UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
steveT350C said:
Here is the bit I found interesting,
The next step is for UKIP to start work on understanding what issues need to be negotiated and establishing the position the UK needs to take to get what it wants out of the negotiation. It needs to engage people who understand what needs to be negotiated to ensure the UK is not adversely affected by withdrawal and formulate the approach to follow. This has two benefits
UKIP can genuinely declare to voters that it has a plan for leaving that does not harm UK interests
UKIP can assure the business community that after exit, companies will not lose access to their European markets or ability to hire skilled employees from Europe
Only a high level explanation needs to be given, to give people confidence that there is a detailed plan behind the summary that covers the areas that concern people. Polls have shown consistently that the greatest fear people have of Brexit are negative economic impacts. The Europhiles have played on this remorselessly with spin, conjecture and outright lies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. But if UKIP steps up, this FUD can be countered and more people will be reassured to vote to leave the EU should a referendum take place.
The comments made in a few moments from a stage in London might just now trigger a fightback by the Eurosceptic side, one that is backed with truth and evidence that destroys the arguments of the Europhiles. This could be a seminal moment in the Brexit campaign. It is now up to UKIP to use its platform to push this up the agenda for the benefit of the whole Eurosceptic side.-
Perhaps, just maybe, hope has been restored. We have to wait and see if this Damascene conversion by Farage becomes more than words.=/
I agree with this. However, this is not the greater leader or even a member of UKIP saying what UKIP needs to do to achieve an exit. The next step is for UKIP to start work on understanding what issues need to be negotiated and establishing the position the UK needs to take to get what it wants out of the negotiation. It needs to engage people who understand what needs to be negotiated to ensure the UK is not adversely affected by withdrawal and formulate the approach to follow. This has two benefits
UKIP can genuinely declare to voters that it has a plan for leaving that does not harm UK interests
UKIP can assure the business community that after exit, companies will not lose access to their European markets or ability to hire skilled employees from Europe
Only a high level explanation needs to be given, to give people confidence that there is a detailed plan behind the summary that covers the areas that concern people. Polls have shown consistently that the greatest fear people have of Brexit are negative economic impacts. The Europhiles have played on this remorselessly with spin, conjecture and outright lies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. But if UKIP steps up, this FUD can be countered and more people will be reassured to vote to leave the EU should a referendum take place.
The comments made in a few moments from a stage in London might just now trigger a fightback by the Eurosceptic side, one that is backed with truth and evidence that destroys the arguments of the Europhiles. This could be a seminal moment in the Brexit campaign. It is now up to UKIP to use its platform to push this up the agenda for the benefit of the whole Eurosceptic side.-
Perhaps, just maybe, hope has been restored. We have to wait and see if this Damascene conversion by Farage becomes more than words.=/
Its some one who is not a member of UKIP saying what it should do. When UKIP starts to follow the advise then I will take it seriously.
Mrr T said:
steveT350C said:
Here is the bit I found interesting,
The next step is for UKIP to start work on understanding what issues need to be negotiated and establishing the position the UK needs to take to get what it wants out of the negotiation. It needs to engage people who understand what needs to be negotiated to ensure the UK is not adversely affected by withdrawal and formulate the approach to follow. This has two benefits
UKIP can genuinely declare to voters that it has a plan for leaving that does not harm UK interests
UKIP can assure the business community that after exit, companies will not lose access to their European markets or ability to hire skilled employees from Europe
Only a high level explanation needs to be given, to give people confidence that there is a detailed plan behind the summary that covers the areas that concern people. Polls have shown consistently that the greatest fear people have of Brexit are negative economic impacts. The Europhiles have played on this remorselessly with spin, conjecture and outright lies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. But if UKIP steps up, this FUD can be countered and more people will be reassured to vote to leave the EU should a referendum take place.
The comments made in a few moments from a stage in London might just now trigger a fightback by the Eurosceptic side, one that is backed with truth and evidence that destroys the arguments of the Europhiles. This could be a seminal moment in the Brexit campaign. It is now up to UKIP to use its platform to push this up the agenda for the benefit of the whole Eurosceptic side.-
Perhaps, just maybe, hope has been restored. We have to wait and see if this Damascene conversion by Farage becomes more than words.=/
I agree with this. However, this is not the greater leader or even a member of UKIP saying what UKIP needs to do to achieve an exit. The next step is for UKIP to start work on understanding what issues need to be negotiated and establishing the position the UK needs to take to get what it wants out of the negotiation. It needs to engage people who understand what needs to be negotiated to ensure the UK is not adversely affected by withdrawal and formulate the approach to follow. This has two benefits
UKIP can genuinely declare to voters that it has a plan for leaving that does not harm UK interests
UKIP can assure the business community that after exit, companies will not lose access to their European markets or ability to hire skilled employees from Europe
Only a high level explanation needs to be given, to give people confidence that there is a detailed plan behind the summary that covers the areas that concern people. Polls have shown consistently that the greatest fear people have of Brexit are negative economic impacts. The Europhiles have played on this remorselessly with spin, conjecture and outright lies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. But if UKIP steps up, this FUD can be countered and more people will be reassured to vote to leave the EU should a referendum take place.
The comments made in a few moments from a stage in London might just now trigger a fightback by the Eurosceptic side, one that is backed with truth and evidence that destroys the arguments of the Europhiles. This could be a seminal moment in the Brexit campaign. It is now up to UKIP to use its platform to push this up the agenda for the benefit of the whole Eurosceptic side.-
Perhaps, just maybe, hope has been restored. We have to wait and see if this Damascene conversion by Farage becomes more than words.=/
Its some one who is not a member of UKIP saying what it should do. When UKIP starts to follow the advise then I will take it seriously.
Mrr T said:
Why do you think autonomousmind and eureferendum are the musings of a nutter? The work of Dr North, in particular, looks in great detail at how we can exit the EU with out crippling our economy.
He brings in to better relief some broad areas but, as we all know, the devil is in the detail. For instance, he says that we'll have to pretty much stay in the CAP whilst negotiations are ongoing. He also says these negotiations will take years. However, until UKIP can tell us what it is they reasonably expect to get from these complex negotiations, they're asking us to take on trust what they can achieve. It's all very well saying, we'll get out of the CAP but, for all we know, the only viable mechanism may be disastrous - either to us or the EU. Then you have to multiply that by the other ongoing negotiations regarding Defence, Policing, Agriculture and Fisheries etc, with our limited range of diplomats/politicians stacked up against the best from 27 other countries. A bunch of people who've got a track record of putting a lot of stuff over our chaps in the recent past. Since he's already ruled out the nuclear option of UDI, there wouldn't be any walking out or similar, we would be putting ourselves into a worse negotiating position than we are in now. It's bonkers.
Until the ideas are tested here by debate this isn't a "blueprint", it's just marginally better than a sketch on the back of a fag packet. North's simply outlined the headings of a few chapters in an endeavour more complex than sending a man to the moon. UKIP is barely able to design the launchpad, never mind design, build and send the rocket. They're a bunch of dangerous chancers feeding on the fears of the credulous.
Mrr T said:
steveT350C said:
Mrr T said:
steveT350C said:
The full UKIP manifesto will be launched in September. In the meantime, here is a short discussion about your valid concerns
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/far...
Have you actually read that link?http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/far...
Its about the work of Dr North at Eureferendum. Someone who was dumped by your great leader. Dr North is producing important research on EU exit but it is nothing to do with UKIP. Indeed, he is often attacked by UKIP posters who object to his lack of reverence for the great leader.
The only element of Dr North's work accepted by the great leader is that exit is likely to require notice under article 50. However, he even manages caveats that.
When and if UKIP start putting some serious work into how we leave the EU I will listen to them and consider voting for them but at the moment they only remind me of the SNP all bluff and no facts.
But why link to a site which has nothing to do with UKIP when I have asked for the UKIP plan to leave the EU.
I know why because UKIP has no plan on how to leave the EU.
steveT350C said:
....is just blue sky thinking.
Obviously, to go beyond 'blue sky thinking' the first person you'd approach to draft a rigorously researched paper on the legal implications of Brexit would need at least a PhD. It makes sense, after all. We need a chap with brains and insight into the complex problems of European diplomacy. Someone familiar with the corridors of power, someone who the French and the Germans will look up to and respect for his sound judgement and deep knowledge of the European project. Someone who won't let Johnny foreigner serve us up with any old rubbish. And lo! Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
Please let me introduce you to Dr A E North, with his PhD in 'Public Sector Food Poisoning Surveillance'. Because when the chips are down (or not quite properly cooked), that's what you need, an expert in the screaming squits.
(Are you sure you mean't 'blue sky thinking'? Cos it's looking a very funny colour from where I'm standing...).
UKIP''s problem is not unique.
It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
Guam said:
AW111 said:
UKIP''s problem is not unique.
It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
Indeed, as I suggested many many pages back they should be looking at the Lib Dems as a template as how to achieve this, if they are smart.It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
AW111 said:
UKIP''s problem is not unique.
It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
Exactly so, and as many, including myself, have pointed out, now is the time to get a wiggle on, appoint a front bench, let them run with their portfolio, sideline Hamilton, do their absolute level best to filter out and deal with any questionable members, candidates etc, and start putting some policies out there. It is easy to be a party of protest : anyone can see the obvious failings of the party in power, and get a lot of public support for pointing them out.
It is much, much harder to actually spell out a realistic plan of how to change things, and most protest parties fail to pass this hurdle.
UKIP have to get past this and offer realistic policies, or they will wither away like many others have done : so far they have failed to do this.
The energy policy was a good start. Rounded and considered, researched and presented. Some may not agree with it for all sorts of reasonable and unreasonable things. But it's done and out there.
Now move on. As for Brexit there are a fair number of works on that North's, the ones that made the Brexit shortlist which North's didn't and the eventual prize winner. There will be others in LSE and other universities. I've read and critiqued a few but not in public domain. It's not going to be easy that's for sure, for both parties UK and EU, but imho doable.
Then other major issues they should have some policies and proposed method of bringing them about published, and as I say get a wiggle on.
Should they be expected to have a fully costed strategy for every minute detail of running the country? No it's not reasonable to expect an emergent party to have that at this stage and none of the others will or have had such before. But the major issues, yes, that's an imperative.
As before, we're entering summer holiday season but come the end of August and not much progress made then it will seem like a reprise of the sinking back into the cushions after a decent euro result and a gentle drift.
Time will tell, but it's running short quite quickly.
Guam said:
Zod said:
Am I missing a parrot here?
I Dont know are you, do you need one, I have several to hand if you do 
for the dco kid??
Mojocvh said:
Guam said:
Zod said:
Am I missing a parrot here?
I Dont know are you, do you need one, I have several to hand if you do for the dco kid??
Mojocvh said:
Zod said:
Have you recovered from your upset of a couple of weeks ago? Did they put you in one of these jackets at the time? Did you enjoy it?
Just a bit of banter, robust perhaps, but I'm sure snappy can look out for himself without your interference. I can understand peoples concerns that UKIP need to be aware of and explain the manner and effects of Brexit, however, I can't see why it's insurmountable. People will still want to travel, businesses will still want to trade and politicians will still want to be elected.
It strikes me that if the UK votes to exit it will be like a divorce. If both parties are able to move on and know that they have a future apart, it will probably be a relief for everyone involved and a deal struck. If our partner wants to exact revenge for the 'conscious uncoupling' we could have some short term pain... not good, but then everyone who I've known go through a messy divorce has looked at the high cost and found that it was worth it.
Incidentally, for those who can't take UKIPs plans for exit seriously without detail - how does that compare with Cameron's renegotiation ( no detail ) and stating he'll have a referendum where one of the options is to leave? Has he given any detail in how he would deal with it?
It strikes me that if the UK votes to exit it will be like a divorce. If both parties are able to move on and know that they have a future apart, it will probably be a relief for everyone involved and a deal struck. If our partner wants to exact revenge for the 'conscious uncoupling' we could have some short term pain... not good, but then everyone who I've known go through a messy divorce has looked at the high cost and found that it was worth it.
Incidentally, for those who can't take UKIPs plans for exit seriously without detail - how does that compare with Cameron's renegotiation ( no detail ) and stating he'll have a referendum where one of the options is to leave? Has he given any detail in how he would deal with it?
It's my suspicion - and I accept that my opinion, as someone who doesn't like Ukip, will probably be ignored - that Ukip will not fight the general election on the issues of Brexit, as it is simply too complicated and many people don't really give a damn. Instead, they will do what they did in the latter stages of the euro elections and focus on 'immigrants taking your jobs'.
brenflys777 said:
I can understand peoples concerns that UKIP need to be aware of and explain the manner and effects of Brexit, however, I can't see why it's insurmountable. People will still want to travel, businesses will still want to trade and politicians will still want to be elected.
It strikes me that if the UK votes to exit it will be like a divorce. If both parties are able to move on and know that they have a future apart, it will probably be a relief for everyone involved and a deal struck. If our partner wants to exact revenge for the 'conscious uncoupling' we could have some short term pain... not good, but then everyone who I've known go through a messy divorce has looked at the high cost and found that it was worth it.
Incidentally, for those who can't take UKIPs plans for exit seriously without detail - how does that compare with Cameron's renegotiation ( no detail ) and stating he'll have a referendum where one of the options is to leave? Has he given any detail in how he would deal with it?
I have to agree with this but only partly so. After giving notice under Article 50 how long does the treaty set out for the negotiations? 2 years unless an agreed extension or sooner if also agreed iirc.It strikes me that if the UK votes to exit it will be like a divorce. If both parties are able to move on and know that they have a future apart, it will probably be a relief for everyone involved and a deal struck. If our partner wants to exact revenge for the 'conscious uncoupling' we could have some short term pain... not good, but then everyone who I've known go through a messy divorce has looked at the high cost and found that it was worth it.
Incidentally, for those who can't take UKIPs plans for exit seriously without detail - how does that compare with Cameron's renegotiation ( no detail ) and stating he'll have a referendum where one of the options is to leave? Has he given any detail in how he would deal with it?
Obviously there is the concern over one party wishing to extract revenge but as before business trades with business. Trading is largely not done by government. Politicians can posture and say they brokered this or facilitated that. Maybe the deal went through despite the political input rather than due to it.
In the two years of negotiations, if it is 2 years, cba to look it up right now, there will be a lot of more intelligent input brought to bear by people far more capable than many / most of the current incumbents in commons seats or prospective candidates.
On the other hand seeing as it is a very major part of UKIP's reason for existence it's fair to ask for more than a general outline of how they would achieve exit and key strategies on major issues / trade agreements.
FiF said:
I have to agree with this but only partly so. After giving notice under Article 50 how long does the treaty set out for the negotiations? 2 years unless an agreed extension or sooner if also agreed iirc.
Obviously there is the concern over one party wishing to extract revenge but as before business trades with business. Trading is largely not done by government. Politicians can posture and say they brokered this or facilitated that. Maybe the deal went through despite the political input rather than due to it.
In the two years of negotiations, if it is 2 years, cba to look it up right now, there will be a lot of more intelligent input brought to bear by people far more capable than many / most of the current incumbents in commons seats or prospective candidates.
On the other hand seeing as it is a very major part of UKIP's reason for existence it's fair to ask for more than a general outline of how they would achieve exit and key strategies on major issues / trade agreements.
You say traders want to trade. However it's politicians who set the terms of trading. If we assume that two year guillotine, that's two years to scrutinise every aspect of trading law and to come up with workable solutions; two years to consult groups representing the traders; two years to redraft the trading legislation and put it through parliament (don't forget the Lords); two years to go through the green paper/white paper process; and two years whilst traders live in fear of disruption and unfavourable legislation (on both sides).Obviously there is the concern over one party wishing to extract revenge but as before business trades with business. Trading is largely not done by government. Politicians can posture and say they brokered this or facilitated that. Maybe the deal went through despite the political input rather than due to it.
In the two years of negotiations, if it is 2 years, cba to look it up right now, there will be a lot of more intelligent input brought to bear by people far more capable than many / most of the current incumbents in commons seats or prospective candidates.
On the other hand seeing as it is a very major part of UKIP's reason for existence it's fair to ask for more than a general outline of how they would achieve exit and key strategies on major issues / trade agreements.
You reckon that two years will be plenty of time to work everything out. We'll just put some 'intelligent input' into it. Where is that going to come from? This task alone is going to require the input from hundreds of civil servants and lawyers (and the cost for them alone will be astronomical - Breadvan must be dribbling in anticipation). Which civil servants are you going to remove from the tasks they're already doing or are you going to train up some new ones? Are you going to pay for the best legal advice or are you going to do it on the cheap?
I don't know how much you know about drafting legislation but, as a rule, this stuff usually moves at a glacial speed. Why? Because it's incredibly complex and one minor error could have vast ramifications. Thus far, all we have is a 'back of a fag packet' sketch of how it will all work. The whole thing is a car crash waiting to happen. What's worse for UKIP is the more the Article 50 option is aired and scrutinised, the more frightening it will become
FiF said:
I have to agree with this but only partly so. After giving notice under Article 50 how long does the treaty set out for the negotiations? 2 years unless an agreed extension or sooner if also agreed iirc.
Obviously there is the concern over one party wishing to extract revenge but as before business trades with business. Trading is largely not done by government. Politicians can posture and say they brokered this or facilitated that. Maybe the deal went through despite the political input rather than due to it.
In the two years of negotiations, if it is 2 years, cba to look it up right now, there will be a lot of more intelligent input brought to bear by people far more capable than many / most of the current incumbents in commons seats or prospective candidates.
On the other hand seeing as it is a very major part of UKIP's reason for existence it's fair to ask for more than a general outline of how they would achieve exit and key strategies on major issues / trade agreements.
Just a couple of points. I'd agree that UKIP need to be clearer about what they will do, because it is a much bigger priority for them than other. I hope the Sept announcements include some more detail. To an extent I think the reaction from the EU will depend on who they are negotiating with. If by an unlikely turn of events it was UKIP the EU might be keener to jettison us, or they might seek to discourage other countries from opting out with a difficult negotiation... Obviously there is the concern over one party wishing to extract revenge but as before business trades with business. Trading is largely not done by government. Politicians can posture and say they brokered this or facilitated that. Maybe the deal went through despite the political input rather than due to it.
In the two years of negotiations, if it is 2 years, cba to look it up right now, there will be a lot of more intelligent input brought to bear by people far more capable than many / most of the current incumbents in commons seats or prospective candidates.
On the other hand seeing as it is a very major part of UKIP's reason for existence it's fair to ask for more than a general outline of how they would achieve exit and key strategies on major issues / trade agreements.
That said if they are negotiating with Cameron following a conservative majority.... in 2015, they then have a referendum in 2017...two years of negotiation takes us to 2019 - possibly extended, with a GE in 2020 when all bets could be off. If Cameron is in charge and he loses the referendum, I'm suspicious that circumstances will have changed and he or his replacement will need to restart the clock with another vote. Providing a referendum isn't enough, I need persuading that the person in charge has some respect for the popular vote. Cameron hasn't provided any indication of how he will renegotiate or how he would manage an exit. It's hard to believe he is serious.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff