UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[anonymous-user]

eddieo said:

Given that immigration is only a tiny insignificant problem despite credible figures saying our population is increasing (at the very least) at a rate of 10 cities the size of Birmingham in the next 25 years, can we debate the following article from 2007? It claimed that the actual population of the UK at the time was 77-80 million and not 59 million as the government would have us believe. I'm sure you'll all agree that is a MASSIVE disparity. If that was then, what is the real population 7 years on and how under-funded and over-subscribed are our public services already? At what point will the UK be over-populated? Maybe Labour's big brother ID cards were a good idea after all given that we haven't remotely a clue how many people we have to look after?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration...

Furthermore do we think it acceptable that we encourage brain drain in other European countries, furthering their demise and poverty by encouraging often well qualified workers to come here and work in much lower roles than they would normally be suited to in their home nations?

It's not possible to have a debate when one side is using guesses and opinions as the foundation for a complaint; a complaint for which it has no solution.

Guesses and opinions: the estimate of 77-80 millions is based on two unidentified sources from 2007: a person who works for Tesco (not Tesco itself, officially or unofficially - read the Indy and the Express reports) and someone in an agricultural business of some description.

Problems with this: (a) unidentified source; (b) unidentified methodology; (c) no indications of reliability of methodology (has this estimatation method been used in the past and correlated with censuses which have been accepted as accurate?); (d) questionable methodology on its face given that we are one of the mostt, if not the most, obese nation in Europe; (e) zero (as far as I can tell) traction acquired by this story over the last 7 years.

All of which say to me it is about as valuable a piece of data as a story passed on in the pub. There is nothing to debate. That is not to say that the official census may not be out, but these figures of 77m-80m can be safely disregarded.

A complaint with no solution: extreme example of countries recognising that they are overpopulated is state imposed birth control. We are nowhere near that. Are ID cards a solution? No. They won't bring a population down. Is leaving the EU a solution? No. As pointed out here numerous times (to a response redolent of shuffling of feet and silently staring intently at the tips of pencils) even out of the EU the UK will not have a trade agreement without free movement of people.

Realistically so long as your birth rate is greater than your death rate your population will always grow unless you start throwing people out. And a shrinking population generally gives a shrinking economy.

So, if our population is greater than the census tells us, we're not overpopulated (yet, at least); and no one has a solution to bring down the population (which may well be a bad thing anyway). Really not sure what there is to debate here.

(In passing, the final point: the brain drain, is as I understand it an immigration policy that UKIP positively supports).

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 30th December 12:25

[XJ Flyer]

Esseesse said:

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?

If we're going to do the job then do it properly by at least doubling our tarrifs on EU imports over every tarrif they apply on us.IE nothing short of an all out trade war between us and the EU will sort this issue out bearing in mind that we actually 'need' an effective tarrif and quota regime to enforce at least a situation of trade balance with the EU anyway.

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

– We will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new British Bill of Rights. The interests of law-abiding citizens & victims will always take precedence over those of criminals.

This part of the UKIP manifesto is one that I find a little bit errm, worrying because I don't know what a British Bill of Rights would look like, apart from the interests of law abiding citizens and victims would take precedence over those of criminals.

The EU bill of human rights might be a ballache and the times it seems to work against victims and the UK are widely publicised, but I wonder how many cases it has helped, and where it is a good thing to have?

[XJ Flyer]

RYH64E said:

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.

As usual with the pro EU argument you've obviously conveniently missed the point that our overall trade with the EU isn't in a situation of the type of balance which you've described.In which case if we have less EU imports in a protected market that leaves more room for sales in the domestic economy than would be lost in exports to the EU.IE you're trying to make the case of a trade balance situation with the EU which doesn't actually exist.When the facts are we pay a fortune in net contributions and have to give away sovereignty of our government all for the privilege of being in a trade deficit.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

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?

Maybe, but as someone explained on another thread, on the total value of those tarrifs in UK vs the EU, the EU would pay more.

But the EU would be able to spread it's cost increases among ~440m people, whereas the Uk would have to spread it's increases through ~65m people (or whatever, less than 440m anyway!!).

[Zod]

Guam said:

RYH64E said:

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.

For many years our Raw material was imported from the US, oddly I never found the tariffs that big a deal, indeed the agency fees from the shippers were usually twice the import duty.
Not sure why folk think that its such a big deal?

how are margins on your products and how do you think they compare with every other business?

[sidicks]

cookie118 said:

Maybe, but as someone explained on another thread, on the total value of those tarrifs in UK vs the EU, the EU would pay more.

But the EU would be able to spread it's cost increases among ~440m people, whereas the Uk would have to spread it's increases through ~65m people (or whatever, less than 440m anyway!!).

A 10% tariff increases the cost of goods by 10% - it doesn't matter about the respective population sizes!

[XJ Flyer]

cookie118 said:

Esseesse said:

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?

Maybe, but as someone explained on another thread, on the total value of those tarrifs in UK vs the EU, the EU would pay more.

But the EU would be able to spread it's cost increases among ~440m people, whereas the Uk would have to spread it's increases through ~65m people (or whatever, less than 440m anyway!!).

That's assuming that the value of EU exports to us is spread equally amongst the EU states.When the fact is a nice round 50% tarrif hit just on German exports to us and 20-30% on the rest would be more than enough to bring the EU to its senses.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

cookie118 said:

Maybe, but as someone explained on another thread, on the total value of those tarrifs in UK vs the EU, the EU would pay more.

But the EU would be able to spread it's cost increases among ~440m people, whereas the Uk would have to spread it's increases through ~65m people (or whatever, less than 440m anyway!!).

A 10% tariff increases the cost of goods by 10% - it doesn't matter about the respective population sizes!

But we'd be paying 10% more on ~50% of our goods whereas, say Germany or France would pay 10% more on ~10% of their goods.

[BGARK]

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)?

We are not.

[anonymous-user]

eddieo said:

As Kinky famously said in another thread: resorting to insults demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability. Yet the same repeated lowest common denominator insults are being used here to stifle debate and attempt to encourage further insult.

Since Kinky's last warning regarding insults on this thread and noted for lack of ability in debating, lack of tolerance, and inability to dismount from the moral winged high horse (of chav tat?):
FredClogs: 'collective psychopathy'
Gaspode: 'You really do have a touch of the Asberger's (sic), don't you?'
Greg66: 'Pious Kingdom of Kipper'
league67: 'God you are slow, even by kipper standards.'
Mrr T: 'UKIP is a joke'
RYH64E: 'gullible, stupid people are allowed to vote'
TKF: 'Back when it was just Kippers writing in big letters with their crayons?'
Zygalski: 'Smoked kipper.'

Any chance of upping your game?

Scuffers: "you blinkered simpletons"; "your [sic] just another sheep repeating it"
Einion Yrth "Is your penis really that small?"
NicD: "you are beyond parody"; "your fellow trollposse"; "You see a good joke in the mirror each morning"
BGARK: "it also the same arguing with people who believe in sky fairies, no amount of logic will ever sink in to someone who is simply brainwashed"
don4l: "You come across as a typical leftie hypocrite"; "You bedwetters really crack me up"
jogon: "this kind of sanctimonious drivel"
dandarez: "Can't wait to read your drivel answer"

Next time try holding the telescope up to your other eye too.

[XJ Flyer]

cookie118 said:

sidicks said:

cookie118 said:

Maybe, but as someone explained on another thread, on the total value of those tarrifs in UK vs the EU, the EU would pay more.

But the EU would be able to spread it's cost increases among ~440m people, whereas the Uk would have to spread it's increases through ~65m people (or whatever, less than 440m anyway!!).

A 10% tariff increases the cost of goods by 10% - it doesn't matter about the respective population sizes!

But we'd be paying 10% more on ~50% of our goods whereas, say Germany or France would pay 10% more on ~10% of their goods.

Why would we be paying more for anything when our domestic manufacturers would be able to take the place of those imports with no tax at all on the goods produced here in addition to a reduction/removal in/of VAT on domestic manufactured goods.As for 10% no one said that we only need to hit them as hard as they hit us.

[BGARK]

For those that are interested, we would have had an FTA some time ago with the USA if we was not shackled to the EU.

It is because of the EU we do not. They (whoever they are?) are a hindrance, not a help to the UK.

http://trade.gov/fta/

Like many others on PH I run a business, import and export items. I want out.

There are many other examples like this where the UK would be better placed to negotiate our own deals, we have better skills at doing so. Why do so many on here think that nameless undemocratic socialists in far away lands have our best interests at heart, they don't.

[anonymous-user]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would we be paying more for anything when our domestic manufacturers would be able to take the place of those imports with no tax at all on the goods produced here in addition to a reduction/removal in/of VAT on domestic manufactured goods.As for 10% no one said that we only need to hit them as hard as they hit us.

That assumes that our domestic manufacturers:
a) Produce these products. For example I'm not sure many chemical plants in the world can produce what BASF (who make G40 coolant and a whole host of other products) does, so we would be stuck with the duty on these products.
b) Can produce these products without EU compoents, otherwise we would still see price increases

And that:
c) People are willing to give up their EU goods-e.g BMW/Audi customers buying Jags etc

[fatboy18]

And that:
c) People are willing to give up their EU goods-e.g BMW/Audi customers buying Jags etc



How Good would that be

[XJ Flyer]

cookie118 said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would we be paying more for anything when our domestic manufacturers would be able to take the place of those imports with no tax at all on the goods produced here in addition to a reduction/removal in/of VAT on domestic manufactured goods.As for 10% no one said that we only need to hit them as hard as they hit us.

That assumes that our domestic manufacturers:
a) Produce these products. For example I'm not sure many chemical plants in the world can produce what BASF (who make G40 coolant and a whole host of other products) does, so we would be stuck with the duty on these products.
b) Can produce these products without EU compoents, otherwise we would still see price increases

And that:
c) People are willing to give up their EU goods-e.g BMW/Audi customers buying Jags etc

I think (c) is all that we need to concentrate on in this case.In that with a 70% tax hit between the Audi/Merc/BMW v the Jag the choice is a no brainer.As for the rest as always the choice is either get on with it using our own abilities and resources ( swim ) or stay as we are ( sink ).

[anonymous-user]

fatboy18 said:

And that:
c) People are willing to give up their EU goods-e.g BMW/Audi customers buying Jags etc



How Good would that be

Sounds good doesn't it

However I think some UK buyers would be less willing to give up their VW's etc for UK build Fords, Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas

[fatboy18]

Well if someone wants to throw me an Aston Martin to represent England I don't mind

[Esseesse]

XJ Flyer said:

cookie118 said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would we be paying more for anything when our domestic manufacturers would be able to take the place of those imports with no tax at all on the goods produced here in addition to a reduction/removal in/of VAT on domestic manufactured goods.As for 10% no one said that we only need to hit them as hard as they hit us.

That assumes that our domestic manufacturers:
a) Produce these products. For example I'm not sure many chemical plants in the world can produce what BASF (who make G40 coolant and a whole host of other products) does, so we would be stuck with the duty on these products.
b) Can produce these products without EU compoents, otherwise we would still see price increases

And that:
c) People are willing to give up their EU goods-e.g BMW/Audi customers buying Jags etc

I think (c) is all that we need to concentrate on in this case.In that with a 70% tax hit between the Audi/Merc/BMW v the Jag the choice is a no brainer.As for the rest as always the choice is either get on with it using our own abilities and resources ( swim ) or stay as we are ( sink ).

This ^^

The scenario outlined in a and b may incur a cost in the short term, but longer term it would support uk business and industry, and therefore our independence. Not everything in life is about saving a buck.

[anonymous-user]

BGARK said:

Like many others on PH I run a business, import and export items. I want out.

I appreciate that, however I work for a large company that imports components from the EU and exports finished products there, and I would be very, very worried if we left the EU!

I understand that leaving the EU could result in a positive outcome for the UK, however for me the risk and possible sacrifices required are just far too high to justify taking the step. I really think it could leave the country properly in the stter if it went 'wrong' with big businesses leaving left right and centre and the cost of living increasing for everyone.

I suppose that's where the pro/anti EU split comes, those that think the risk is worth it (or that there's no risk) and those that don't.