UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[powerstroke]

NicD said:

FiF said:

Good luck with pointing that out eddieo.

I reflect on the knockers on these threads, what can we call them? Against-UKIP perhaps

I reflect on what motivates them to be so sure of what they don't like, little evidence of what policies they support, and why they get so frankly nasty with it.
All I can think of, is a visceral belief in whatever they believe in, combined with incredulity that we (pro-UKIP) could doubt it, and worse derail it.

You cannot collectivise them as they are each individuals with different responses, but over all, it is not a pretty picture.

Would be nice, if posters simply said what and who (politically) they believed in, without the attempts to belittle and insult.

They are tribal bores!!!!

[Scuffers]

Loosening control of our borders was just criminally stupid.

Even with free movement, they should have logged all people in and out of the country.

It's not rocket science is it?

[FiF]

Apparently it is rocket science. One which in the past has resulted in people here illegally and having been arrested for walking up a Midlands motorway hard shoulder, are released on the orders of the Border Agency under the promise that the illegals have agreed they will report to BA at Liverpool. That's going to happen isn't it?

Utter shambles.

[RYH64E]

Scuffers said:

Loosening control of our borders was just criminally stupid.

Even with free movement, they should have logged all people in and out of the country.

It's not rocket science is it?

Free movement of labour isn't the problem, the problem is a system of state freebies that makes the UK look like some kind of paradise to people with nothing, and allows our own unemployed the luxury of choosing not to work.

UKIP are never going to be able to negotiate a free trade agreement without accepting free movement of labour, despite the of stated 'they need us more than we need them' mantra, and to remain prosperous the UK needs a free trade agreement with the EU. Just because it's in the manifesto doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[brenflys777]

RYH64E said:

Scuffers said:

Loosening control of our borders was just criminally stupid.

Even with free movement, they should have logged all people in and out of the country.

It's not rocket science is it?

Free movement of labour isn't the problem, the problem is a system of state freebies that makes the UK look like some kind of paradise to people with nothing, and allows our own unemployed the luxury of choosing not to work.

UKIP are never going to be able to negotiate a free trade agreement without accepting free movement of labour, despite the of stated 'they need us more than we need them' mantra, and to remain prosperous the UK needs a free trade agreement with the EU. Just because it's in the manifesto doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Does the EU have a free movement of labour clause with every country they have free trade with?

I'm not involved in any trading business but if we have a trade deficit with the EU, I would have thought we are in a good negotiating position to ensure a fair trade agreement with the EU if we exit or are ejected. The pessimists who predict that we are incapable of independence from the EU seem to have the same outlook as the EURO campaigners 10 years ago.

[Mrr T]

JustAnotherLogin said:

As has been said on the other thread. How are going to UKIP going to negotiate this free trade agreement with the EU when:

Norway had to accept most of the EU legislation (including free movement of people) and contribute to the EU (80% of the amount per head the UK does) before it could get the free trade deals - with no say, no veto and fewer advantages

Switzerland also had to accept most of the regulations and contributes to the EU - and STILL has duties when exporting to EU

The US has duties even though the EU has a much much bigger trade surplus with them than us. A trade agreement has been decades in negotiation.

Free trade in services (which is part of free trade) is quite dependent on free movement of people, to which UKIP object

It is nonsense to suggest that the UK, having upset the EU, is going to magic an agreement out of thin air that Norway, Switzerland and the US (among many others) have not managed.

UKIP seem to have no idea that as a WTO member you do not want to be negotiate free trade agreements.

[NicD]

brenflys777 said:

Does the EU have a free movement of labour clause with every country they have free trade with?

I'm not involved in any trading business but if we have a trade deficit with the EU, I would have thought we are in a good negotiating position to ensure a fair trade agreement with the EU if we exit or are ejected. The pessimists who predict that we are incapable of independence from the EU seem to have the same outlook as the EURO campaigners 10 years ago.

Yes, I think so, here is the EEA provision (four Member States: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland).:
http://www.efta.int

Free Movement of Persons
The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.
The legislation on the free movement of persons aims at eliminating all obstacles to the freedom of movement, and to give the same rights to nationals of an EEA State and their family members within the EEA by eliminating any discrimination on the basis of nationality.
To complement and support the principle of the free movement of persons, the EEA Agreement also specifies the rules applicable in the fields of recognition of professional qualifications and social security coordination. Both are necessary to enable people to exercise their fundamental right to free movement effectively.

[JustAnotherLogin]

eddieo said:

Any chance of upping your game?

Lots of complaints about insults, but when we have a post like that below which is serious, and points out the serious flaws in the UKIP strategy it tends to get ignored.

JustAnotherLogin said:

As has been said on the other thread. How are going to UKIP going to negotiate this free trade agreement with the EU when:

Norway had to accept most of the EU legislation (including free movement of people) and contribute to the EU (80% of the amount per head the UK does) before it could get the free trade deals - with no say, no veto and fewer advantages

Switzerland also had to accept most of the regulations and contributes to the EU - and STILL has duties when exporting to EU

The US has duties even though the EU has a much much bigger trade surplus with them than us. A trade agreement has been decades in negotiation.

Free trade in services (which is part of free trade) is quite dependent on free movement of people, to which UKIP object

It is nonsense to suggest that the UK, having upset the EU, is going to magic an agreement out of thin air that Norway, Switzerland and the US (among many others) have not managed.

So why ask for the insults to stop and us to concentrate on serious debate based on policies and facts and then ignore such posts. That is what frustrates many of the anti-kippers and leads to insults.

So, has any Kipper any rebuttal for the above, or do you accept that the UKIP policy on free trade following BREXIT, and thus it's whole economic policy, is totally flawed.

Please note that the following answers have already been tried and refuted:
"Its in their interest" So it is for all those countries, not least the US with whom they have a far bigger trade surplus
"Because they would retain the status quo". By leaving, we would automatically have changed the status quo to the default duties.
"Because we would take up our vacant seat at the WTO"; That doesn't help Norway, Switzerland, US or many others

[RYH64E]

brenflys777 said:

Does the EU have a free movement of labour clause with every country they have free trade with?

In not sure about Turkey, but all of the usual suspects (Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland) have had to sign up to the free movement of labour requirement, and a whole host of other EU rules and regulations, in order to retain free access to the eu market. If Turkey haven't, I suspect it's to protect our interests not theirs.

[JustAnotherLogin]

RYH64E said:

brenflys777 said:

Does the EU have a free movement of labour clause with every country they have free trade with?

In not sure about Turkey, but all of the usual suspects (Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland) have had to sign up to the free movement of labour requirement, and a whole host of other EU rules and regulations, in order to retain free access to the eu market. If Turkey haven't, I suspect it's to protect our interests not theirs.

Turkey does not have full free trade.

There are still duties on agricultural products, and on some raw materials such as metals.

I haven't studied the matter in detail, but I would imagine those at cover mainly what Turkey wants to export to EU, whereas manufactured products coming from EU have zero duty. Almost like the agreement is dictated by the EU. Again

[Scuffers]

RYH64E said:

Scuffers said:

Loosening control of our borders was just criminally stupid.

Even with free movement, they should have logged all people in and out of the country.

It's not rocket science is it?

Free movement of labour isn't the problem, the problem is a system of state freebies that makes the UK look like some kind of paradise to people with nothing, and allows our own unemployed the luxury of choosing not to work.

UKIP are never going to be able to negotiate a free trade agreement without accepting free movement of labour, despite the of stated 'they need us more than we need them' mantra, and to remain prosperous the UK needs a free trade agreement with the EU. Just because it's in the manifesto doesn't mean it's going to happen.

that's not the point I was making.

even with free movement, the lack of basic counting/tracking who is coming or going is criminal, talk about the home office not doing their basic job

FiF said:

Apparently it is rocket science. One which in the past has resulted in people here illegally and having been arrested for walking up a Midlands motorway hard shoulder, are released on the orders of the Border Agency under the promise that the illegals have agreed they will report to BA at Liverpool. That's going to happen isn't it?

Utter shambles.

exactly.

the home office/immigration dept have simply failed.

[Esseesse]

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

[brenflys777]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So, has any Kipper any rebuttal for the above, or do you accept that the UKIP policy on free trade following BREXIT, and thus it's whole economic policy, is totally flawed.

I think this quote shows why you aren't getting people to engage with you. Saying has 'any Kipper' set the tone of your contribution, then you offer the answer that if there are any flaws in the UKIP policy it must mean "it's whole economic policy, is totally flawed". This overstates and oversimplifies things.

The whole EU debate is coloured by having this binary approach to the participants. If there is a flaw in the UKIP trade policy or their intentions at this stage it doesn't follow that the whole economic policy is totally flawed, so you are offering a flawed, or at least inadequate set of possibilities. That makes it sound like you are trying to points score not debate, in my opinion.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

I think it's because China has much lower labour costs so even though they have to pay duties their products are still cheaper

For the US companies the USA market is a massive massive market in it's own right and Europe is probably an extension of their core in the US. Also they are typically bigger as they can expand so much domestically and can take advantages of economies of scale far more before exporting to the EU, making them competitive on price than when tarriffs are added.

For the UK there is certain scope to grow domestically but they can't be operating at the same economies of scale before exporting to the EU, and we don't have the smaller labour costs to absorb the additional tarriffs, hence Uk products would cost more

Perhaps a massive oversimplification, but that's how I see it.

[RYH64E]

Esseesse said:

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

It's not just 'some duties' it's 10% for non-eu manufactured cars for instance. Then there's the whole faf of the customs process, paying an agent to calculate and make the vat and duty payments on your behalf, plus the inevitable delay that adds to the process - intra EU trade is much easier, quicker and cheaper than non-EU trade. Of course it wouldn't make it impossible to export but it would put our exporters at a disadvantage compared to our EU competitors.

Selling to countries in the EU is easy, it's a massive opportunity for those in a position to take advantage of it.

Have you ever bought anything cheap from the USA, then found out you have to go to the post office to collect it, pay VAT, Duty and a handling fee? All of a sudden the cheap US bargain isn't so cheap. Non EU trade is the same thing but on a much larger scale.

Edited by RYH64E on Tuesday 30th December 11:45

[Esseesse]

RYH64E said:

Esseesse said:

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

It's not just 'some duties' it's 10% for non-eu manufactured cars for instance. Then there's the whole faf of the customs process, paying an agent to calculate and make the vat and duty payments on your behalf, plus the inevitable delay that adds to the process - intra EU trade is much easier, quicker and cheaper than non-EU trade. Of course it wouldn't make it impossible to export but it would put our exporters at a disadvantage compared to our EU competitors.

Selling to countries in the EU is easy, it's a massive opportunity for those in a position to take advantage of it.

Didn't some poster who runs an exporting business previously say it's no harder for him to export to places outside of the EU as inside the EU?

[Esseesse]

cookie118 said:

Esseesse said:

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

I think it's because China has much lower labour costs so even though they have to pay duties their products are still cheaper

For the US companies the USA market is a massive massive market in it's own right and Europe is probably an extension of their core in the US. Also they are typically bigger as they can expand so much domestically and can take advantages of economies of scale far more before exporting to the EU, making them competitive on price than when tarriffs are added.

For the UK there is certain scope to grow domestically but they can't be operating at the same economies of scale before exporting to the EU, and we don't have the smaller labour costs to absorb the additional tarriffs, hence Uk products would cost more

Perhaps a massive oversimplification, but that's how I see it.

That may be so, but since we're net importers from the EU, wouldn't a corresponding 10% import duty (from EU to UK) result in a net benefit for UK businesses?

[RYH64E]

Esseesse said:

Didn't some poster who runs an exporting business previously say it's no harder for him to export to places outside of the EU as inside the EU?

I also run a company that both imports and exports, about 50% of our turnover is currently exported to other EU countries.

It's not exporting that's the problem, it's importing, and our customers import. If customers find it harder (and more expensive) to import from a non-EU country then we will have less customers to export to.

[allergictocheese]

My personal feeling is that I'm uncomfortable with the social elements of the EU and very comfortable with the preferential trading relationship.

The question is how much would the EU allow us to benefit from the trading relationship without contributing to the social one?

I suspect Germany France would be happy if we left, as we have an uncomfortable relationship and I suspect they would jump at the opportunity to fill any trade gaps our leaving would open up.

On that basis, I don't see there would be much carrot or stick for the UK to negotiate the trading benefits without doing what other peripheral countries such as Norway have done and comply with free movement etc.

[XJ Flyer]

RYH64E said:

Esseesse said:

Why are we afraid of some duties on our exports to the EU (like I assume China, the USA etc have to pay)?

It's not just 'some duties' it's 10% for non-eu manufactured cars for instance. Then there's the whole faf of the customs process, paying an agent to calculate and make the vat and duty payments on your behalf, plus the inevitable delay that adds to the process - intra EU trade is much easier, quicker and cheaper than non-EU trade. Of course it wouldn't make it impossible to export but it would put our exporters at a disadvantage compared to our EU competitors.

Selling to countries in the EU is easy, it's a massive opportunity for those in a position to take advantage of it.

Have you ever bought anything cheap from the USA, then found out you have to go to the post office to collect it, pay VAT, Duty and a handling fee? All of a sudden the cheap US bargain isn't so cheap. Non EU trade is the same thing but on a much larger scale.

Edited by RYH64E on Tuesday 30th December 11:45

It is no surprise that the pro EU side seem to keep on conveniently missing the point that if the EU wants to hit our fewer exports to it with a 10% duty tarrif we can hit theirs with a 20% + one.Until someone blinks first and there is every incentive for the EU to be the ones who blink first not us in a situation where our market is more important to them than theirs is to us.Just like the 1975 referendum campaign bias in its outlook has always been a defining feature of the federalist pro EU cause.