Coffee House

Ukip: David Cameron’s immigration policy is vacuous and cynical posturing

29 July 2014

12:53 PM

29 July 2014

12:53 PM

I have described David Cameron’s posturing on immigration today as vacuous and cynical, for that is exactly what it is.

Cynical because once again he seems determined to fool the British people into believing that we can seriously have our own immigration policy whilst remaining inside the EU. We can’t.

Vacuous because his policy solution seems to consist of tinkering around the edges of the problem instead of dealing with it head on. Under his government, net migration levels per annum remain in the hundreds of thousands, with citizens from twenty-seven other nations allowed to come and go as they please.

What Britain really needs is a tough, solid, Australian-style immigration system. One which is firm but fair and that can control numbers.

[Alt-Text]


I would argue that this — the UKIP policy — is the most ethical immigration policy there is.

The EU immigration policy set for us in Brussels discriminates against doctors and lawyers from places like India, America and China, whilst showing an open door to anyone from Eastern Europe. That isn’t ethical. It isn’t fair. And indeed, in many ways, it is downright racist.

A competitive Britain is one which controls the quality and quantity of people coming into our country, one that welcomes those willing to pay their way and contribute to our system before they can take out.

Under UKIP, new migrants would have to pay for their own health insurance and work for five years before they would gain access to free healthcare. Local people with family links to an area would get preference for social housing over newcomers.

That is the Britain that we in UKIP want to see: welcoming the bright and the best, but looking after our own people first.

What David Cameron is offering is the type of watered-down policy direct from Brussels which offers very little change from Labour’s disastrous tenure in government.

It is time to take back control of our borders. It is time to leave the European Union to become a competitive, engaged, patriotic nation once more.

​Steven Woolfe is Ukip’s Migration Spokesman


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Danny

    JUST MAKE BRITISH ANCESTRY A CITIZENSHIP REQIUREMENT! Whoever migrates here to work or study or whatever, let them. Then once their visa is over with, they leave!

    Simple solution, to both filling up job shortages and preventing the population from getting out of hand at the same time. Not to mention preventing any further large scale demographic shifts in the racial/ethnic make up of the country. We was a White country in 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900 and even now we are still the overwhelming majority of this country and we have a right to remain that way!!

  • Jaria1

    Some of the Polish women are worth it!

  • Jaria1

    No need to read minds Just need the ability to see reason.

  • George

    WHY CANT WE BE LIKE AUSTRALIA IT ISNT FAIR, OUR COUNTRY IS LIKE A SCRAP HEAP BECAUSE ALL YOU LOOK AFTER IS IMMAGRANTS AND NOT YOUR OWN PEOPLE, WELL ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

  • Jaria1

    I’m sure the bookmakers would give you pretty good odds if you wanted to bet on UKIP having sufficient MPs in the House of Commons to put their policies into action

  • janice m ratclife

    While all this goes on , I have been trying to claim my state pension since February an got absolutely no were , I am indigenous to this country like my family for many many many decades , all my family have fought in the two warsvin fact a lot more , I sent my last batch of forms back a month ago and have heard nothing , I was born in 1952 some one explain why foreigners no history here at all have non of my problems

    • George

      they treat immagrants better than us, especially in bolton i see all the asians living in massive houes and have mercedes why we have crappy cars and live in terrist houses, totally wrong.

  • AsYouSay

    Don’t immigrant’s not pay taxes? And don’t their taxes help pay pensioners?

    • George Smiley

      The wages earned by bumping off Britons from the jobs that Britons could have taken.

  • evad666

    Immigrants being gifted benefits in excess of £32k pa while hubby dumps wife and kids to go off on jihad.

  • Jaria1

    UKIP have the luxury of saying whatever they like in the knowledge that they will never have to implement what they say.

    • Guest

      UKIP have set the agenda – and are the factor factor the other parties are scared stiff about , especially the Conservatives.

      • Jaria1

        I repeat they have the luxury of saying what ever they want without having to implement it. This is the same with all spring flower protest parties.

    • Andrew Price

      UKIP have set the agenda and are the factor which the other parties are scared stiff about , especially the Conservative Party.

    • GraveDave

      That’s what the right always used to say about Nick Clegg.
      To roll out a well used cliché , ‘Always expect the unexpected.’

      • Jaria1

        You might find they have different things to say about him as he’s handed the election to his Labour chums by vetoing the updating of the constituency boundaries making it necessary for the Tories to have a lead of 7% just to stay level.
        Wonder what he had in mind.

    • Xaider

      Can you mind read Jaria?

      You don’t know that, it’s scientifically impossible.

    • George

      immagrant lover

      • Jaria1

        Some of the Polish women are worth it!
        Controlled immigration would have been fine but Brown thought it good for the economy. It might have been but ruined Britains identity.
        We’ve also got some that need to be got rid if pdq

  • Elizabeth Grey

    But would leaving the EU really make us more competitive? There seems to be significant evidence that any savings we would make on contributions would be offset by the losses caused by increased trade tariffs and barriers: http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/446832/beware-the-brexit.thtml. Ironically these immigration proposals would also increase the amount of red-tape that many complain about now in regards to the EU, as presumably these points style applications would need to be processed. Besides, for anyone in the UK to claim benefits, they need to prove that they are ‘habitually resident’ (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/benefits_w/benefits_coming_from_abroad_and_claiming_benefits_hrt/benefits_the_habitual_residence_test_introduction/what_is_the_habitual_residence_test.htm), which applies even the UK citizens returning from abroad.

    • icini

      Any one who works can get Tax credit, even if they sell the big issue.
      Costs of complying with EU law and regulations far exceed our contributions. We pay these directly however, not through tax, so they don’t count.
      Then there are the costs of paying benefits to all the minimum wage earners, who are unemployed because migrants will work for less. Loads of these where I live.

      • Elizabeth Grey

        Even if we left, we would still need to comply with the trade regulation of EU countries, unless we decided to stop trading with them altogether, which would destroy our economy as the EU is our biggest export market.

        • mohdanga

          How so??? The EU trades with Canada, the US, Australia, Japan, China, etc and these countries manage just fine. Switzerland seems to do OK and it’s not a member.

        • icini

          We import more from the EU than we export to them. Leaving would not stop trade with European countries, I don’t recall China being an EU member.

      • Elizabeth Grey

        Even if we left the EU, in order to export to EU countries British industry would need to comply with their regulations. Considering that the EU is Britain’s biggest export market, failing to do this and falling exports could have a disastrous effect on the economy.

    • revkevblue

      Why would they impose increased trade tariffs and barriers on us. as we buy more from them, than they do from us?
      Sounds like cutting their nose off to spite their face to me.
      The substance contained in the rest of your question is the usual scaremongering misinformation trotted out by the Pro-Eurofiles.
      Please, please can you at least come up with a reason that totally justifies handing over the governance of our sovereign country to a bunch of unelected foreigners in Brussels.
      Until someone comes up with that, I will continue to vote UKIP.

    • George Smiley

      The Habitual Residence Test only in reality hurts returning British citizens from abroad—although quite a lot of those lot are probably either not of full British descent, with not that much English, and have no real understanding of British culture anyway; or not of British descent at all, and quite a lot of us probably would have no objection on hitting them harder.

  • Lydia Robinson

    Why are we still letting in Somalians when we have never had any historical connection with that country at all? It is not our fault that the tribes of Somalia kill each other and are likely to continue doing so.

    • mohdanga

      Now, now, you’re being intolerant and xenophobic. Don’t you know that you need ‘diversity’ and ‘enrichment’ by these 7th century cultures to make your life complete?

    • George Smiley

      The EU orders us to keep taking in Somali refugees and asylum-seekers, so that France and Germany do not have to.

      • la catholic state

        Cameron could stop it….but doesn’t want to.

  • wattys123

    if you want to get into the top 1% of EU earners, come to London get a job working 16 hrs as a Paper Boy then have 10 kids – 75K in housing, income and child support. simples

  • Fraser Bailey

    Well, everything Cameron and Miliband do and say is vacuous and cynical, so no change there.

  • la catholic state

    What rubbish. Most doctors I know of are Indian! I know of no East European doctors. The racism against East Europeans disgusts me. Mind you….my dentist is East European….and they are the best dentist I know of.
    I will be voting Christian Alliance next year. I am against Islamisation and pro-Christianisation…I am also against Islamic immigration. Bye UKIP!

    • URSULARICHES

      I think I’ll write none of em and God save us on my paper-again.

  • cargill55

    Farage and UKIP were absolutely right in warning about soaring Bulgarian and Romanian immigration once the borders were opened within the EU , in one year new NI numbers handed out have risen by 129% out of a horrendous total of new NI numbers handed out to overseas nationals of 603000.
    These are the figures the state bureaucracy, the sycophantic MSM and Liblabcon oligarchy dare not shout about. Add illegal immigrants , add dependents and our real gross immigration figure is likely to be over 700000 a year.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf

  • GraveDave

    It is time to take back control of our borders. It is time to leave
    the European Union to become a competitive, engaged, patriotic nation
    once more.

    ​Steven Woolfe is Ukip’s Migration Spokesman

    You’re too late. And let’s be honest, if you had anyone like with Enoch Powell’s views in your party today, you would still do exactly what Ted Heath did over 45 years ago.

  • Agrippina

    We all know that the essential work done by the eastern euros, Big Issue seller, car wash etc, enables them to claim child benefit, child & working tax credit, housing benefit etc, which costs us billions. He says he doesn’t want Brit jobs advertised overseas.

    Perhaps he could have a word with the CEO of Next, Simon Wolfson, he prob remembers him, he enobled him. He is married to Eleanor Shawcross adviser to Giddy. Next the store brings them over from Poland and has made redundant the Brit workers in the North.

    Just vote for anyone but the trio of troughers for real change.

    • GraveDave

      Cant have too many car washers.

  • Andrew Price

    Cameron has not even tackled the non EU immigration problem. There are hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants,bogus asylum seekers, marriage of convenience immigrants and bogus students in London alone.These people all have to live somewhere , these people will all get free health care , these people will all be using our transport system and schools and many will be getting handouts of some description. Still the flow of immigrants continues unchecked.

    • GraveDave

      Wonder how much the ‘bedroom subsidy ‘ and IDS’ genius has saved the treasury so far.

  • Travis Zly

    I think UKIP is being baited by the PM. As long as he harps on about immigration, UKIP will take the bait. There is a need for UKIP to start putting proposals on the table as to what other policies it will put in place as a future government. We all get UKIP’s policy on immigration. If UKIP wants voters to take it seriously at the polls, it must start looking like a professional bunch of managers, not a one-trick pony.

    • global city

      I could not agree more. I for one, thought that the last two weeks of the EU elections pushed the issue just a bit to far past the ‘healthy’ debate and dipped into some unsavoury stuff, which may have cost UKIP a seat or two. UKIP must make sure that the constitutional and democratic consequences are fully understood….. or any referendum will be lost to the ‘jobs’ lies of the eurofreaks.

      Everyone understands the issue of mass migration and EU ‘freedom of movement’ issue now.

    • Andrew Price

      Travis there is no baiting , but rather a frantic and not very convincing attempt at throwing some red meat in a rightwards direction.However it is all window dressing and all too late. Cameron had one opportunity to take this country in a conservative direction and he blew it. He blew it because he is a liberal. Short of Labour absolutely imploding Cameron has not the slightest chance of winning the next election.The best that could happen is that somehow the electoral cards fall with the Lb Dems loosing most of their seats to the Conservatives which compensate for the seats they will loose to Labour and for UKIP to pick up between 10- 20 seats. Just possibly with with the help of UKIP and the Ulster Unionists the Conservatives could then form an administration.The scenario I have just outlined is not likely. More likely is an outright Labour majority.

    • cargill55

      UKIP manifesto coming out September but it already has pretty clear immigration policies.
      EU exit, green card system, get rid of illegal immigrants, waiting period for state benefits, tougher border control and policing .

    • GraveDave

      To be fair all fledgling parties have to find their wings.But of course they also need to concentrate a bit more on the fiscal side of their policies.

  • EppingBlogger

    I look forward to reading the full text of the UKIP immigration policy soon.

    I am sure we can look forward to a European Court ruling, soon after next May, in which Dave’s promised reforms are ruled illegal. That would explain why he has waited over four years before doing ebven this small chanmge; he plans to talk the talk in the election campaign knowing he or Labour will not be allowed to walk the walk.

  • DaHitman

    Cameron is a liar, he could stop immigration from outside the EU now but it continues and is higher than that from the EU

    • la catholic state

      Same with UKIP!

  • English Majority

    All very logical and (unfortunately) very moderate, Mr Woolfe, but I rather think the only possible way forward is an immediate halt to all immigration, and preferably a reversal.

    This is genuinely what the actual people want.

    • Damaris Tighe

      We can halt it but we can’t reverse it.

      • English Majority

        It must be done, Damaris. It must. By any means.

        You know this.

    • la catholic state

      UKIP are more of the same.

      • George Smiley

        Or is it really because, for you, the Polish are Catholics?

        • la catholic state

          That is part of it….no doubt. And most East Europeans are Christian of one variety or other. Be careful before you bar these people. They won’t debstailise Britain.

          • George Smiley

            The idea of a Catholic State repulses me, but then I am a Yorkshireman who had also lived a bit down in Lincolnshire! Can’t you have one each in Ireland and in Lancashire first, and work your way from there?!

            • la catholic state

              That’s fine. You don’t have to live in a Catholic state. We don’t mind a bit.

              • George Smiley

                There is already one, and it is called the Republic of Malta. Why don’t you go and live on the Islands instead?!

                • la catholic state

                  Because I want a Catholic state in England…..God willing.

  • cambridgeelephant

    Well Said ! You’ve got my vote for all it’s worth.

    • cargill55

      It’s worth a lot.

  • David Hollins MBA

    The truth about “benefit tourism” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28544715 About 60,000 JSA claimants are EU citizens and nearly all of them have already contributed NI – number of problem cases: less than ten thousand!
    Benefit tourism = another UKIP lie.

    • Xaider

      Their contributed NI is an illusion.

      They get more out of the tax payer than they put in, else benefits would cease to exist because they would already have the money. It’s basically a great way to invest money and get back benefits.

      • David Hollins MBA

        In that case, we are all benefit tourists.

        • Xaider

          No we’re not, because we are British citizens who live in Britain. We didn’t come to Britain with the intention to remove money out the economy from benefits and send it home.

    • English Majority

      Include black and Muslim immigrants – recent and otherwise – in your stats, and see the actual reality.

  • Donafugata

    This is another cynical PR ploy because that’s all Camoron is capable of.

    Limiting benefits to migrants is no more than a sound bite, it is going to be impossible to make it stick.

    • Conway

      Since they don’t seem to know who is here, how are they going to enforce it anyway (always assuming the EU let’s them implement it)?

  • Andrew Price

    Cameron and his crew live in rural and middle class ghettos which for the moment are insulated from the catastrophic results of rampant immigration. Mr Cameron please come and live in Wood Green North London and see the effects of your immigration policy on housing , doctors surgeries , hospitals , transport and schools.For those of you on this thread who think you will be immune – you are deluded , Wood Green today , the Cotswolds tomorrow.

    • Blakenburg

      He lives not far from Bicester and Oxford, he should go and visit there !

  • Lady Magdalene

    A Sovereign nation is able to control its own border and decide who may, and who may not, enter.

    UKIP’s immigration policy is basically the same as Australia, Canada, NZ and most other countries on the planet. Only the EU have open borders with a supra-national treaty organisation effectively governing the process.

    Cameron’s latest “promises” are pointless. Why should we allow anyone to enter the country to look for work AND pay them benefits whilst they do so.

    But what is more to the point is why should we subsidise immigrants to take low-paid jobs, with Tax Credits and the full panoply of our public services. And why should we pay them Child Benefit … if they can’t support their families, they shouldn’t be here.
    Stephen Woolfe is absolutely right. Cameron’s (re) announcement today is just empty posturing. His Party gave away the right to govern our country and Cameron doesn’t want to reclaim it.
    UKIP does; so it gets my vote.

  • David Hollins MBA

    What is nastiest about UKIP is the conflation of the EU with everything (Hitler found that when he blamed the Jews for everything, he got the biggest cheer). They don’t actually say it, but the implication is that the reason for immigration is people from the EU – well, it is an unfortunate fact for UKIP that fewer than half of all immigrants are from the EU and that ex hypothesi, no illegals are. However, in this really rather nasty piece (pretending to be all moral for not being “racist”), the UKIP spokesman tries to subliminally project the idea that they are mostly EU and that leaving the EU would thus eliminate nearly all immigration. It is a UKIP lie.
    Then, there is the question I have posed to Mr Woolfe on twitter without any reply: If the UK is full and UKIP still wants immigrants, who is going home? When will the calls to “send them home” start?
    The other elephant in the room of course is the UKIP voter. While some just hate any foreigner [and that is at least a consistent position!], many will tell you that what they really, really don’t want are African illegals, Muslims, Pakistanis – those, whose colour, customs and religion are rather different from the mainstream. Offered the choice between some Poles and some Pakistanis (and let’s face it, no-one of Polish descent has ever blown themselves up on the Tube), most would plump for the former. UKIP are offering the latter.
    UKIP also oppose ID cards, so I wonder how they will know who can stay here better than the current Agency?
    In short, for someone claiming to be ethical and fair, this is quite the nastiest, duplicitous load of lying propaganda I have yet read on the subject.

    • MrsDBliss

      I this a case of physician heal thyself is required here. After all, you have nothing to substantiate your assertions, just rhetoric and slander. You infer repeatedly from the writers ‘real’ meaning but have no facts to actually support your inferences.
      Read your last line to yourself in the mirror.

      • David Hollins MBA

        I have nothing but rhetoric, but then you admit I have sourced the basis of my comments! Ah well, that’s Kippers for you.
        EU immigration is still less than half of the total (contrary to the impression portrayed by the article) and you are also conveniently forgetting that 2.2 million Brits live in the rest of the EU, so where is the space when at least some of them are returned home as being unwanted? You do know that trends are merely projections, don’t you? After all, half of Poles, who came in 2004 have gone back.
        It is a fact that UKIP oppose ID cards – so how will you know whether someone is legal or not? It is a fact that all illegals are from outside the EU (as EU citizens were all going to flood in here legally according to Farage in the debates). It is a fact that if UK is full, some immigration means some must leave.
        The fall in non-EU immigration proves very little unless you know how many are seeking to come here – fewer might wish to come for example, as many students have gone elsewhere due to the perception of a rather nasty reception among some. That in itself is a loss in income in universities.
        You do however reveal the problem for UKIP – you say you oppose immigration – UKIP want it to continue (although they will be from more far flung places).

        • Xaider

          forgetting that 2.2 million Brits live in the rest of the EU

          You’re also forgetting that a good amount which come to Britain do so to claim benefits (obviously) and undercut jobs which they then use to send the money out the country.

          I doubt Brits goto other nations to scrounge their national benefit programme or remove money from the economy.

          • English Majority

            That’s the difference: Brits are assets to any country they go to.

            As opposed to the hordes we get.

        • MrsDBliss

          Yes, your assertion tee the numbers is correct, the rhetoric was as follows;

          “What is nastiest about UKIP is the conflation of the EU with everything (Hitler found that when he blamed the Jews for everything, he got the biggest cheer). They don’t actually say it, but the implication is that the reason for immigration is people from the EU” and this “However, in this really rather nasty piece (pretending to be all moral for not being “racist”), the UKIP spokesman tries to subliminally project the idea that they are mostly EU and that leaving the EU would thus eliminate nearly all immigration. It is a UKIP lie.Then, there is the question I have posed to Mr Woolfe on twitter without any reply: If the UK is full and UKIP still wants immigrants, who is going home? When will the calls to “send them home” start?
          The other elephant in the room of course is the UKIP voter. While some just hate any foreigner [and that is at least a consistent position!], many will tell you that what they really, really don’t want are African illegals, Muslims, Pakistanis – those, whose colour, customs and religion are rather different from the mainstream. Offered the choice between some Poles and some Pakistanis (and let’s face it, no-one of Polish descent has ever blown themselves up on the Tube), most would plump for the former. UKIP are offering the latter.
          UKIP also oppose ID cards, so I wonder how they will know who can stay here better than the current Agency?
          In short, for someone claiming to be ethical and fair, this is quite the nastiest, duplicitous load of lying propaganda I have yet read on the subject.”
          Is ALL rhetoric. Of course perhaps you disagree. If you can point me to a fact in any of it I will gladly recognise it.
          I stated that it was less than half in my reply. Can you find me a quotation that supports this latter assertion?;
          “EU immigration is still less than half of the total (contrary to the impression portrayed by the article)” I don’t think there is one and, as I said, half of immigration is significant when its the half you can’t control and – as the article states – it is inequitable that some who come to this country have no checks to go through whilst others do not. In fact the ONS reports statement “This is due to fewer New Commonwealth citizens migrating to the UK for formal study.” would support that.
          “you are also conveniently forgetting that 2.2 million Brits live in the rest of the EU, so where is the space when at least some of them are returned home as being unwanted?”
          The latter part of this sentence isn’t coherent. However let me deal with the former. I don’t conveniently forget those that have left. More rhetoric. A little nasty to suggest this actually, a little duplicitous. 532,000 immigrated last year, only 320,000 emigrated. There is still a very large imbalance.
          “You do know that trends are merely projections, don’t you?” I didn’t quote trends, I quoted the reality that it is EU immigration that is increasing. It is. I then stated if it continues, which with your argument of “UKIP spokesman tries to subliminally project the idea that they are mostly EU and that leaving the EU would thus eliminate nearly all immigration.” it is significant and perfectly rational to deliberate what impact leaving the EU would have on future immigration. There is nothing in my statement to suggest that I thought this would be a reality and as I added the proviso that “particularly if these trends continue” it is quite obvious that I am aware that trends are projections. More rhetoric demeaning your opponent rather than facts.
          “After all, half of Poles, who came in 2004 have gone back. ” I’ve looked the the ons figures; where is this fact located?
          As far your statement about ID cards it is not incompatible to keep control of our borders without them. We have before haven’t we.
          you must tell your bosses at Tory HQ that the fall in none EU immigration wasn’t as a result of their policies.
          The remainder of your statements are, again, ALL rhetoric. Your last line in particular.
          By the way, I never said I opposed immigration. I rebutted arguments that I felt had been delivered with venom and hypocrisy.

          • Alexandrovich

            Please Mrs. D, you’ve eaten Paddy Briggs for breakfast and are now comprehensively demolishing David Hollins. If you continue like this you’ll scare them off and we need them here as unwitting UKIP recruiting sargeants.

            • MrsDBliss

              Paddy’s not speaking to me anymore (sigh).

      • Damaris Tighe

        There’s one truth in what you say. If the British people had the choice they’d rather have Polish Catholic immigrants than, say, Muslim Asian. Some may indeed be prejudiced by skin colour but many nowadays are rightly nervous about the implications of large numbers of immigrants from an incompatible culture with a militant religion.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Sorry! Replied to the wrong person! (Re There’ one truth …)

  • David

    Hear hear! As someone with personal experience of Britain’s current immigration policy, I have long been making the point that it is – in practice, if not in theory – a kind of Apartheid. It effectively blocks most non-whites (from Africa, India, China, etc.) from coming into the UK, whilst offers an open door to the predominantly white people of the EU. It is amazing that no one has pointed out that it is racist, so good for you Steven for doing so!

    • Shazza

      When African/Asian immigrants from Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Iraq get to France/Germany/Italy/Greece and get citizenship, they can and do come here.
      I believe that half of Dutch Somalian citizens now live in the UK.

      • MrsDBliss

        Legally or illegally?

        • Blakenburg

          If they have EU Passports, then it is Legally !

          • Shazza

            Yup and if they are illegal, they claim asylum and bingo – they are legal.

            • Blakenburg

              On both counts its going to get worse before it …..might get better !

          • Conway

            Certain EU countries (i believe Malta is one, for example) are willing to sell their passports to those who have the requisite amount of dosh.

      • Steve Lloyd

        I have a Somalia Doctor, and I have to say. She’s fecking brilliant.

    • mohdanga

      It effectively blocks non-whites so much so that half of London is now non-white.
      Yes, it is ‘apartheid’ that England, a white country for the last 2,000 years, does not want non-whites and wants to retain its culture just like every non-white country does. Is Japan an apartheid country? How about China? India? Pakistan? Or should these countries be overrun with people who have no connection with them? Would the Pakistanis (those that haven’t yet overwhelmed the British Midlands) embrace massive Chinese immigration? Would Somalia welcome boatloads of Brazilians? How about India welcoming tens of millions of enriching Nigerians? Yeah, thought so.

  • andyrwebman

    Can’t really argue with the chap – makes the case for allowing a few people in from any place provided they have talent, instead of lots based on “we’re in the EU”.

    That’s really what most people who hate the status quo are after, yet are constantly called “little Englanders” because of it. As if there’s something inherently global in your outlook by saying “come on in, as many as want to come” with no thougth to the practicalities involved.

    • Xaider

      The main concern is EU immigration – he only tackled non-eu immigration which is not going to help anyone. He hasn’t proposed a single thing that will actually realistically produce results.

      All he has done is put benefits at 3 months instead of 6 which is STILL outrageous. They can get more benefits if they have ‘clear job prospects’ or intend to get a job – all you have to do is come here and say you intend to get a job and have clear prospects.

      Basically Camerons ‘policy’ is a non-policy because it’s words which won’t change a thing.

      • Damaris Tighe

        The new rules also exclude those who have paid NI. Which leads me to ask, how much? for how long? The number of EU migrants who’ve paid a bit of NI & are now claiming may be much larger than the tiny group of never-paid NI that he’s clamped down on.

        • Xaider

          And let’s not get too happy about this horrific proposed policy by Cameron, the EU is already claiming they’ll take us to court if one tiny little thing is against EU law. Not only that, the entity saying this is the European Commission, the unelected ones who are selected in ‘secret’! The individual who was replaced by Juncker was appointed a new position essentially right next to him out of the blue! It’s such a communist system it’s not even funny. The illusion is everyone ‘voting’ for MEPs – they don’t really have that much power at all.

    • mohdanga

      England is still flagellated for its empire and settling in all parts of the world (and improving these places) yet it’s OK for millions of people from countries with no cultural connection to England to be allowed into England, if not, Englans is ‘racist’.

  • global city

    Farage also dismissed benefit tourism as a false flag during the EU debate he had with Clegg.

    Who cares about benefits tourism.

    • Xaider

      Really? I doubt Farage, especially Clegg would disregard something as a ‘false-flag’.

      Provide a source for that because I certainly couldn’t find it on Google.

      It sounds like you’re telling porkies because the one person who would care about benefit tourism is clearly Farage.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        I do recall Farage making that point, perhaps not using the “false flag” jibe.

      • global city

        He dismissed it as an irrelevance during the EU debate with Clegg as I mentioned. The debate is plastered all over Youtube, as doubtless the transcript is easily checkable somewhere on the net.

        Your idiot claim of telling porkies needs to be checked. The benifit tourism ‘campaign’ is akin to ranting about the toffee wrapper stuck on your show when the council have opened a toxic waste dump at the end of your garden. I think that was the point Farage was making…OK?

        False flag was my description as to the way Clegg was making it a major issue over which ‘they have control’.

  • cargill55

    Mr Cameron said he would fix the immigration catastrophe and he’s made it worse.
    Don’t believe him, don’t trust him.

    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      Voting Ukip got us Juncker.
      Voting Ukip again will get us Labour.
      Cooool!

      • icini

        Excuse me.. we would have got Junker whatever happened in the EU elections. Our influence is negligible and renegotiation from within impossible. Dave keeps trying hard to pretend he can change the EU, he can’t alter a single significant thing of course.

        • Damaris Tighe

          A juncker used to be a Prussian land magnate. Very powerful. Very domineering. Very militaristic. The backbone of the Imperial German Army.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yes, the irony of that name is quite amusing.

          • icini

            Just so, and whilst he’s not German he is now in charge of Europe, nice isn’t it.

            • Lydia Robinson

              voted in by other Eurocrats, not the people.

              • icini

                People, what people, they don’t matter, it’s the EU we’re talking about here. They know far better than the plebs, I can prove it. Their regulations on the sale of cabbages have more words than the Bible, you have to be clever to achieve that. ( Don’t even THINK about the rules for Brussels sprouts).

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …so does that mean you’re disavowing your global warmingist kookery, lad?

      • Xaider

        Voting UKIP got us Juncker?

        That made absolutely no sense.

        UKIP are pretty much on the right, to claim we’ll get Labour is clear nonsense.

        • Blakenburg

          How did UKIP get us Juncker I ask? Juncker got elected by other pro EU MEP.s and Commissioners!

          • Xaider

            That’s what I’m saying. BarkingAtTreeHuggers seems to think voting UKIP gets us Juncker.

      • cargill55

        Voting UKIP weakens the Liblabcon oligarchy, excellent!!

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          You have no idea about who really governs you.
          Or you are not very good with words.
          Which one is it?

          • cargill55

            Yet another Liblabcon insult proving Daniel Hannans accusation that UKIP insult most as wholly wrong.

            • BarkingAtTreehuggers

              It’s not an ‘insult’ is it, as I was assuming you would opt for the right answer.

              You have no idea who governs you.
              Who did you send as EU Commissioner to Bruxelles? Some Lord no one has ever heard of. Who are the French about to send? The former Finance Secretary.

              You, in Britain, have NO IDEA who really governs you.
              Calling it ‘LibLabCon’ is either wilfully stupid or you are here to deceive. Which one is it?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …which of your army of sockpuppets is it, lad?

                They’re all stupid as we know.

      • Andrew Price

        I would rather (as a life long Conservative) vote for a principled party with a principled leader.That is why I (and my wife) are breaking a habit of a life time and voting for UKIP. Indeed more than vote UKIP we will be campaigning for them. We will never again vote for the Conservative Party because they are not truly conservative. I am so appalled and disgusted with Cameron and his crew I will do the right thing even if it means Labour winning the election.

  • cargill55

    Almost 75% of immigration is now from the EU.
    Cameron knows the Liblabcon immigration catastrophe is not solvable with Britain in the EU so we must exit.
    Farage and UKIP are right.

    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      You need the money – that’s why the immigrants come.

      • Atticus

        Brickies I worked with in 2003 ( I was a hod carrier in County Durham) saw their weekly rates fall by 50% by 2005. Is that the sort of money people need – less?

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          Who banked all the cheap homes build by half-price brickies then? Not you?

          It’s a weird thing – competition and doing the right thing at the right time, innit?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …can any other of you socialist nutters translate this nutter’s gibberish?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …you and your army of sockpuppets need the money, lad.

        You types always need other peoples’ money, and you’re not too proud to take it from them, as we know.

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          WE ALL KNOW you banksters socialised your losses because the only thing you thought you were good at was gambling with other peoples’ money, as you ran out of YOUR OWN money a long long long long l o n g time ago.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …and while you’re at it, give a shot at deciphering this nutty gibberish, as well.

      • Xaider

        A good majority of immigrants come to Britain, undercut jobs and work while sending that money back to their home country in somewhere like Eastern Europe – I fail to see how we need the money, let alone how it helps us. Infact, it doesn’t help us – it screws up.

        BarkingAtTreeHuggers is a verified troll.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …a troll with an army of sockpuppets, by the way.

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          Matey, the oligarchs had no dosh when he came here? The Arab princess in her SLK shopping at Vuittons borrowed the money from Wonga? The Asian chaps in their souped up sportscars robbed Greggs before splashing the cash, the Mexicans in bling served you at Nando’s?

          What is it with you lot – what circles do you frequent in? Only amongst uneducated plebs? Could it be that you yourself are state-schooled. Well, there we have it …

          • Xaider

            The entirety of your post was composed of merely laughable witty insults.

            I guess the truth is hard to overcome for some, you’ll learn.

            • BarkingAtTreehuggers

              No, I am rather bored with this assumption that immigrants were poor – that’s just fatuous tripe given that every single major infrastructure project in Britain today, be it the Shard, any major power grid and plant infrastructure, London Asia Ports, Manchester Airport City, Hinkley C, the Crystal Palace Project, Battersea Power Station flats from h*ll and so on and on is all owned/financed/initiated by immigrants.

              You hang out with Burqa bullies and their babes?

              Not my problem.

              • Xaider

                They’re coming here and will continue to do so.

                When they goto places like Spain or France, they’re told to come to Britain as we’ll ‘sort them out’ – this is according to a British Traffic Cop who asks them why they come here.

                Regardless, you keep on Barking nonsense – I guess there’s a reason you’re the minority around here.

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  Winners are always in the minority – losers moan.
                  That’s life I can live with.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Heh. Charlie Sheen shrieked about being a “winner”, too.

                  How’s the goat, lad?

                • Lydia Robinson

                  It’s quite simple – in Spain what benefits there are are extremely meagre, certainly not on the UK level and there’s no work, so they don’t go there.

      • andyrwebman

        The immigrants which would bring us money would be the rich ones – bankers over taxed by the french for example. Yes, we’d get money from them.

        The poor ones on the other hand would be a drain.

        Looks like we need a wealth and/or talent based filter on who comes here. Not particularly ethical but necessary when you’re having to tighten your belt.

      • cargill55

        No, we’ve plenty of money, we waste it.

    • David Hollins MBA
      • Aberrant_Apostrophe

        Those statistics yields figures of approx. 140k non-EU and 135k EU nett immigrants for the 3rd quarter of 2013, so they are comparable. However, the trends for both are roughly constant for non-EU and rising at about 50k per quarter for EU immigrants, respectively, so the 75% figure Cargill claims will be reached in less than two years.

        • David Hollins MBA

          Assuming the trend continues – and Cargill claims “NOW”. Try again.

          • Aberrant_Apostrophe

            Trends. Isn’t Cameron trying to reduce non-EU immigration, the only type he can? If so, the 75% figure will be reached sooner.

            • David Hollins MBA

              But if EU immigration were to level off – and let’s not forget there are fewer Romanians and Bulgarians here now than in January, (so Farage was telling another whopper), then the overall level of immigration would fall.
              You are extrapolating two variables – and using “net migration” is adding a third.
              The ONS figures say 50/50 – if they are wildly wrong, then who knows what the figures might be. The NI numbers are not a good guide as illegals don’t sign up for NI any more than the families of existing immigrants.

              • Damaris Tighe

                “There are fewer Romanians & Bulgarians here now than in January”. That’s not the point. They can come in large numbers at any time, whenever they choose, perhaps because of a downturn in their own countries. The possibility is always there because in respect to Europe, we don’t have a border.

          • cargill55

            Read the NI data.

      • cargill55

        No it’s not.
        The ONS IPS data is rubbish, even the Commons PASC says so.
        New NI numbers handed out tO overseas nationals is a better guide.
        Have a read of data the government does not want you to know about .

        https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf

    • TrulyDisqusted

      “Almost 75% of immigration is now from the EU”

      NO, it isn’t.

      Last year we got 210 Thousand new citizens (net), 43,000 of whom came from the EU.

      This means that the other 167,000 (almost four times EU number) came from somewhere else.

      Can’t anyone else do basic arithmetic these days?

      • cargill55

        The ONS IPS data has been described as not.but for purpose by the Commons public administration select committee.
        Best to look at new NI numbers handed out to overseas nationals and in the year to march 2014 603000 were handed out, almost 75% to EU immigrants! with Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants showing huge increases.

        https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf

        Yet again Daniel Hannans accusation of UKIP supporters being insulting is disproved by the continuous insults against UKIP supporters by Liblabcon .

  • Mike Barnes

    Call Me Dave completely failed with his “tens of thousands” promise so invents a new scheme to distract people.

    I’m really not bothered about benefits for 3 months, 6 months, a lifetime, who cares? They’re still be putting pressure on housing, using the swamped NHS, and competing for low paid jobs.

    We just need fewer people of a higher quality, what’s so racist about that?

    Oh and forgetting intra-EU migration for a minute, it’s even more worrying who is coming to the EU from the rest of the world.

    It’s very, very disturbing that 70+ years after Europe went crazy and vowed never to be anti-Semitic ever again, our new Islamic friends are using violence and threats against Jews all across Europe. Is it racist to point out that immigrants have not assimilated and are bringing back anti-Semitic attitudes we thought we’d got rid of?

    What are the progressives going to do about this? They thought they could get rid of war by dismantling borders and nation states and inviting the world to live in peace and harmony in Europe. Their favoured religion doesn’t want that to happen though.

    • Alexsandr

      the progressives hide the news. the news of the pogrom in Paris last week didn’t make the MSM here because it does not fit their agenda.

      • Stephen

        In a week when Russian backed Ukranian separatists shot down a civilian airliner, Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israelis and infiltrate Israel through tunnels and someone called Tulisa was in court, it’s not surprising that the ‘pogrom’ wasn’t on the front page of the Mail. I’ve no idea what was in The Guardian, I never read it. But Gavin Hewitt has a piece on the BBC website today about the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe. He also mentions the de facto expulsion of Christians from Mosul. The extradition of the suspect in the murder of four Jews in a cafe in Belgium is on the world news page. From memory, the Times carried a report several columns long on the abuse and attack in Paris. Not top of the agenda perhaps but hidden?

  • UncleTits

    “in many ways, it is downright racist.”

    What a great pity that UKIP is giving credence to multicultural newspeak. Disappointing that his objection resorts to the dehumanising epithet “racist” – a charge which gleans its coercive power from authoritarian social-engineering legislation that is at odds with UKIP’s libertarian ethos. Why couldn’t he simply say that we don’t need unskilled labour and that we should only take who we really need? Everyone already understands that.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Agreed. When UKIP starts using the language that’s used against them they’re buying into the narrative spouted by the political class. I thought they were independent thinkers.

      • Streben80

        If you really think UKIP is buying into the political class narrative I can only assume you dont know many party members, I see or hear no evidence of what you say.

        • Damaris Tighe

          I’m sure they don’t. But a few of the spokesman have started doing it. There was an ex-Labour guy whose press release sounded like something from Mandelson’s blackberry.

          • Streben80

            That ex-Labour guy isnt a spokesman, not that I am aware of anyway, I know who you mean and I rolled my eyes too.
            It is a delicate balance sometimes though because on the one hand you want to say what you like but if it then distracts from what UKIP are trying to say – rhetoric, straight talking or establishment, must only assist in explaining where you stand, not become the issue itself – Milliband has a similar problem only he uses Establishment lingo and nobody knows what he is waffling on about.

            • Damaris Tighe

              As long as UKIP stays close to its roots. Earthy. Human.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                LibLabCon is constantly shrieking “waaaaycist” at UKIP, but in this case it is LibLabCon that is exercising racism, either intentionally or unintentionally, and it doesn’t really matter which because it’s resulting in the importation of a lesser quality of immigrant, which should be anathema to all. I see no problem with this all being presented as part of the argument.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  I think the argument is strong anyway, without bringing racism into it. As Streben80 has described it, it’s a ploy to annoy the political class. Who cares if they’re annoyed? It’s the ordinary people of Britain that UKIP should be addressing all the time, in un-jargonised, un-pc language. They/we appreciate them for that. And they don’t give a tinker’s cuss about racism. That’s all that matters at the ballot box.

                • Streben80

                  When the Left get annoyed it tends to expose their nasty side – well worth annoying them for that. I stood campaigning for UKIP alongside Labour party members and they looked like football hooligans, aggressive too – the contrast with our style and theirs was stark.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  I can believe it. The left can get very thuggy when crossed. I can understand that baiting other politicians is very satisfying. But it shouldn’t be at the expense of UKIP’s message, which is outside not inside the consensus.

                • Streben80

                  I think many of our supporters like us baiting the opposition, lets be honest, Nigel Farage made his name baiting the Eurocrats and if we dont do it, do you really trust journalists to do it?
                  Look at the platform the news coverage gives UKIP when we bait the Establishment – without it Cameron wouldnt be making the vague promises on EU immigration, he wouldnt even be talking about immigration at all if he thought he had a choice. Changing the terms of debate as they call it does involve a great deal of playing games with the media and their friends in politics, only then can you actually make the case.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  But this is precisely my point. Farage introduced immigration as a topic we could freely talk about in a political world where it was banned. He made the establishment talk about something that was taboo. It was a narrative, if you like, that came from outside not inside the consensus. And he broke it. It’s now possible to openly discuss immigration. He didn’t achieve this by worrying about the charge of racism – which is their agenda, not his.

                • Streben80

                  I dont disagree but there are other narratives other than immigration and while this article is about immigration, that isnt the point it is making. It is essentially calling out the hypocrisy of those who preach equality while practicing inequality that they claim to fight – policy matters but so does exposing the nature of your opponents because many people dont always know many policies. They have a broad idea of what a party and associated politics is about though so altering the perception of your opponents by highlighting certain aspects of their behaviour which they ‘get away with’ is very important.
                  Steven is simply pointing out that by their OWN measure they are racist.

                • Steve Lloyd

                  Terrific comment.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  Thank you!

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, the shrieking charge from the LibLabCon socialist is “waaaaycism”. Answering that charge in its entirety is a political obligation, including the hypocrisy of the charge itself.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  No. It’s an argument within the political class about something they care about, not what the general public care’s about. By being drawn into it UKIP politicians have to argue on the political class’s terms, not its own. It may be clever debating but it’s not sincere.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The “waaaaycism” hysterics are not argued within the political class. They are firmly entrenched in contemporary politics. It’s how LibLabCon operates. A charge left unanswered is no longer a charge, it’s a fact.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  But you still haven’t answered, beyond the chattering classes who will never vote UKIP, who really cares about “waaaycism”?
                  A charge left unanswered is only a fact for those who don’t matter in this case.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I don’t agree with the reductionism of your first paragraph. You don’t seem aware of the cultural swamp out there, and how pervasive it is.

                  A charge left unanswered in that multi-culti swamp is now a fact, then.

                • Damaris Tighe

                  I was out of the country for a few years. I’m just catching up!

    • Streben80

      Steven knows what real racism is, he has experienced it personally, this article isnt for those who might agree with the policy, it is just a dig at the Leftists, using their own language and definitions against them.
      I call many Leftists racist, mainly because it amuses me to do so and it ties their knickers tighter than anything else. Calling Lefties unethical is really just a bit of fun but by sticking that label on them, over time, it will stick. It is a bigger game of perception and challenging the moral authority of the Left is key groundwork to pushing the UKIP agenda. UKIP tried to just put policy out there in the past and nobody was listening, now they are trying a more intelligent approach.
      Just check out the Tory boys commenting on here – they dont like it and you dont get more soft Leftie than a Cameroon luvvie.

      • Damaris Tighe

        I understand what you’re saying & it may be a clever ploy to annoy the chattering classes. But once you start using that world view it can incorporate you, & very quickly you start sounding & thinking like every other politician.

        • Streben80

          The culture of UKIP and the way it tends to think is part strategy and part sticking two fingers up at the establishment, this is straight out of the UKIP playbook.
          I wouldnt get too bogged down in language, UKIP doesnt have its own phrase book and everyone will speak as themselves – Steven is a nice guy with a good sense of humour, he is however one of the serious faces of UKIP, likely chosen because immigration is such a touchy issue – he is good at detail and presents in a calm, measured way – the Establishment will hate that, they want UKIP to be staffed by headbangers and we cannot play into their hands.

          • Damaris Tighe

            ok!

          • UncleTits

            There is nothing to stop UKIP turning out like any other establishment party. You can start out with a libertarian ethos but you might not end up with one if your party is infiltrated by enough left-leaning socialists. You get enough people in UKIP using the enemy’s lexicon, giving it power, and UKIP might become the enemy. As such, UKIP have reinforced the social-engineering ‘anti-racist’ view that “racism” is the worst of all evils rather than, and this depends on definitions, a political fact of life on Earth. They might still be the good guys but they need to be careful.

            • Streben80

              You dont know me, but if they are letting someone like me stand as a candidate, which they are, I can tell you the party is about as far away from left-leaning socialist invasion as it can be.
              I am so anti-BS that I would refuse to even to have one of those awful ‘I met Nigel’ pictures for Facebook – I mean, seriously? I like the guy but I am so anti-politics that I wont even kiss the backsides of those on my team. Strangely in politics this attitude has landed me with more responsibility, I guess people like it when you are not there for the glory.

    • global city

      Rather, they are hoisting them on their own petards…. I think!

    • David Hollins MBA

      Many UKIp voters will happily admit to racism – Farage may not want Romanians, many wouldn’t want a bunch of South Asians.

      • UncleTits

        What would admitting to “racism” mean? Bit of a moving goalpost that one. A word that Humpty Dumpty would have enjoyed – had it been invented by communists in his day. Alas, it is a recent device of radical social-engineering.

        • David Hollins MBA

          I mean saying that you do want people of a different race or religion here. Unable to address the race of immigrants, UKIP has muddled its message by saying “immigration is terrible” and “EU migration is terrible” – when in fact, when many of its supporters are actually talking about Moslems or West Indians. So, UKIP targets EU citizens, because it can avoid problems with race relations legislation. Ask yourself what would have happened if Farage had said he didn’t want a bunch of Pakistanis or perhaps a gay couple living next door.
          The problem UKIP will have is that the policy outlined above is essentially: No Europeans, but we will have plenty from further away. Some UKIp voters won’t be so keen.
          I agree all this “racism” stuff is largely nonsense, but you need to look behind what UKIP is saying.
          Be truthful – would you prefer a bunch of Poles or a bunch of Pakistanis living next door?

          • UncleTits

            I see what you mean. Yes, that is absolutely true.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            UKIP hasn’t “muddled its message”. It’s been muddled for them, by the establishment and LibLabCon socialists and their media familiars. UKIP is not “anti-immigration”, for starters.

  • Full Name

    If you recall from polling:

    1. 77% of people want “Control on immigration”
    2. Of the most pressing concerns: >60% of people stated immigration as #1

    So if we are talking about the UK being a democracy, let’s take Switzerland as an example where they practice Direct Democracy and VOTED for curbs on EU-immigration, for an example of Real-Working Democracy – not lip-service democracy,

    Then,

    You can envisage the polls indicate if we were a democratic country the people would influence policy.

    This is clearly contradictory to the current reality of the UK Government and our place in the EU via Brussels controlling this policy power on Migration due to the 1957 Treaty of Rome of “Four Freedoms” ie movement of labour as a precursor to setting up a single monetary region aka EURO ZONE which the UK is not a part of and also does not wish to be a part of a Federal USE (failing).

    So, let’s recollect, I am in favor of positive – agreed – controlled – measured – timed immigration which is democratically voted for.

    This precludes the EU and our own government. Immigration is not a big sin it is just the MOST VISIBLE aspect of the CONTROL the elites have over the people.

    I’d argue we leave the EU and join the EEA as a stepping stone to eventually and continually improving our immigration policy and a whole host of other policies and also to put more pressure on our elected government to become more DIRECTLY DEMOCRATIC as per the Swiss.

  • Gwangi

    If ALL EU countries had the same benefits systems then it might work. But the UK is MASSIVELY generous, with housing benefit being leeched up by EU immigrants (there is NO such thing as housing benefit in most EU countries, which is why most young Spanish and Italians live at home). We also offer income support, jobseekers allowance, free medical care and schools, child benefit, maternity pay etc to those who have contributed NOTHING to the UK.
    I have lived in another EU country – I got F all! I was entitled to a some for 3 weeks after my contract ended, I knew. I asked my boss to enquire. She did. They said I was entitled to nothing!
    In addition to all this is the problem of social cohesion and over-crowding. One reason the housing market is nuts is because there are 5 million more people in the UK than 30 years ago and now we add half a million a year to that.
    Meanwhile, quality of life for native Brits plummets in their homeland – which has well and truly betrayed them.
    In the whole period 1945-1990-ish there were 2 million immigrants to the UK who have had 2 million children. In the last 20+ years we have had 4 million immigrants who seems to be breeding like rabbits. Really sad and shocking.

    • mohdanga

      And yet the multiculti, mass immigration mob calls for more and more as the solution to the problems caused by multiculturalism and mass immigration in the first place! Astounding logic.
      So what if restricting immigration is seen as racist…..Japan allows basically zero immigration because they want to protect their monoculture. Don’t see any handwringing from the Japanese and the lefty multiculti embracers in the mainstream media. Not much diversity ie. whites in Africa, the Middle East and Asia and yet complete silence again. It’s only white countries that need ‘enriching’ and ‘vibrancy’ because we are so culturally deprived. It is suicide.

      • Lydia Robinson

        None of the lefties who advocate that live in” culturally diverse and vibrant areas” though and if they found themselves short of a school place for their little smashers or unable to see a doctor, they might find the” diversity” a bit grating.

        • mohdanga

          That’s just it, ‘do as I say, not as I do’. The proponents live in leafy, well to do suburbs far from the enrichers….they suffer from white guilt and think that by allowing the country to turn into the Third World their guilt can be assuaged.

  • Hussyville

    There is already a points system in place for non-EU migrants. Qualified doctors and lawyers with a job offer would have little to no trouble relocating to the UK. The current immigration has been increasingly “Fortress UK” for a number of years, not that politicians or voters seem to acknowledge this. When it comes to non-EU immigration, the rules have never been stricter.

    Free movement of EU nationals is the price the UK pays for being “in the club.” Even then, the UK isn’t a part of the Schengen area, so has still managed to maintain an opt-out from a Europe truly free of borders.

    • Full Name

      Freedom of movement however is failing democratically. It’s also failing nationally (not just the UK), regionally (see the boat tragedies of pull-push off the EU coast and the money wasted on Libya that is failing mid-00’s) and globally.

      The oft-trotted out price of the club is cliche without thought, a meme without rational context. It is a precursor to a single monetary region that has failed in the event. It is not for the benefit of British people at all but to forge the EU regions, EU Citizens, EU federal united states of Europe etc.

      Above all it’s undemocratic and failing policy of member nations.

      The UK should vote to leave the EU and joint he EEA where the four freedoms will still apply but use that as the launching pad to fully change their Migration policy over the years. The EU on the other hand I believe is failing and will be a write-off.

      The club is too expensive, the service is too crud and the members are all arguing.

    • icini

      The EU is NOT a club. It’s an embryonic superstate with all that implies.
      US states don’t set immigration laws, that’s a federal matter. The same applies to Brussels. Dave’s pretense that he can influence our border controls is rubbish and appeals to the ECHR can be and are made by foreign criminals from outside the EU. The EU now has huge and direct control over many aspects of our lives and gains more daily. We are in a small minority, outvoted by newer and poorer nations who see us as a cash cow, Just look at the Junkers affair to measure our influence.
      The Tories are quite simply telling lies, no doubt about rather more than just EU regulations, There is only one viable way to leave and renegotiate our relationship. It’s called UKIP.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Suck it up, Britisher pals. You voted for the bastards.

    • George Smiley

      You and your ever-constant tiresome, stupid trolling, from Japan(!)—the point is, NO-ONE actually voted for EU/EEA Community immigration into the United Kingdom called the free movement of persons, only the British membership within a free-trade association, for the free movement of only GOODS and CAPITAL but not services and never mind persons, called the European Economic Community or the EEC, back in the year 1975.

  • Shlomo

    Demography IS destiny. Everyone understands this. IMPORT the Third World; BECOME the Third World. UKIP, it seems, envisages the same destiny for us and our children as that of the other political parties.

    • Damaris Tighe

      That’s going a bit far old chap. By pitching for skilled & needed workers only, wherever they come from, UKIP seem to be trying to fend off the accusation that they favour one ethnic group over another. I agree, we need to halt the mass import of third world people, but that would happen anyway as they tend to be unskilled.

  • Matt

    What I don’t like about a points based system is how is the government going to decide what skills we need? Employers will always tell you there is a “shortage” and employees will tell you there is an “oversupply”. Neither word has an economic meaning so the strongest lobbyists or unions win.

    I would like to see a system similar to cap-and-trade. Let the market decide who adds the most value to employers. Set the immigration limit and auction off the visas to employers.

    Seems a win-win to me for efficiency and redistributive effects. If the employers really do benefit that much from immigration, make them share the benefit with everyone else.

    • Matt

      Also, it would create incentives to invest in training. Why bother training people if you can bring immigrants in for nothing when you don’t have the skills you need in the future? If there was a cost attached to importing skills, it makes more sense to develop them at home.

      • Smithersjones2013

        Well part of that cost would be to require employers to fully insure immigrants for health and unemployment purposes (and pay their ticket home where appropriate) so that they do not become a burden on the taxpayer.

        Companies could also be required to pay training levies sponsor UK University courses etc as recompense for employing immigrants. I’m sure there are many schemes that could be dreamt up……

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Ok, don’t take this personally, but I’ll have to be the Devil’s advocate here. Even the Devil needs an advocate, doesn’t He?

      Selling off low-paid visa slots is a little like selling slaves, so we need to approach this carefully. I’m with you on the idea for having employers pay the full societal cost for the immigrants the employers wants to import, but even that is a minefield. Who gets the money? It won’t be those paying the cost, you may depend .

      • Matt

        The work permits would be bought by the firms though so there wouldn’t be an individual transaction for each person. If a company wanted to employ 10,000 news immigrants, they would need 10,000 work permits. It would then be up to potential employees and the firms to agree on wages as normal.

        The permits wouldn’t be used for unskilled work because, by definition, anybody can do it. It wouldn’t make sense for firms to pay for work permits, when they could employ a British person instead.

        Where I see your point is that if firms must pay for employing an immigrant, then they would be willing to pay an immigrant less for doing the same job as a British person. That does seem unfair but it is certainly not slavery. The key point with slavery is you have no choice but to work and an immigrant can always not come to the UK.

        Treating foreigners and citizens differently may seem unfair but any policy that isn’t a total open door is going to do that.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          If an employer controls a foreigner’s visa, then he controls that person’s rights to stay in the country, meaning he can coerce favorable wages and benefits out of that employee, thus driving down wages and benefits for citizens. This may not fit the precise definition of “slavery”, but it’s the next closest thing. There will be some coercion here.

          I like the concept, but the detail gets a bit sticky.

          • Damaris Tighe

            wow are you still up

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …?

  • dado_trunking

    Oh, this piece is so lovely.

    After the socialist nutter Nuttall’s assertions that ‘curtailing the prerequisite of a free market which is the free movement of labour’ was somehow what constituted *common sense-ism*, now the next delinquent emerges who does not fear to declare how *ethical* he was by …

    changing his party’s mind

    … and wishing to attract high-skilled, high-return, zero-expense-on-education immigrants. How lovely, how novel this idea is — everyone is trying to do that, every developed nation has been doing that for decades if not centuries.

    Amazing – so what are we left with? I am rendered almost speechless by the lack of comprehesion of the indigenous little moaners who just won’t get that the guy said *nothing* new at all.

    • Smithersjones2013

      So other than demonstrating your aptitude for smug condescension do you have a point or was that piece of gratuitous flatulence just your way of ‘pleasuring’ yourself?

      • dado_trunking

        Until you dissect any of my points I suggest it’s the former.

        • Smithersjones2013

          . There are no points to dissect. All you’ve done is identified that it is consistent with what has previously been stated as UKIP’s solution to this nation’s immigration problems and implies that we will be competing with the rest of the world in seeking the best immigrants

          That you have acknowledged the bleedin’ obvious needs no dissection.

          Beyond that apart from some sneery condescending babble you have nothing to say..As I said its flatulence

          • dado_trunking

            Sure lad, you go to great lengths flatulating all over my thread … must have touched a nerve. You said nothing, just like your chum above. Those facts don’t change, even if you decided to continue to flatulate all over my posts. There is absolutely nothing new to see here.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …we need to see your goat sockpuppet though, lad.

  • HookesLaw

    Mr Woolfe talks garbage but the nutjobs will of course lap it up.
    He wants Britain to be ‘open to the world’ (his words) but then says that such taxpayers would not have access to the NHS. What then would happen to a sick migrant (one welcomed by a putative UKIP govt)? Left to die? Its a policy to abolish migration and of course its unworkable only a thick bigoted looney would think otherwise.

    And if the plan is to rid the UK of migrants then what will happen to the economy?
    Its hard for thick kippers even those who used to be hedge fund managers (please note all
    you kippers flocking from labour) that immigration has been beneficial to the vast majority of people in the UK. It has been bad for those parked on benefits and which this govt is forcing back out to work, but for the rest of us it has been good.

    UKIP of course will never form a government or come close to it – only Labour will benefit.

    • Blindsideflanker

      Other than the people with closed minds who can’t contemplate anything other than a free for all at the British tax payers expense. It would be very easy to have an immigration system ( the thing that we don’t have at the moment) where immigrants would be expected to show they have a comprehensive medical insurance policy before they allowed entrance to the UK.

      • Stephen

        ‘It would be very easy to have an immigration system ( the thing that we don’t have at the moment) where immigrants would be expected to show they have a comprehensive medical insurance policy before they allowed entrance to the UK.’

        If only. Suppose a migrant was appointed by a UK employer and he then applies for a visa having found what he believes to be a good value ‘comprehensive insurance policy’. Presumably the Home Office then has to check that the policy meets Ukip’s criteria. How long will this take? We all know what civil service procedures can be like (try renewing a passport at the moment). Maybe his idea of a comprehensive insurance policy is not the same as the Home Office. In which case he will have a further delay in his visa application. How long is an employer who needs the skills this man has to offer expected to wait?

        But actually this is not what Woolfy proposes. He suggests that migrants can come here if they have work but will not be barred from a hospital’s A&E until the middle of the night when he needs treatment. Or maybe I have that wrong. Will the man be treated regardless of his health insurance position when he is at death’s door but has only been working in the UK for four years?

        Woolfy has outlined a Ukip policy that seems straightforward but without the details he too is in danger of vacuous and cynical posturing. To coin a phrase.

    • Smithersjones2013

      What then would happen to a sick migrant (one welcomed by a putative UKIP govt)? Left to die?

      No They pay health insurance or their employer pays it for them. I know you are truly thick Hooky but I didn’t think you were quite that stupid!

      I thought that ‘vote UKIP get Labour’ stuff yesterday had got mindless tory twerps frothing like rabid demented labradoodles but this is really getting them into a lather!

      They really don’t like when their foul festering underbelly is exposed do they?

  • Aberrant_Apostrophe

    ‘Blatant’ is the word I’d use.

  • HookesLaw

    You are the cynic and full of vacuous posturing lies Mr Woolfe.
    Norway is not in the EU and is still part of the single market and the free movement of labour.
    Furthermore it is in Schengen which we got an opt out from.

    You refuse to support a party offering a referendum and lie about the realities of life outside the EU.
    In one breath you say you want a that Britain remained “open to the world” then you have the nerve to attack Cameron.

    • Blindsideflanker

      If there is a lack of substance here it is Cameron’s immigration policy. Cameron seeks to deflect people’s attention on to benefit tourism when their concern is with the tsunami of immigrants that have continued, hardly unabated, under his watch. The three month restriction to benefits is , I under stand , policy in other EU countries, begging the question why has it taken him four years to catch up?

    • Smithersjones2013

      Oh for good sake Hooky nobody gives a toss about Norway or your meaningless babbling about Schengen except you. Switzerland have imposed quotas so shove that where the sun doesn’t shine.

      Cameron is allowing almost identical volumes of immmigrants net into this country (200,000 per year) as Labour. FACT. The government is dishing out citizenships at record levels (in excess of 200,000 IIRC last year) as if they were halfpenny sweets.FACT

      it is you who refuse to accept reality . it is you who refuse to believe that your sacred leader Cameron is totally and utterly derelict (and cynically dishonest about it to boot) in his first duty to this nation. Protecting its borders!

      His actions border on the criminally negligent and his dishonesty is as disgusting as Blair’s was!

  • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

    So immigrant job seekers are only to get an allowance for three months, unless they have a real prospect of getting a job. Big Deal! Of course no mention of other claims they can make and the load they are placing on the NHS.
    We need an Australian system, no work visa unless you have a job which cannot be filled by a local. If you’re bringing in a family, you have to prove that you will be able to support them. Pensioners like myself only allowed a residence visa if they have family in the country and can show they have a guaranteed pension and will be able to house and support themselves, and in addition the government wants a cash bond of around £50K to cover possible medical costs. New Zealand has even tighter rules!
    The only chance of ever getting anything like this is to support UKIP.

    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      He didn’t say that though did he? Read it again.

      He said the EU is stopping us from welcoming more Chinese fund managers and Indian doctors (!)

      • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

        Cameron was reported to say that immigrant job seekers would get an allowance for “only” three months..
        The Australian system advocated by UKIP would allow Indian doctors in, if they are suitably qualified and if there is a need. Can’t see any problem with that as we seem incapable of training (and keeping) our own doctors, although I personally believe it’s immoral to recruit doctors and nurses from third word countries who need them themselves.

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          Awww, bless. So Third World doctors ought to stay where they are given that they are most needed elsewhere.

          Now, not only do you need to qualify that statement, you would also be found not grasping the essence of the article and making up your own little lines, again.

          • Alexsandr

            so you think its OK to leech qualified medics from countries that sorely need them cos we seem incapable of training our own?

            • Wessex Man

              Well really he’s ran out of counter arguments so just insults people now.

            • BarkingAtTreehuggers

              Awwww, bless – the next punter going all yoomanist on us now. You want to curtail immigration of high-skilled incomers. Are you Nick Griffin’s replacement? I can accommodate that, laughing all day long is good for your health …

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …are you the goat’s replacement, lad?

              • global city

                I see you have finally realised that the open door welcome all, a world without borders blah blah, is not as right on as you assumed?

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  No lad – you have finally realised that life’s no picnic.
                  I instructed you many times in different ways: get better at what you do, the world owes you nothing.

                • global city

                  That’s a strange response, especially to someone who was used to always making their own way in the world, sometimes well enough to help others along too!

                  Any humane and empirical assessment, rather than a blindly doctrinaire stance of MASS movement of peoples’ must soon concede that it is not an ideal solution to anything.

                  If the UK can suffer the effects from a brain drain to the US then just think how devastating it is too the poorest nations being bled of even mid-level skillsets?

                  Revolutionary change, if ever supported, is usually backed on a promise of some free reward… what are you expecting in your goody bag, gratis, by way of mass migration into the UK?

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  You are not getting any better at this.
                  Those nations are n o w drained of mid-level skills sets? No they are not, they always were.
                  It is you who has run out of the competitive edge and now you are backpedalling. You did not care in the Blair years, you did not care under Thatcher. Now, when someone seriously buggered your economy, you do. That someone needs to be found soon and milked back, because I will tell you this now – you haven’t got all the Hillsborough/ kiddy body snatcher time in the world to deal with it this time. Get better at what you do!

                  Time = money, and you are running out of both big time.

                • global city

                  It is but one consideration, of many. I am not suggesting that it is my main concern.

                  I appreciate that you have profound mind reading skills, but you seem to have me slightly misdiagnosed. You also seem to be confusing the levels of migration that went before with the massive and deliberate global trawl nulabour undertook for the most appalling of reasons. The same strategy is still largely in place.

                  Don’t take my word on anything at all. What you should do though is research some of the findings that development teams from many of the poorer countries themselves have published with regards to this particular issue.

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  List migration levels under Thatcher/Major per annum.
                  Compare them to the Blair years.
                  Stop looking at net migration, look at the real picture.
                  Don’t talk, do it.

                  n.b. no one in their right mind cares about other peoples’ autonomous and perfectly legal choices in life. Why would they – only fascists do.

                • global city

                  Bizarre. 6 Billion people in the rest of the world. nearly every country in the world has some sort of controls…. for good reasons.

                  You are stupidly conflating different issues, especially with the points that I have raised.

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  it’s not bizarre – I explained in ONE line why immigrants come:

                  because you need their money!

                • global city

                  Don’t be stupid. That is the most facile and disingenuous of the reasons given for sustaining an ideological policy…. why are you parroting this nonsense?

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  “7 billion people actually, every nation has controls.”
                  And we don’t? Come on now, who is it that is playing stupid here.

                • global city

                  Half a billion of those extra billion that I missed have an absolutely unfettered right to come to the UK. That is a bizarre situation for a state to find itself in.

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  Ahh, right. So the have rights which you wish to curtail. Why don’t you just say that?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …it’s you socialist nutters who seek to curtail rights, lad, as per your historical record.

                  You fascists also like curtailing human life, but that’s for another discussion.

                • global city

                  You write that as though you have caught me out on something, some hypocrisy or contradiction.

                  I never had a problem with migration, even of those with brown skins etc, I hardly gave it a thought, until the cultural Marxist/warmonger and all round a*se cam in with his radical 3rd way/change the world government.

                  Since then the issue has been forced into the public realm by the sheer lunacy and nastiness of it all.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you socialist nutters are busy beavers destroying immigration controls, laddie.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …actually, it’s you socialist nutters who need their money, lad. You also need an underclass. You fascists always did like riling up an ignorant underclass.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and you as a fascist are always ready to tell everybody what to do, about this and everything else, but only until you get the camps open, eh lad? Then, you’ll stop talking and start doing, like you fascists always do.

                  How’s the goat?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …unfortunately, you socialist nutters believe the world owes you everything, which you’ll take at fascist gunpoint, as we know historically.

          • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

            I’ve no objection to Indian doctors, in fact it was an Indian surgeon who recently removed my cataracts at the local NHS hospital. That doesn’t prevent my believing that the NHS is depriving India of doctors by recruiting there instead of training our own.

            • BarkingAtTreehuggers

              We are not ‘depriving India of doctors’, for heaven’s sake.

              People make choices based on the perfectly legal options that present themselves. Who are you to deny people making those choices?

              • global city

                It is the point of ‘legality’ that is being questioned. You could also describe it as ‘treaty obligations’. There is no natural law at play here, it is all determined by the statutes on our books… which is the crux of the matter.

                • BarkingAtTreehuggers

                  There is no ‘crux’ other than that in good times those incomers were welcomed whereas in bad times they are not (your position). Incidentally that was not Thatcher’s position but I made that point earlier and you still need to prove that you went and explored that point.

                  There is plenty of leverage which the government appear to be exploring now.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you appear to be leveraging your sockpuppet army quite frequently, lad.

                  Your socialist nutter cause must be at risk.

          • andyrwebman

            This is an honest issue – it’s possible to do this ethically by having theird world doctors come to learn here but to also try to implement some system that means the thrid world isn’t drained of its medical talent.

            It’s difficult but it is something we in the west ought to tackle. Perhaps by paying for some extra training so that the overall number is higher even accounting for a few who stay here?

        • MrsDBliss

          We can train and keep them. However there is an abundance of female doctors in the NHS that have children and work part time. This means we need to train two people to fill one position.
          Also, speaking with my female friends, doctors and others, who work in the NHS they ‘have to work to rule in terms of contracted hours’ to get home to their family. If their contracted to 5 they finish at 5.
          Off topic I know, but it does annoy me!

          • Damaris Tighe

            Not off topic at all. It’s one of the reasons there’s a shortage of doctors & why it’s so difficult to get to see the same doctor twice. This just adds to the existing problem of too many people & too few GPs.

          • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

            This is the result of “getting more women into the profession”.
            Two, five day per week, male doctors at our surgery retired and have been replace by three, three day per week females. Extra doctors is the claim, they seem to think that we oldies can’t work out they 5 x 2 > 3 x 3 !

        • will91

          I agree 100% with that sentiment. It IS immoral for a developed nation to vacuum up the doctors, nurses and engineers from the Third world. What do the lefties who support immigration have to say about this…? Perhaps they don’t care about the plight of people in the Third world?

          • andyrwebman

            It’s a genuine issue that needs to be tackled honestly. The lefties will not admit that because to them the facts don’t matter – it’s whether or not you appear to be racist that’s important.

          • Donafugata

            And equally unfair that British doctors train here and then take their skills to countries that pay even more.

          • evad666

            Or those here wishing to pursue careers in medicine and engineering.

      • David Hollins MBA

        Outside GPs, the NHS employs about 4% Eu staff and about the same Commonwealth (although nearly 12% are “unknown”!). It’s going to get tricky when the demands go out to send “all the immigrants home”, isn’t it?

      • global city

        Rather kicks your whispers about secret racism into touch though, does it not?

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          I can do that too, for the fun of it.
          Most other do it because they are bigots.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …you do it because you’re a socialist nutter.

            How’s the goat, lad?

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      OZ and NZ would be pretty low down my list of emigration destinations.
      Jack, Japan Alps

      • Wessex Man

        i would really like to see what Japan is like Jack, I really would, what I’ve seen of it on travel shows it looks a fine place.

        • andyrwebman

          It’s great but suffering the effects of overcrowding. For example, being a member of a golf club in Japan is a rich man’s luxury because of shortage of space.

        • Damaris Tighe

          It’s very polite – at least it was in the late 1980s.

      • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

        Unfortunately I’m stuck where I am at my age until they cart me into an old folks home!

      • George Smiley

        But then you are a Japanese and never a true Briton, were you ever?!

    • DaHitman

      They don’t even mention all those coming here and claiming disability allowances and those going straight on a pension

      • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

        Nor did Cameron mention child benefit, apparently paid even if the child is not in the UK.

        • David Hollins MBA

          But far more is paid out to relatively well-off UK families – and look at the kerfuffle over that.

          • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

            As far as I’m concerned, that is irrelevant; they’ve paid their taxes and are entitled to draw any benefits.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …yes, but why make wealth transfer payments to the already wealthy? It’s a welfare program, isn’t it? Particularly in time of massive deficits and debt, is this wise?

              • http://english-pensioner.blogspot.co.uk/ english_pensioner

                It just means, in effect, that they are paying a little less tax. One suspects that the cost of administration involved in not paying it to all would probably exceed any saving.
                Explain the logic of withdrawing child tax allowance from the better off, and now providing “Clegg” free school lunches for the under seven’s. My daughter tells me she will now be better off than when she had the allowance and had to pay for lunches.
                The whole government policy is one of “smoke and mirrors”

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  If you want to give them a tax cut, just give it to them. But to cloud the issue by putting them on welfare benefits isn’t wise. It transforms the process into an alleged “social insurance program”, which it surely isn’t, but the socialists want you to believe it is. “We’re all in it together, you know.” No, we’re not.

                  No need to suspect anything. A properly managed administration program pays benefits to those eligible. It’s not “additional cost” to exclude people. It’s a necessary part of proper management and administration. There is no “saving” available by paying out more money. Only the Left believes in such nonsense.

                  There is no logic to explain stupid welfare programs.

                  The government is smoke and mirrors because it engages in foolishness like paying wealthy people welfare benefits. The smart play is to do less, always. Pay less. Take on less. Do less. But do what you do well. That’s the ticket.

  • stephengreen

    This points system approach is harmful unless the nettle is grasped of the fraudulent nature of ‘balanced migration’. It has to have a cultural and ethnic assimilation element to it, listed among the criteria. As UKIP’s ex London youth spokesman Thandi suggests** in the Newsnight interview below, UKIP’s policies will increase non-European migration and that’s why she supports it! It is surely better to encourage those more ethnically similar to us to work and settle here, (if there is no native employment capacity) than those more ethnically distant. Within three generations, their offspring will be asserting their Britishness, unlike this woman who is asserting her Indianess over everything. That’s why ‘balanced migration’ is such a fraudulent concept. The emigration of high-skilled ethnically British people abroad and the immigration of people from India, Pakistan and China (all leading non-European migration sources) is creating disequilibrium, not balance and does not make for domestic harmony or national survival.

    ** From 3 minutes in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8SZpv3jROo

    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      Name a nation where a points based system works.
      The US? Austrailia? Hahaha!

      • Wessex Man

        hur hur hur, explain why Australia’s doesn’t.

    • HookesLaw

      You are being too nuanced for the average kipper. Some EU migrants will stay and integrate – others will go home over time.
      The crime is our own workers who prefer not to.

      • right_writes

        I guess that you are happy that open borders for labour in the EU, is actually nothing to do with freedom of movement and everything to do with corporatists maintaining access to cheap labour.

        The EU is a corporatist scam…

        Open your eyes!

      • Wessex Man

        aw! bless Nanny’s taught you a new word Hooky babe here’s another one for you, Plank!

      • MrsDBliss

        In reference to your latter comments, I’m assuming then you agree with benefits reform to prod them into working? Filling vacancies that feckless people should have taken and the taxing others to provide for them, rather than letting the harsh realities of life ensure a new disposition is taken, surely isn’t the solution.
        Also are you stating that all British born unemployed are so because of being feckless, rather than competing with labour that’s willing to work for less?
        You also don’t care for the opportunity for those on the bottom of the income ladder to be able to negotiate better wages? An over flooded market place won’t allow them to will it?

      • saffrin

        The crime is advertising hundreds of thousands of jobs across the EU that aren’t being advertised at home.
        The big con is being told we need immigration to pay for the OAP’s pensions, while at the same time pumping £billions into a benefit system to subsidise our unemployed when they could be earning from those jobs our government doesn’t want them to see..

        • Damaris Tighe

          I don’t buy the argument that we need immigration to pay for pensions. These immigrants will themselves need pensions. Are we therefore going to accept mass immigration ad infinitum?

      • global city

        Why try to perpetuate that bollox?

        Crap schools for most, crap training for the rest. Why don’t companies and the government provide these to a standard that is useful?

        Tory bollox would rather demonise the population than admit to the problem of the establishment’s making… disgusting.

        • Alexandrovich

          Hooky, the unacceptable face of the Conservatives. He callously and casually jettisons the underclass who, to paraphrase the much missed Austin Barry, are at least our underclass.
          I wouldn’t fancy my chances if I were on The Raft of The Medusa with the odious Hooky.

          • global city

            His whole life and being seem to be wrapped up in ‘party’… which is usually an obvious and embarrassing trait of the hard left thickos.

            I think that he consciously refrains from independent thought, being happy to flap out what ever current mentality passes as a Tory plan.

    • Damaris Tighe

      It does make for gradual population replacement. This is one of the idiocies of the ‘net migration’ target under which if 5000 native Brits emigrate & 5000 Somalis immigrate, nothing is deemed to have happened.

  • BarkingAtTreehuggers

    Pot – kettle – black! Only one thing will cure you, Woolfy – education. Here’s all you need to know, in one short column:

    ——
    A Brief History of English* Immigration

    If there was one thing I learnt in my short life then it would be that nothing ever remains static. Everything always changes, the drivers always move on, others are always left behind. The Irish to name one were once part of the country that could not be kept together, then perhaps India, or Australia, or Jamaica – not even the Isle of flippin’ Man could be kept together. What are Ukip going to do – further up the price tag on our homes to keep the economy ticking over?

    Because the thing is: there is no one left to milk. The colonies – all gone. The indigenous plebiscite is the only plebscite left to demand payments from. The credit-worthiness of the indigenous now matters most. Can we be seen to load all this debt onto an ever smaller number of indigenous people?

    Of course not, that is why we need to be seen to fill up this country with those from the colonies and of course with those from Europe. Everyone who wants to come can come.
    Please come! Yes, even Chinese investors – come and fill this land with the millions of your most affluent citizenry. The London-centrics (and now Woolfy himself, it appears) will welcome you!

    There we have it – a summary of English economic = immigation policy of the last 307 years.

    ——
    Appendix:
    * excludes Scotland deliberately, they are a different country.

    • right_writes

      Well there’s somebody whose barking anyway!

      • Wessex Man

        how true, how true!

    • Smithersjones2013

      Aren’t there laws removing removing dogs to the pound that bark incessantly whilst frothing at the mouth?

  • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

    The words “ethical” and “UKIP” should never appear in the same sentence – and I’m surprised that The Spectator gives this bigot any time or space. I don’t expect balance from the UKIP polemicists – that’s not what they do. Give them a soapbox and wind them up – and off they go mouthing their prejudices and revealing their Little Englander “mindset” – not that the “mind” plays much part in it. Our modern world of interdependence across national boundaries is a fact and we need, and have, institutions to make that work. That is what the EU is for. The free movement of labour and capital across national boundaries is a prerequisite for success. It’s happening and we all benefit. UKIP inhabit a world that ceased to exist a long time ago. They are given far too much space (including here) to lie to us. Time to call an end to it.

    • Adam

      The myth of inevitability argument combined with a belief in the absolute priority of economics. Pretty trite argument you have there!

      • stephengreen

        He’s not trying to make an argument, but instead share tired progressive clichés, with others words wrapped around them to hold them together:

        bigot polemicists soapbox Little Englander

    • LadyDingDong

      The words “ethical” and Labour should never appear in the same sentence –
      and I’m surprised that The Spectator gives a bigot like you any time or
      space. I don’t expect balance from the Leftard polemicists – that’s not
      what they do. Give them a soapbox and wind them up – and off they go
      mouthing their prejudices and revealing their anti-British, self-loathing “mindset” – not that the “mind” plays much part in it. Our modern world of
      interdependence across national boundaries is a chimera and we do not need institutions to make that work, because it doesn’t. That is what the EU is for. The free movement of labour and capital across national boundaries is a prerequisite for failure and the destruction of the proud nation state. It’s happening and we all lose. Labour inhabit a world that ceased to exist a long time ago. They are given far too much space (including here) to lie to us. Time to call an end to it.

      Do you see what I did there? I am no UKIP supporter but they talk more sense than you fellow travelers on the left who have sold us out to an anti-democratic, bureaucratic European ineptocracy.

      • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

        My argument is not of “the Left” at all actually. Read it again.

        • LadyDingDong

          If your argument is not of “the Left” at all actually then I suggest you rewrite it because it reads like the usual garbage one gets on CiF or from the resident trolls her. Calling people with a patriotic and right-of-centre ant-EU view you disagree with ‘bigot’s and ‘Little Englanders’ suggests you are of the left (as does your Facebook profile). I am sick of you trolls coming here and spoiling the view.

          • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

            My position is mainstream and broadly in line with all three main political parties. You may wish to consider who “here” are the trolls? I’m not among them.

            • Adam

              It is economically on the right. Not socially.

            • Colonel Mustard

              That says it all. There was a time when to be “broadly in line” with all three main political parties would have been an intellectual impossibility.

              But I think we should take your protestations with a pinch of salt since you’ve written an entry for an essay prize sponsored by the Guardian and Fabian Society.

              • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                When somebody like me takes the mainstream position and those who disagree are, by definition, on the margins I think we can all work out who the extremists are.

                (Your second paragraph is so bereft of reason that it is unworthy of comment. Too silly for words!).

                • Blindsideflanker

                  Mainstream? Apart from being a racist you also seem to be a comedian.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Oh, I see. So those who choose to disagree are “extremists” now? Interesting position but one that seems to be shared by many on the left of the “mainstream”.

                  And my second paragraph is not without reason at all – qui c*m canibus concumbunt c*m pulicibus surgent.

                • MrsDBliss

                  By that logic in 1939s Germany those opposing the Nazis were extremists.

                • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                  Ignorant and deeply offensive remark.

                • MrsDBliss

                  No it isn’t. You’ve stated the definition of extremism is being outside of the centre ground. In addition your frequent references to people as bigots who are, in your view, extremists then apparently the implication such extremists are immoral and beyond the pale.
                  However in 1930s Germany the centre ground was nazism, so it is quite correct to deflate your assertion that just being in the centre ground alone can be equated to being right and it certainly can’t be equated to being moral.
                  By asserting the majority view as being the correct and moral one you’re actually preferring an ethical fallacy. You have to actually further your argument.
                  Therefore your comments were ignorant i.e. poor in their construction. I would also suggest that your previous comments were deeply offensive and hypocritical as you seem capable of taking such offence by something not directed at you, but your argument, whilst calling others bigots.

                • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                  “In 1930s Germany the centre ground was nazism” – by that foolish remark you undermine all that you say. Incidentally I do not use the words “centre ground” at all.

                • MrsDBliss

                  No, I’ve explained above why I don’t. In fact, as a former teacher of ethics, I think you’ll find it’s a mainstream argument to rebut the ethical fallacy of relying on the popularity of a viewpoint to substantiate it’s accuracy and morality. Again your showing your ignorance and your immaturity at dealing with those who disagree with you.
                  To be quite frank if you were one of my pupils I’d be giving you an E grade and calling your parents to discuss your inability to take constructive criticism.

                • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                  As a “Former teacher of ethics” can you help me by explaining how sarcasm, insults, and invective help your argument? Just a reminder that my position on Europe is that shared by virtually all of our serious political leaders. Where I differ from them is that I’ve taken my gloves off about the bigots ( I use the word advisedly) of UKIP. They should too.

                • MrsDBliss

                  1. You called my use of a perfectly valid rebut give argument as ‘ignorant’, ‘foolish’ and ‘deeply offensive’, call people bigots and then dare to accuse me of invective arguments and insults?
                  2. Again, let me spell it out for you clearly, the amount of people who agree with your arguments are irrelevant. As I said national socialism was also the viewpoint of many European leaders. I could add eugenics, communism, the belief in the euro etc all held by many politicians. It doesn’t mean that it is the correct opinion. What are you not understanding about that? By your vocabulary but your inability to understand such a basic concept I am really beginning to believe you are a man who has been educated way beyond your intelligence.
                  3. If you wish to be treated without sarcasm I suggest you consider how you are engaging with others. As a former teacher of ethics I feel it is more than ethical to deal sarcastically with a GROWN MAN who has chosen to repeatedly to attempt to diminish me as ‘offensive’, ‘foolish’ and ‘ignorant’ rather than deal with my arguments. It’s context you see. Despite the immaturity of your response were talking adult to adult. Particularly after the initial round of insults I took the time to explain my response.
                  4. Your expectation of being treated at a higher standard than how you’re treating others is astounding. Now do go away you sullen, petulant little man.

                • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                  Your “4” has no place in any public forum. That you descend to personal abuse in your final sentence is truly pathetic. I won’t respond in kind. I have not and will not insult you personally, I have pointed out the poverty of your “arguments” (such as they are). I have not and will not abuse you in the way you now abuse me. And I won’t be going away either !

                • mohdanga

                  “Just a reminder that my position on Europe is that shared by virtually all of our serious political leaders.” Who are out of touch which is why there has been a large increase in support in Holland, Norway, Austria, Finland, France, etc for parties opposed to mass immigration, multiculturalism and the current EU fiasco.
                  Sharia law and oppression of non-Muslims is shared by virtually all of the political leaders in the Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan. Makes it OK then, right?
                  All of the political leaders in Britain in the 30s (with the exception of Churchill) agreed that Germany was not a threat and Hitler could be negotiated with. That worked out well.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, not at all, that analogy is perfectly applicable.

                • Rallan

                  You have taken the establishment position. You call it mainstream because the establishment parties offer no alternative.

                  However, polls show an intense anxiety among the British people, especially in England. Polling shows that more than 75% of the British people reject your view on immigration.

                • Alexsandr

                  he is confusing the consensus in the westminster bubble with the views in the country. But we know these are very different.

            • Wessex Man

              of course you are, give yourself some credit!

            • Damaris Tighe

              “My argument is not of ‘the Left’…My position is mainstream & broadly in line with all 3 main political parties.”

              Precisely.

              • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

                Thank you. But I’m the one being accused of being extreme! The UKIP “plague on all our houses” position positions them as extreme. They are.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …not quite sure what it is you’re shrieking about with this “plague on all our houses” business.

                  You’d do better if you dropped all your hysterics and hyperbole, lad.

    • Smithersjones2013

      The free movement of labour and capital across national boundaries is a prerequisite for success.

      If it is such a success do please explain why Europe is the only continental market that is shrinking?

      The same old drivel from moronic ‘little’ Europhiliac parasites who lost the argument 20 years ago but still are intellectually incapable of recognising it.

      As for UKIP given their decentralist (look it up) tendencies they are today’s radicals. It’s is the centralists clinging to their 20th century oligarchical centralism and authoritarianism that are the anachronism! Its time we purged the rotting cesspit of Brussels with its 70 years of failure once and for all!

      PS We can all throw around gratuitous ad hominems

    • Caps Lock

      “The words “ethical” and “UKIP” should never appear in the same sentence” where as the words “Paddy”, “Briggs” and “idiot” should appear in the same sentence frequently.

      • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

        So gratuitous insults add to the “logic” of your argument do they?

        • P_S_W

          What’s good for the goose, etc, etc.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …says the troll who shrieked “bigot” in the first instance.

          • MrsDBliss

            Hypocrisy is a key personality trait I think.

    • saffrin

      Not worth the read Paddy.
      Too typical of the narrow mindset.

    • George Smiley

      Your hard-left Hiberno-Lancastrian views do not remotely represent most of the rest of England, save perhaps Greater London.

      • http://www.brandaware.co.uk/ Paddy Briggs

        “Hard Left” ? Ha! Soggy middle me….

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here