EU immigration row / time to get out

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 29 Dec 2013, 22:36

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... a-refugees

Ukip's Nigel Farage shocks own party with call to let in Syrian refugees

He'll be kissing babies next.

Don't be fooled.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 29 Dec 2013, 23:24

Shortfall wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... a-refugees

Ukip's Nigel Farage shocks own party with call to let in Syrian refugees
He'll be kissing babies next.

Don't be fooled.

Don't be fooled by what?

I think Mr Farage is a bit of clown, and as a result I don't think he's very good at fooling people. He's pretty transparent, and I think he's making a rather simple point, and that he means what he says. He's being a bit naively optimistic though, because if the situation in the wider world is going to deteriorate in the generalised manner most people here believe it will then there are going to be far more refugees in future than there are now. The point he is making is that refugees from wars like the one currently going on in Syria must be treated differently to economic migrants - that not all would-be-immigrants are the same.

What is the "fooling" you think he's doing? He's not trying to pretend he's Mr Nice Guy, if that's what you are suggesting. He's just saying that UKIP is considerably more worried about economic migration than people trying to escape from wars. There are some very important differences between these two groups. Firstly, there are far more would-be economic migrants in the world than there are people trying to escape conflicts as serious as the one in Syria. Secondly, the situation in Syria is temporary, and when it is resolved then many, if not most, of the refugees will want to return. Economic imbalances are far more persistent in their current configuration, and here forever in some configuration or other.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 30 Dec 2013, 07:55

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Shortfall wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... a-refugees

Ukip's Nigel Farage shocks own party with call to let in Syrian refugees
He'll be kissing babies next.

Don't be fooled.
Don't be fooled by what?

I think Mr Farage is a bit of clown, and as a result I don't think he's very good at fooling people. He's pretty transparent, and I think he's making a rather simple point, and that he means what he says. He's being a bit naively optimistic though, because if the situation in the wider world is going to deteriorate in the generalised manner most people here believe it will then there are going to be far more refugees in future than there are now. The point he is making is that refugees from wars like the one currently going on in Syria must be treated differently to economic migrants - that not all would-be-immigrants are the same.

What is the "fooling" you think he's doing? He's not trying to pretend he's Mr Nice Guy, if that's what you are suggesting. He's just saying that UKIP is considerably more worried about economic migration than people trying to escape from wars. There are some very important differences between these two groups. Firstly, there are far more would-be economic migrants in the world than there are people trying to escape conflicts as serious as the one in Syria. Secondly, the situation in Syria is temporary, and when it is resolved then many, if not most, of the refugees will want to return. Economic imbalances are far more persistent in their current configuration, and here forever in some configuration or other.

I agree that war refugees represent a special case (as they always have done) and should be welcomed with the respect that they deserve. Humanitarian needs obviously outweigh any party political considerations.

However, I believe that Farage and UKIP represent the unacceptable face of right wing politics in the UK and on closer inspection have a veiled agenda which could easily be embraced by the EDL or BNP.

Contrary to popular opinion, Farage isn't a clown. He's devious and has rightly calculated that UKIP need to demonstrate a 'softer' side in order to increase their slice of the political pie.

When TS finally HTF, the sheeple will go in search of a new saviour. I sincerely hope, for all of our sakes, that they don't turn to the likes of Farage.

For further information on UKIP, please take a look at the following article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... k-evidence

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 30 Dec 2013, 08:05

I don't think we will be any safer with the likes of Cameron, Osborne, or Duncan-Smith. They too seem to have veiled agendas. People in the UK are already dying arguably as a result of policies implemented by IDS.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 30 Dec 2013, 08:30

woodburner wrote:I don't think we will be any safer with the likes of Cameron, Osborne, or Duncan-Smith. They too seem to have veiled agendas. People in the UK are already dying arguably as a result of policies implemented by IDS.

Amen to that.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 30 Dec 2013, 10:06

Shortfall wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Shortfall wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... a-refugees
He'll be kissing babies next.

Don't be fooled.
Don't be fooled by what?

I think Mr Farage is a bit of clown, and as a result I don't think he's very good at fooling people. He's pretty transparent, and I think he's making a rather simple point, and that he means what he says. He's being a bit naively optimistic though, because if the situation in the wider world is going to deteriorate in the generalised manner most people here believe it will then there are going to be far more refugees in future than there are now. The point he is making is that refugees from wars like the one currently going on in Syria must be treated differently to economic migrants - that not all would-be-immigrants are the same.

What is the "fooling" you think he's doing? He's not trying to pretend he's Mr Nice Guy, if that's what you are suggesting. He's just saying that UKIP is considerably more worried about economic migration than people trying to escape from wars. There are some very important differences between these two groups. Firstly, there are far more would-be economic migrants in the world than there are people trying to escape conflicts as serious as the one in Syria. Secondly, the situation in Syria is temporary, and when it is resolved then many, if not most, of the refugees will want to return. Economic imbalances are far more persistent in their current configuration, and here forever in some configuration or other.
I agree that war refugees represent a special case (as they always have done) and should be welcomed with the respect that they deserve. Humanitarian needs obviously out way any party political considerations.

However, I believe that Farage and UKIP represent the unacceptable face of right wing politics in the UK and on closer inspection have a veiled agenda which could easily be embraced by the EDL or BNP.

I'm not sure what you think is veiled. Most UKIP voters are refugees from the right wing of the Tory party, and this is not some sort of secret.

Contrary to popular opinion, Farage isn't a clown. He's devious and has rightly calculated that UKIP need to demonstrate a 'softer' side in order to increase their slice of the political pie.

Hmmm. I'm not convinced that is what is going on here. I don't think this is going to win UKIP many more votes.

When TS finally HTF, the sheeple will go in search of a new saviour. I sincerely hope, for all of our sakes, that they don't turn to the likes of Farage.

It is rather unlikely, IMO. UKIP may well win the next euro elections, but that is only because most of the voters don't think euro elections actually matter all that much (and they're right), but I think UKIP have about as much chance of winning a general election as the SNP have of winning the referendum on Scottish independence. They are little more than a one-policy party that exists only because of protest votes. As a potential westminster party? Nah...their only function in that respect is to bleed votes from the right wing of the Tory party and therefore act as a thorn in David Cameron's side.

For further information on UKIP, please take a look at the following article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... k-evidence

UKIP politicians are mostly right wing twits. They are the stupider ones of those who went to private schools. They are not intelligent deep-thinkers.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 30 Dec 2013, 10:22

UKIP politicians are mostly right wing twits. They are the stupider ones of those who went to private schools. They are not intelligent deep-thinkers.

Don't underestimate your enemies.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 30 Dec 2013, 11:40

woodburner wrote:
UKIP politicians are mostly right wing twits. They are the stupider ones of those who went to private schools. They are not intelligent deep-thinkers.
Don't underestimate your enemies.

+1. In the early thirties, Hitler and his despicable colleagues only managed to win a small slice of the electroral pie in Germany.

By the late thirties, the NAZI party ruled supreme. If we do not learn from the mistakes of history, we are doomed to repeat them.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 30 Dec 2013, 12:12

Unfortunately that is more a reflection on the electorate rather than the elected. One thing that is clear from history, is that "we" don't learn much.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 30 Dec 2013, 12:25

I'm not sure how ukip will gain votes taking in Syrians, to people who are anti immigration this isn’t anti immigration its pro immigration, Syrians are not Europeans.

ukip is a joke as are all the present parties that’s one of the reasons we are doomed and to think that ukip are anything like the Nazis or farage is like Hitler is a bit crazy .

when farage gathers together a bunch of thugs and marches on parliment sets up a machine gun outside and fires a pistol into the ceiling and shouts right we are taking over .

Or when you see real political armys fighting it out on the streets with real political violence then I may take all this owwww the nazis are coming talk seriously

.

We dont have the conditions or the people to make up these sorts of partys .We dont have real starvation yet, the mass of the people are too soft for political partys that are revoltionary of the left or right

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 30 Dec 2013, 12:48

When TSHTF, public apathy will inevitably turn into raw panic.

In the early thirties, I'm sure that most level-headed Germans treated the comedic figure of Hitler with derision. Fast forward to the late thirties - financial hardship, mass unemployment and starvation and suddenly the sheeple were prepared to vote for anyone who held up the promise of salvation.

Don't underestimate Farage or UKIP's ability to 'recruit' the Neanderthals currently roaming the corridors of the BNP and EDL offices. After some initial disbelief, I feel sure that many people would happily follow their lead as the times become more desperate.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 30 Dec 2013, 13:17

I just dont see farage firing a pistol into a ceiling

and shouting right I'm in charge now and setting up a heavy machine gun for people who might want to argue the point.
Actually I dont see anyone involved in the bnp or edl doing that either, Someone may arise but so far cant see them, and I dont think they will arise from any of the existing groups or partys .

So the bnp ukip or the edl don't worry me at all or any left wing group that I've come across .

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 30 Dec 2013, 13:30

maybe if they banned caravans you might get a revolution but even then I think it’s unlikely to happen .

Fascism was a revolutionary movement that only really took off in certain places, and since then has had 70 years of bad press and demonization, so I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to arise here after it failed in the 1930s.
It’s interesting the fear that you still have and the things that have happened because of that irrational fear, we have had mass immigration partly because of this fictitious fear of Nazis

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 02 Jan 2014, 06:58

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25562198

The UK Independence Party says a record year of growth has taken its membership above 30,000 for the first time.

The party, which campaigns for the UK to leave the European Union, said numbers had increased by more than 13,000 to about 32,500 in 2013.

Its leader Nigel Farage said UKIP was appealing to people who had never joined a party before, many of whom had "given up on politics altogether".

In contrast, the Conservatives have seen their membership levels fall.

While Labour has increased its membership in the past three years, totals are still well below where they were in 2001 - while Lib Dem membership fell sharply between 2010 and 2012.

As every cockroach knows, thriving on poison is the secret of success.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 02 Jan 2014, 09:03

You mean like the labour party does when it brings in millions of people from the third world, lies to its own working class voters that its not going to do that .
And basically does it because it hates white people and wants to cause them to disappear so genocide, and so it can be rig elections .

"we dont tell them what we are doing because labour voters in working mens clubs in tyne and wear wouldnt understand"

They are to thick and racist I suppose .

The main reason I think we have mass third world immigration is the same as in the states its vote rigging or voter fraud.

in the states you have 99% of blacks and 71% of hispanics voting democrat
most whites in the last election voted for Romney if the left hadnt rigged the election he would have been president .

now imagine your a democrat planner and you saw those sort of voting numbers you would want more blacks and more hispanics and less whites in your country .

"Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.

The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats."

isnt that a pretty dirty way to win a election ? you cant get enough british or american people to vote for what you believe, so you lie to your own voters that your going to be tough on immigration to get elected, and bring in loads of third worlders who you know will vote for you.

And yet you have the cheek to talk about poison in reference to ukip

http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/pressArticle/83