Sent by the Cons to knock UKIP. The EU does its best to kill motorcycling. vote UKIP unless you want to be run by unelected EU GOONS.
Eh? Vote UKIP if you are a mindless imbecile bereft of intelligence and see the writing of the daily mail as a left wing rag. Why waste a vote on those comedy clowns. Bunch of racist, xenophobic misogynists. Okay not sure on the last one but I couldve just called them a bunch of c....
It may interest you to know (it may not) but we Swiss are having one of our popular votes in a fortnight's time. One of the 3 questions we have to vote on is immigration. The sort of Swiss UKIP has forced a vote on immigration policy. This essentially says, we should control immigration and limit it to a quota. All the other parties are against, citing our bilateral arrangement with the EU, allowing EU citizens the right to come and work in Switzerland, in exchange for Swiss citizens being able to live and work in the EU. But if the vote is carried, the politicians will have no option but to renegotiate those agreements as the people are sovereign here. What the people vote on becomes law, or doesn't. The point of my post is that in the UK, it is possible to just write off people like UKIP and more or less ignore them. Here in Switzerland, you have to address the points of these people - you have to make a decision. And it is an interesting decision - the situation being similar to the UK in many respects. Net migration is increasing at a rate of about 1% of the population per annum. So in 10 years, there will be an extra 10% or 800'000 people. Where are they going to go? Flats are in very short supply, motorways and trains are stuffed full. Official immigration policy is that we have the agreements we have, so there is no room for manoeuvre. What does this look like long term? Grim. It's going to be interesting. I may find myself voting with the Swiss equivalent of UKIP on this issue, seeing as no one is facing up to the future. How poor is that?
The Romans were a ruthless military machine but once subjugated tribes were allowed to get on with their lives as long as they paid tribute to Rome.
I think we ignore UKIP at our peril. The traditional political divide is crumbling along with the total number of people actively following and voting on political issues whilst at the same time an increasing number of people who feel left behind are turning to UKIP. In marginal seats they could influence the out come. So what would 'facing up to the future' look like to you ?
You need some sort of immigration policy if: Look at a map of the EU. It will be apparent that some places have net migration deficits, whilst others have net migration increases. It is bound to be this way, as employment opportunities and standards of living vary widely across the EU. Nothing is ever uniform. So to say that the blanket policy of allowing all EU citizens to work and live where they will is fair is obviously not the case. There will be clustering and load and stress will be placed on certain regions with an excess of people wishing to live there. Other places will depopulate (have a look at the Pyrenean ghost villages and SW France if you want to see that this looks like). What's so bad about immigration? Nothing, in theory, but like most things it's great in moderation. If the local culture is homogenised in a multicultural hotchpotch, then the locals are the losers. Man is a tribal animal and needs a sense of community and roots. Take those roots away from indigenous inhabitants and it is bound to make them unhappy. I have a baseline vision for both the UK and Switzerland. When I go into a shop in south London and ask for crumpets, I expect to be able to find them, but at the worst, that the shop owner knows what I am talking about. It is little consolation to me to find 5 sorts of pitta bread. If I was in the Lebanon, I wouldn't have a problem with that scenario. I think that cultures are becoming like industrial food. The same things are found all over the world. Finding the real McCoy is increasingly difficult. Everything is tending to look the same, until regional differences and languages will be wiped out. Future multicultural culture will not be a juxtaposition of vibrancy from all over the world, but in a few generations, a global media-induced urban blandness where all traditions have been lost. The only culture will be consumption. So yes, I think that immigration needs looking at properly. It's the only reason for UKIP's existence and shred of credibility, it seems to me, as no other party wants to get to grips with the problem. When and if one does, UKIP will fade into political anonymity. Let's face it, most of them are bonkers and unsavoury.
Yet you are pro EU, doesn't the EU help to create the homogeneity that you don't like ? If the disparity of oportunity and standard of living is what drives migration from rich to poor what can be done about it ? The EU wants further political intergration to mitigate the economic problems created by its very existence. Part of that is freedom of movement and the same benefits for all irrespective of origin within the EU and different levels of contribution. This is why I am anti EU and a UKIP sympathiser. It is the elites that benefit from the EU, not the man in the street and the same can be said of globalisation, however you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
I am pro EU, but that doesn't mean that I can't see problems with it, or think it doesn't need reform, or that it's overall mission may need to be re-examined. The immigration issue is a thorny one. I don't have a definite idea yet of what to think and will be welcoming the debates that are coming up on the TV before the Swiss vote. Immigration of some sort is clearly beneficial to business, and probably to society. Japan, in which there is no immigration, seems to be fairly sclerotic. The whole question is what sort of immigration, and how much? As an EU citizen, I would be glad of the chance to come and live in Switzerland. I did that, and it was very difficult at the time. Now it would be simple. So zero immigration is not an option. I dispute your assertion that the EU has made its members poorer by creating adverse economic conditions. There are elements of harmonisation that make perfect sense. It is good that goods and services should move around quite freely. For example, it still makes no sense that cross-border mobile phone calls within the EU cost an arm and a leg. I suspect lobbying at work, to which I have alluded on previous threads. UKIP is a great simplifier which is part of its appeal. People just love a simple answer to difficult questions, a simple answer to life. But these things are not simple.
Tell that to the PIIGS, and some of the others aren't looking too rosey. The push and pull that drives progress has been replaced with legislation and regulation, this is why France under Hollande is starting to fail; Milliband is talking the same talk. UKIP is a great simplifier and I would never vote for them as anything other than a protest vote, it is the poor performance of the mainstream parties that drives people to UKIP. It has always been the case that elites thrive and rest have to make do. The 20th Century was a period when the average man in the street saw a real rise in living standards, fueled by cheap oil, during which the rich became the super rich. I think the energy question will determine where the 21st century goes. Will it be a hard or a soft landing ? Will global population stabilise ? Who knows ?
I know. I was alluding to the superstition of the good old days. As far as I am concerned religion is just superstition. Besides not one person asked the question - how did the french train the monkey? and how did it manage to get all the way to Hartlepool before anyone twigged? Another example of how religion quietens the inquisitive mind. .
France under Hollande is not starting to fail. It has been starting to fail for ages. People looked to Hollande (as they always do) to wave some kind of magic wand to stop it failing, but naturally, he doesn't have one. All people who want to get elected pretend they do. Sarkozy at least gave the impression of looking quite energetic. Hollande looks like a snail, not really doing anything to change anything. France is overburdened with red tape and "fonctionnaires" (civil servants). They are ludicrously over-staffed in this department and it slows the pace of innovation and reduces employment. It's been a problem for ages, but no one seems up to tackle it. There is no point blaming Hollande for the state of France. You can only blame him (and should) for not investing sufficient energy in creating change. Odd really, as France has so many things going for it - more than most places.
