UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[sjn2004]

Justayellowbadge said:

FiF said:

btw Local council by election today Westoe ward South Tyneside

Westoe (South Tyneside) result:
UKIP - 40.9% (+40.9)
LAB - 37.9% (+2.2)
CON - 13.3% (+1.6)
GRN - 5.5% (-0.4)
LDEM - 2.5% (-0.2)

Where did the 44% or so go?

Were the BNP there before?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyneside_Council_election,_2012

Labour was 47% and there was also an independent who had close to 30% of the vote.

[sjn2004]

From Heywood and Middleton, conservative council seat

UKIP - 3 leaflets
Lab - 1 leaflet
Cons - nil
LibDem - nil
No visits at all from senior Cons or Lib Dems!

Nigel has been twice already.

Are the Cons too posh to post?

[DJRC]

jogon said:

Halb said:

xjsdriver said:

My problem with UKIP is that only 2 years ago, the party was entertaining the possibility of other extreme far right groups such as BNP, EDL etc etc to come and join the UKIP fold. Now a short two years later, UKIP have announced that they no longer accept those who previously held such extremist links. My question is - how can a political party complete such a total and utter about turn over what views are acceptable and those which are not and remain with any remnants of credibility with the electorate in this country?

Were they? And the word 'other'. Is UKiPs far right?

UKIP is Conservative with a capital 'C', what the tory party used to be before liberal tory lite Dave hit the scene. Europhile through and through who will fight any in and out referendum with all his corporate muscle to push his pro EU agenda.

There will be no real negotiations and he will not provide a fair in/out referendum on the EU. Wake up and see through this fools lies at least Ed, despite been a forgetful and useless , is honest in this matter.

? For a so called right wing party they aren't half bloody socialist in many respects!!!

How can ppl still not get this?? Nige parked his bloody tanks on Labour turf and gave the locals blood red policies!

[Wombat3]

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

Exactly as I said, if they had a majority (and assuming it was part of their manifesto) then they could indeed just force an exit. The reality is that , at best, UKIP might form part of a coalition. Nobody is going to agree to a UKIP demand for a guaranteed EU exit - tail wagging the dog. At best there would be a referendum.

And if the result is to stay in? Does UKIP respect that or does it go all SNP (tt) on us? Perhaps we ought to know what UKIP's position would be on all that and then, if there was an exit, how it would be achieved?

As to the difficulty, whether we like it or not the reality is that we are legally bound and treaty bound with 26 other countries across a range of issues. It will be difficult to extract ourselves from that. Not impossible, but not easy, not quick and would need to be done carefully and in consideration of any and all potential side effects at each step of the way. For example, in some cases it may require that we first draft substitute legislation to replace EU legislation that we might be withdrawing from.

Has anybody said it would be easy? Clearly the whole process would be complicated and require a lot of negotiations once notice given. That's why the treaty allows for two years. Is two years sufficient? Debateable though that can be shortened or extended if the parties agree.

Edited by FiF on Thursday 2nd October 21:05

Don asked the question/made the statement.....

"I'm still at a loss to understand why some people think that formulating an exit plan would be fraught with difficulty."

There's a difference between formulating a plan, and execution of same. Unless I'm misunderstanding the points from both sides.

Clearly formulating a plan isn't going to be a job for an afternoon with breaks for tea and custard creams, but it's not impossibly complex given the resources.

No argument. But also little point in formulating an exit plan until the decision to exit is actually made. As you say, not a small job & therefore a highly questionable use of resources to work on it without a decision first

Perhaps if UKIP came up with a plan then they might gain something from that but I don't see why anyone else should be doing it at the moment.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Part of the decision is understanding what is involved, and part of that is figuring out what would need to be done, and how, and the risks associated, difficulty and likelihood of successfully achieving that element.

To just make a momentous decision like that without having thought it through in reasonable detail is amateurish. It can be an aim to do something without having much more than an outline, but to actually make the decision to go for it without a plan. Really?

If that really is how the current crop think and approach stuff no wonder the country is in the state it is.

Well in fact we would agree on that.

But seeing as how "The current crop" are not currently advocating an Exit, they have no need of an exit plan (yet). Only UKIP is currently advocating that, so indeed, given that this is basically UKIP policy already, where and what is the UKIP plan for this?

The others will only need to consider a plan when they seriously start contemplating exit. That's not to say they won't get to that point but at the moment they are not working towards that and the stated policy/objective is to renegotiate to stay in. If it becomes clear that exit may look like a favourable option then indeed a full assessment of the exit "problem" will be needed, but they are not there yet.

[don4l]

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

Exactly as I said, if they had a majority (and assuming it was part of their manifesto) then they could indeed just force an exit. The reality is that , at best, UKIP might form part of a coalition. Nobody is going to agree to a UKIP demand for a guaranteed EU exit - tail wagging the dog. At best there would be a referendum.

And if the result is to stay in? Does UKIP respect that or does it go all SNP (tt) on us? Perhaps we ought to know what UKIP's position would be on all that and then, if there was an exit, how it would be achieved?

As to the difficulty, whether we like it or not the reality is that we are legally bound and treaty bound with 26 other countries across a range of issues. It will be difficult to extract ourselves from that. Not impossible, but not easy, not quick and would need to be done carefully and in consideration of any and all potential side effects at each step of the way. For example, in some cases it may require that we first draft substitute legislation to replace EU legislation that we might be withdrawing from.

Has anybody said it would be easy? Clearly the whole process would be complicated and require a lot of negotiations once notice given. That's why the treaty allows for two years. Is two years sufficient? Debateable though that can be shortened or extended if the parties agree.

Don asked the question/made the statement.....

"I'm still at a loss to understand why some people think that formulating an exit plan would be fraught with difficulty."

I did indeed ask that question.

I have yet to receive an answer.

The worst case scenario is a simple exit followed up by joining the WTO. This, in practice, would involve nothing more than 4 lawyers spending a week checking out the WTO treaty. We would then simply close the blue lanes at airports and ports.

We wouldn't need to replace any EU legislation because we have already enshrined it all in UK law. We would have the option of repealing lots of it, but that can be done at leisure.

[FiF]

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

FiF said:

Wombat3 said:

Exactly as I said, if they had a majority (and assuming it was part of their manifesto) then they could indeed just force an exit. The reality is that , at best, UKIP might form part of a coalition. Nobody is going to agree to a UKIP demand for a guaranteed EU exit - tail wagging the dog. At best there would be a referendum.

And if the result is to stay in? Does UKIP respect that or does it go all SNP (tt) on us? Perhaps we ought to know what UKIP's position would be on all that and then, if there was an exit, how it would be achieved?

As to the difficulty, whether we like it or not the reality is that we are legally bound and treaty bound with 26 other countries across a range of issues. It will be difficult to extract ourselves from that. Not impossible, but not easy, not quick and would need to be done carefully and in consideration of any and all potential side effects at each step of the way. For example, in some cases it may require that we first draft substitute legislation to replace EU legislation that we might be withdrawing from.

Has anybody said it would be easy? Clearly the whole process would be complicated and require a lot of negotiations once notice given. That's why the treaty allows for two years. Is two years sufficient? Debateable though that can be shortened or extended if the parties agree.

Edited by FiF on Thursday 2nd October 21:05

Don asked the question/made the statement.....

"I'm still at a loss to understand why some people think that formulating an exit plan would be fraught with difficulty."

There's a difference between formulating a plan, and execution of same. Unless I'm misunderstanding the points from both sides.

Clearly formulating a plan isn't going to be a job for an afternoon with breaks for tea and custard creams, but it's not impossibly complex given the resources.

No argument. But also little point in formulating an exit plan until the decision to exit is actually made. As you say, not a small job & therefore a highly questionable use of resources to work on it without a decision first

Perhaps if UKIP came up with a plan then they might gain something from that but I don't see why anyone else should be doing it at the moment.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Part of the decision is understanding what is involved, and part of that is figuring out what would need to be done, and how, and the risks associated, difficulty and likelihood of successfully achieving that element.

To just make a momentous decision like that without having thought it through in reasonable detail is amateurish. It can be an aim to do something without having much more than an outline, but to actually make the decision to go for it without a plan. Really?

If that really is how the current crop think and approach stuff no wonder the country is in the state it is.

Well in fact we would agree on that.

But seeing as how "The current crop" are not currently advocating an Exit, they have no need of an exit plan (yet). Only UKIP is currently advocating that, so indeed, given that this is basically UKIP policy already, where and what is the UKIP plan for this?

The others will only need to consider a plan when they seriously start contemplating exit. That's not to say they won't get to that point but at the moment they are not working towards that and the stated policy/objective is to renegotiate to stay in. If it becomes clear that exit may look like a favourable option then indeed a full assessment of the exit "problem" will be needed, but they are not there yet.

So what you appear to be advocating is that we give our votes to an organisation that says they will go hard into a negotiation with other nations where a significant part of the strategy involves a threat to invoke a plan B that they openly admit they haven't thought through because they don't need to yet.

Sounds somewhat familiar from some recent difficulty or three.

Of course it could be that it's not needed because there will be no need as there is no intention, regardless of any negotiation outcome, of recommending Brexit. Which is clearly the stated favoured position. Then you wonder why people, not even his own MPs believe Dave.

You know Wombat you have done a really good job for the Tories here. I was beginning to waver about returning my vote to them and you have singlehandedly achieved a really good result in that end.








Tories can FRO and when they've done that they can FRO again to nothing. Finished.

Nice one Wombers. Thanks.

[dfen5]

I think the reference to UKIP being a danger to Labour is a real one. I know a lot of shop floor workers and have to say some of their chats and Facebook posts are anti-immigration of all types, in no uncertain terms. Guess what they're talking about now? UKIP. And that's how they'll be voting because they think the pint-drinking Farage is some sort of white crusader.

If Farage gets in he'd better deliver on shutting boarders within days or he'll be getting that pint pot firmly stuck where the sun don't shine..

[Scuffers]

dfen5 said:

If Farage gets in he'd better deliver on shutting boarders within days or he'll be getting that pint pot firmly stuck where the sun don't shine..

this is the hard bit...

define 'getting in'?

UKIP are not gong to have majority, so even if they can force a coalition, they are still going to have to fight against the others who will have a majority (ie, labour/lib and the euro loving Tories).

best they can do is get a clear honest referendum sorted as once the country has voted out, the others have no mandate to prevent it happening.

[anonymous-user]

jogon said:

UKIP is Conservative with a capital 'C', what the tory party used to be before liberal tory lite Dave hit the scene.

Completely delusional bks.

Neither the Major nor Thatcher Govts were remotely aligned with UKIP's view.

UKIP represents the view of a very small minority of Tory backbenchers.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

I did indeed ask that question.

I have yet to receive an answer.

The worst case scenario is a simple exit followed up by joining the WTO. This, in practice, would involve nothing more than 4 lawyers spending a week checking out the WTO treaty. We would then simply close the blue lanes at airports and ports.

We wouldn't need to replace any EU legislation because we have already enshrined it all in UK law. We would have the option of repealing lots of it, but that can be done at leisure.

What are you going to do about (eg) various pieces of EU legislation that have direct effect here?

And can you explain *precisely* what a "simple exit" entails? Claiming that something wont be difficult because it is simple doesn't really take an argument anywhere.

[anonymous-user]

dfen5 said:

I think the reference to UKIP being a danger to Labour is a real one. I know a lot of shop floor workers and have to say some of their chats and Facebook posts are anti-immigration of all types, in no uncertain terms. Guess what they're talking about now? UKIP. And that's how they'll be voting because they think the pint-drinking Farage is some sort of white crusader.

If Farage gets in he'd better deliver on shutting boarders within days or he'll be getting that pint pot firmly stuck where the sun don't shine..

It is something of a paradox that what might be labelled "the working class voter" in many countries can have some very right wing views on some issues (especially when put under economic pressure) and yet be left leaning by instinct. It's how nationalist parties manage to whip up support.

[steveT350C]

UKIP win first council seat in Tyneside

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/ukip...


2 October 2014 at 10:00pm
Poll suggests big swing to Ukip in Middleton by-election...

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-02/poll-sug...

The survey suggests that 35% of Ukip's support comes from Labour, and 33% from the Tories.

Edited by steveT350C on Friday 3rd October 08:37

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

UKIP represents the view of a very small minority of Tory backbenchers.

minority - maybe

Small, no chance!

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

UKIP aren't going to get more than 325 MP's. However, if they did, then they wouldn't need to have a referendum - they would have a mandate. The truth is that no party would need to have a referendum if they wanted to withdraw from the EU. The UK isn't a "Peoples democracy", it is a "Parliamentary democracy". Once we have voted them in, they can do whatever they like.


I'm still at a loss to understand why some people think that formulating an exit plan would be fraught with difficulty.

Lets give some examples of problems:
1. Most of our current trade treaties have been negotiated by the EU on our behalf. So to leave we need to negotiate a few hundred new trade treaties. Normally, such negotiations take 2/3 years at best. However, we will be complete in the hands of the other countries who may have other things to do.
2. Most importantly we need a trade treaty with the EU covering not just goods but financial services.
2. For many of the main world bodies who set standards, even if we are members directly we are now represented by the EU. We need to negotiate to take back these powers, and to appoint representatives to the various bodies and staff manage our interests.
3. What happens to the 1m odd people with British passports who live in the EU.
4. What happens to the 1m odd EU passport holders resident in the UK.

Leaving the EU is not easy, not impossible, but far from easy.

Heres one mans plan:

Enjoy the 312 pages.

[Mrr T]

Wombat3 said:

No argument. But also little point in formulating an exit plan until the decision to exit is actually made. As you say, not a small job & therefore a highly questionable use of resources to work on it without a decision first

Perhaps if UKIP came up with a plan then they might gain something from that but I don't see why anyone else should be doing it at the moment.

So lets follow the SNP plan. Lets not have a plan until we need to leave.

If we are going to leave we must have a detailed plan which will convince the undecided, but scared of change, that we can exit the EU with out wiping out our economy.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

Leaving the EU is not easy, not impossible, but far from easy.

Heres one mans plan:

Enjoy the 312 pages.

Is the missing link referred to on this thread page from back in the summer?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

I did indeed ask that question.

I have yet to receive an answer.

The worst case scenario is a simple exit followed up by joining the WTO. This, in practice, would involve nothing more than 4 lawyers spending a week checking out the WTO treaty. We would then simply close the blue lanes at airports and ports.

We wouldn't need to replace any EU legislation because we have already enshrined it all in UK law. We would have the option of repealing lots of it, but that can be done at leisure.

A fine contribution from the truly stupid is always welcome.

[McWigglebum4th]

Mrr T said:

Wombat3 said:

No argument. But also little point in formulating an exit plan until the decision to exit is actually made. As you say, not a small job & therefore a highly questionable use of resources to work on it without a decision first

Perhaps if UKIP came up with a plan then they might gain something from that but I don't see why anyone else should be doing it at the moment.

So lets follow the SNP plan. Lets not have a plan until we need to leave.

If we are going to leave we must have a detailed plan which will convince the undecided, but scared of change, that we can exit the EU with out wiping out our economy.

Yeah lets follow the SNP ideal of having NO plan whatsoever and scream abuse at anyone who questions anything


As that worked ever so well

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

Lets give some examples of problems:
1. Most of our current trade treaties have been negotiated by the EU on our behalf. So to leave we need to negotiate a few hundred new trade treaties. Normally, such negotiations take 2/3 years at best. However, we will be complete in the hands of the other countries who may have other things to do.

rubbish.

We (as in the UK) have a seat at the WTA, you really think we have lost the ability to sort trade deals out?

I would guess day one, 99.9% will be just a mirror deal with what we have now.

Mrr T said:

2. Most importantly we need a trade treaty with the EU covering not just goods but financial services.

And you think the rest of the EU would not want the same?

Mrr T said:

2. For many of the main world bodies who set standards, even if we are members directly we are now represented by the EU. We need to negotiate to take back these powers, and to appoint representatives to the various bodies and staff manage our interests.

thought we already did No.2?

And, yes? what of it? we should have a voice in setting international standards don;t you think?

Mrr T said:

3. What happens to the 1m odd people with British passports who live in the EU.

same as before, why do you think this would change?

Mrr T said:

4. What happens to the 1m odd EU passport holders resident in the UK.

Nothing in the short term (apart from possible lack of benefits etc).

Not seen anybody suggesting we give them a date to all leave?

Mrr T said:

Leaving the EU is not easy, not impossible, but far from easy.

nobody is suggesting it's a 5 minute job are they?

that said, it's hardly mission impossible.

[FiF]

steveT350C said:

2 October 2014 at 10:00pm
Poll suggests big swing to Ukip in Middleton by-election...

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-02/poll-sug...

The survey suggests that 35% of Ukip's support comes from Labour, and 33% from the Tories.

Labour tribalism will hold the day.

Reasons why supporting Labour...

Like the leader 0.7%
Like the policies 15%
Always vote for them regardless 62%

:facepalm: