UKIP was nothing to do with immigration originally, founded as a purely anti-EU party by a migrant academic who Farage deposed and took the party down the immigration line as a move of sheer political opportunism.
And that says exactly what? they went down that route because there was an opportunity, a part/group/etc. not represented.
Similarly, FvD was founded mainly to campaign against the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (wow, that doesn't look so noble now) and adopted anti-migration and anti-Islamic policies later.
Is it? i have much respect for ho Ukraine is fighting Russia but in the world corruption index there still somewhere bungling around the bottom, so no i don't think the association agreement was an good idea(especially since they where ruled by an of corruption accused oligarch at the time and no making them an member of the eu now won't be an good idea either. A Nato membership would be an better move.
For your information they where not against the association agreement they where campaigning for an referendum about that agreement just as they have done with a few other things before the dutch goverment killed the possibility to held an referendum.(at least in the way it did in the past.) it was'nt a political party back than that followed later, and they campaigned for drumroll tougher immigration stance, Nexit and some other things.(and soon after they totally lost it but that's a other story)
Generally, the far right cannot form coherent parties, so has to invade and hijack other parties. (AfD is different, founded as an isolationist anti-foreigners party, initially opposing the Eurozone support measures.)
Same can be said from the far/extreme left. they are usually not that organized as they started to find the other not extreme enough and so further and so forth, i don't thing any extreme/far left or right party has an serious sollution, they usually also go as quick as they come, but it has changed the ''tone'' of the debate.
If you really think Hitler is left-wing, you're in a very small minority and I suggest you're out of balance.
I didn't say he was left wing, but he was more left wing than right, and that because traditionally left wing dominates the media and power, so Hitler hijacked the socialist/left party and once he didn't need them anymore he killed them. But talking/using/exploiting's the political left of that time enabled him in this case
"The only way to substantially reduce the numbers crossing the Channel is through an agreement with France. That is the lesson from previous episodes of unauthorised sea crossings."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/channel-crossings/
The UK could, of course, also become party to the Dublin III Regulation again, so asylum seekers can in some circumstances be transferred to the first EU member state in which they arrived, but I don't think Leavers are ready to let us rejoin the EU so that we can control immigration better again.
You mean that agreement that didn't work because France was arguing over fishing rights? You mean that same EU that invited by words of Chanchellor Merkel refugees under the slogan ''wir schaffen das'' ? Which turned out to be a disaster? that? Maybe ask all the abused girls in Cologne how that worked out?
And yes that was an Alternative most of the Kurds who went to Syrian kurdistand already wen back, and instead of paying Turkey(EU i mean uk was then still part of it) we could have paid Lebanon they where and are quite successful in rooting out extremist from those camps. and the refugess would have stayed local so the changes of them turning back are much bigger.
But no europe has to pretend the only option is to get them all here and then claim it's all because those immigrants are brown that we seem more welcome to Ukrainian refugees.. Not that simple at all. But again a left ''you're all racist, and/or stupid ploy''