeping out of most of the Brexit threads

But they get a cheque from the EU for their troubles. £££s

I think it was a Tory minister who recently went to European Parliament and quipped that she had never seen so many UKIP MEPs show up. It was because if they didn't they would have lost their free money.

[Ciber]

I really hoped Farage would continue to fade out of public view. Maybe I can still hope he will die soon from his obviously unhealthy lifestyle.

[Saracen999]

I'm not sure there's a probably to it, you're defiantly not, in fact you're contributing more to the country than you're taking because of all those taxes and jobs you've created by using those local businesses, restaurants, shops, and the hospital that your insurance enabled you to pay for treatment in. Suggesting someone who can support themselves would be a burden sort of blows a big hole in the trickle down economics ethos that's dominated UK political think for the last 40 years.

That's not to say i disagree that building the infrastructure to support a large and sudden influx of people can prove problematic, however that's never really happened, for over a decade migration to the UK has stood around the 200k mark and before that (back to 97) it was around 150k, and that (I'm guessing as I've not researched properly) was only really possible because the economy could support those extra jobs.

FYI I'm not saying concern over immigration is racism just in case what I've said is misinterpreted, I'm saying that immigration can be managed if there's the will to do so, and that public concerns over immigration had been at historically low levels until 2000 when political rhetoric increasingly focused on immigration.

From memory, I think you'll find net migration in recent years a fair bit higher than that. it's not that long ago that it was net 250k from the EU alone, and add in RotW and it was significantly higher.

My real point with my Tuscany example, though, was to try to illustrate that immigration (and emigration, for that matter) is complex. It's certainly more complex than the "net burden on welfare" argument would suggest. It's absolutely far more complex than "against immigration = racist" which (and I'm not accusing anykne here) is a nasty, pernicious slur that's been levelled at me many times simply because, while I'm pro-immigration if it's got some controls, the sheer rate can be an issue.

What really is a shame about the Brexit debate is when individuals, like Adidan's partner, start to feel unwelcome. It really would have been nice if the UK and EU couod have put that issue to rest about 5 minutes after the referendum vote, but I'd point out the UK government repeatedly tried to get Brussels to agree mutual recognition on that, because it so directly affected so many people, and Brussels wouldn't.

And Adidan .. I do get it. I'm not in that situation personally, but my nephew is, with his wife being European, and a highly educated, highly trained and highly valuable NHS nurse. She has, however, now taken UK citizenship (about a year ago).

Immigration at a policy level is, though, very complex and high levels, even more so. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend the probkem doesn't exist, though, however uncomfortable it makes people feel because it does exist as a problem and the longer politicians try to hide it and/or ignore it, the more it will fester and the more it will fuel that ultra-right wing bigot element in the process.

It's a subject that's already been ignored for about 20-30 years too long, not least by Blair when, yes, OUR government could have implemented the transition rules like almost every other EU state did on the Eastern-Eurooe Accession .... with the predictable result of massively larger numbers vcoming here than they predicted.


I do want to stress one thing, though. While immigration is a hot topic and, yes, I'm very much against unduly high rates, it isn't why I voted Leave, nor why I would do so again. If net migration fell to zero, I'd still be in favour of Leave, because immigration was little to no part of why I voted that way.

[outwar6010]

** snip ** removed


This has started going viral online




Zak Edit no ..no it hasn't "started going viral"...no such thing - it has a few hundred views.

Viral is as viral does and we will not allow that sort of youtube video on here ta, as it is blatantly rude and inflamatory

[outwar6010]

@Zak33: You are blatantly abusing your mod abilities because you don't agree with how farage(objectively racist) is being portrayed.
Im guess it was also you who removed my thread yesterday on racists being covered in milkshakes. I'm wondering why you didn't like that?

[peterb]

@Zak33: You are blatantly abusing your mod abilities because you don't agree with how farage(objectively racist) is being portrayed.
Im guess it was also you who removed my thread yesterday on racists being covered in milkshakes. I'm wondering why you didn't like that?

Admins and moderators are free to administer and moderate as they see fit within the FAQs.

From the FAQs...

This FAQ is the master copy of HEXUS rules. Some individual forums may have additional requirements, and those will be in a Sticky in the relevant forum. Please note that each member is expected to keep themselves up-to-date with the rules, and doing so is condition of continued forum usage. We will usually post a notification of changes in General Discussion, but this copy is the final reference.

The HEXUS team have to maintain an element of control over what happens on the forums. We try to exercise a light hand in this, but ultimately, the decisions of the Admin team are final, and we may not (perhaps for legal reasons) always be able to explain the reasons for those decisions.

If you feel you are being treated unfairly by a Mod or Admin, please refer it to another Admin. The final decision lies with the forum owner.

[g8ina]

and it was me that closed the thread for review after several reports from other HEXUS members.