A couple of points

The vast majority of the British population are descended from immigrants, we are a mix of every nation we have ever come into contact with. From the Romans, Saxon, Jutes , Vikings, Angles, Normans, French, Dutch , Hugenots, Indians, Africans etc etc. Thats why we have so much in common with the USA, we are mongrel nations and we need the diversity it brings to enhance our future. When they say they want to stop immigration they actually mean they want to select who comes here based on whatever white right wing half wits they deem we need to bring in.

UKIP won seats against the two Tory parties in the major Tory parties heartland, that will be more of a worry to them then it will Labour. Any splitting of the right wing will help Labour in every area and I dare say we will see some reaction to this ahead of the next Gen Election.

I am also a federal European, yes I do believe a United States of Europe is a good thing long term and one we should all aim for. The armed forces of Europe are moving closer togther and share resources as the world changes, we move into the new world or we stagnate and become an impoverished island attached to a Federal Europe.

or we could revert back to the Kingdom of Northumberland

My wife family are mostly Polish, My great grandfolks were Norwegian. I've no issue with immigration
Open borders though is stupid, why should already stretched resources be stretched further by an influx of more Eastern Europeans?

I wouldn't care if their country was Great Britain part 2, they ate English breakfasts, spoke English and were exactly the same as me, we can't accomodate them, it's that simple to me.

Open borders without a vastly improved infrastructure is just stupid, our Welfare State/Healthcare/Education are already at breaking point.

I wouldn't mind a bit of selfish insular politics for a while until we sort out our own house.

Money for starving Africans, ignore starving people on the streets of UK, Aid money for Indian children yet we have 'child poverty' in the UK.
Billions in debt but give it away to all and sundry.
No issue with 'foreigners' i do have issue with more people regardless when they are not sustainable.

Another thing the European Union, what's the need for centralising everything, one currency, one economic policy etc etc.
Can't we just all draw up benefical trade agreements and just leave it at that?

Is anyone proposing it?

I can live anywhere in the EU without any paperwork or a decent education, is that not open enough?

So what restrictions should be placed on you and the rest of us? Because it does actually work both ways.

try it and see how far you get

in fact, try driving a Nissan Pathfinder through the tunnel and not getting stopped and searched both ends, and if you want to borrow one, PM me.

Europe is nowhere near as "open" as UKIP or others would suggest.

That is the problem, SOME of what UKIP want to do is quite right, as is SOME of Labour and SOME of the Conservatives.

I know, i'd like an end to it, not anti immigration just letting anyone in just because they're born in an EU country is daft. If it was such a good idea wouldn't countries like USA and Australia have open borders?

I was quite happy with the way it was before the open EU borders, if i want to live in Germany i have no issue with having to qualify via a system of entry other than and more complex than BORN IN UK.

I wanted to move to NZ (still could) but fell just short of the points needed, i'm currently in the process of making sure i have the few letters after my name to help that.

If everyone is scrutinised as much as this then i have a little more faith in the governance and quality of people entering.
I'm in the Quality not Quantity camp.

I'll reiterate i'm NOT anti immigration.

UKIP could be a monumental cockup, i'll not dispute that but both Labour and Tory have had their turn in my eyes, and i have faith in neither

1) I am not saying that you are anti-immigration, so let's put that one to bed.

2) What do you feel about someone moving to a different part of the UK for look for work? Should that depend on education, infrastructure being able to cope, work availablilty etc? If not, why not?

You are aware that although the USA is ostensibly a single nation, it is in reality a commonwealth of 50 individual States? There is a clue in the name.

We're all part of the same system though, tax, health, education, the standards are the same or in some case the targets are the same.
I moved to better myself from the North-West to the South-East, under micro scrutiny makes me look hypocritical but i'm still paying taxes to fund people in the North-West, their children, their education, their health.

An argument could be that if everything was centralised and all of the EU followed the same pattern/standards across the board then that would be exactly the same scenario as the question you posed but it's a pipedream, countries have their own economies and rely on different means to support themselves, small example is we can't market ourselves as a great summer hotspot like Spain/Portugal/Greece etc etc so tourism isn't as big and/or differently marketed in this country.

You can't create a catch all economic system and I'd love some great socialist world like a Star Trek ran Earth but the truth is in the real world we are corrupt and untrustworthy as a species, with a little bit of power we only look to feather our own nest.

And England is 48 individual counties

Not quite. There are substantial differences on a number of issues between, say, England and Wales. Prescription charges, for instance. In Scotland, tuition fees. In Northern Ireland, different laws on abortion.

We have regional tax variations via council tax.

Education has vast differences – and these are increasing – simply because not all schools are state schools, and many are run under a very different ethos with very different standards.



I'm not trying to 'micro scrutinise' you – or to make you look anything. I'm attempting to explore the issues.



We're a different sort of tourist destination – we score well for history and culture, for instance.

But then again, different parts of the UK (a federation of countries) have different tourist benefits. I suspect not everyone of the four nations has the same (pro-rata) levels of tourism – let alone all the constituent parts of England. The likes of London and Stratford and York will be helping subsidise other areas that see very few visitors.

But to go back, you made comments earlier about infrastructure, for instance. Now if you look at internal migration within England alone, then much of it has, over the last 30 or so years, been toward London and the south east for, in essence, the reasons that you – and I – moved in that direction.

That inevitably puts strains on the infrastructure – I think there are issues around precisely that, given all the new flats I see going up for all the people moving into my general area, which is getting particularly trendy with young professionals. These aren't your eastern Europeans. Some are from mainland Europe (it is worth noting that we are Europeans, whether we like it or not), but some are from the US/Canada and the majority are from the UK.

Should that be allowed to happen, if increasing stress on the infrastructure is an issue?

Counties that are not allowed to levy their own taxes, apart from rates etc nor allowed to pass laws particular to their specific geo-political area

Holding online conversations with Americans as I am want to do now and again, it never ceases to amaze me just how many of them are hyper-patriotic to an ethos of "USA" and yet often very anti-government to the point where part of the issue of wanting to own guns is almost as a warning to central government that they will not be controlled by their own armed forces if it ever came to a situation when the government decreed it so - I often get the feeling that (especially with Obama) they are just one wrong word away from another civil war and if it kicks off its going to start in Utah, a state that seems to have an above average mix of chip-on-shoulder, very far right republicans for whom central government is an unnecessary expense.

Ultra-patriotic but the patriotism being directed to the flag rather than the country, its a very strange mix and something that we cannot compare our union of countries to at all.

Ah right, just thought we were posting random facts.

Mainland Europe is hugely open. I frequently travel by both car and air from Germany to the UK and back. And have never once been stopped and searched at customs.

Countries or counties?

Ah yes, counties...

Countries if you want to extend it to the Union of Europe for even that does not reflect the armed response that mid-america is prepared (so they say) to take against its own government whilst still defending the flag.

There's always something a little horny about bat crazy women

Apparently, Farage is willing to join with the Tory party for the next election so long as they dump Cameron and install Boris as leader



If true, he may as well join the Monster Raving Loony Party instead.

It would finish that party's credibility.

Good electoral tactics from Farage.

At the moment, UKIP are a real problem for the Tories. In the absence of some form of alliance, UKIP will deliver a Labour majority at the next election by leaching the Tory vote. A genuine electoral pact where the Tories agree to not field a candidate in strong UKIP areas could deliver a handful of seats for UKIP and UKIP standing down from challenging in Tory marginals will give the Tory MPs chance to stay in post. This could end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition.

However whilst Farage's tactics sound superficially like a great way to unite the right and block Labour out, they will split the Tories apart. The areas where UKIP are most likely to win are not going to be in Labour or Lib Dem areas, they will be Tory areas - how many sitting Tory MPs are going to willingly stand by and hand their seat to UKIP? Their only option will be to defect.

Also by stating the terms "this offer is only on the table if you ditch Cameron and install a leader right wing enough to be acceptable to us", Farage is trying to flush out a leadership challenge. Cameron is now going to have his hands full keeping control in his own party because the right wingers are going to be more emboldened now, I wouldn't be surprised if the next two years he is reduced to the state John Major was in, being constantly 'briefed' against by his own side with the papers cultivating constant speculation about a challenge.

UKIP divide opinions amongst Tory voters and they also will amongst Tory MPs - there will be some who would be quite happy to jump ship if they thought they would win a seat, as UKIP represent views they also hold but feel they can't share too loudly in the current Conservative party. But there will be a lot of other Tory MPs who would be horrified at the idea of having anything to do with UKIP and might end up leaving and forming another party or trying to stand as independents.

Farage has the potential to do to the Tory party in the 2010s what Roy Jenkins and his mates did to Labour in the 1980s.

What is missing from the above on the negatives of such a pact is it would represent a clear shift to the right. To win general elections as Blair realised you have to attract the centre. Any such pact would risk alienating the very voters who tend to decide elections.