UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[turbobloke]

don4l said:

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

It's fraught with process more than anything, difficulties aren't guaranteed.

There's a lot of relevant content with links in the Renegotiating EU Membership thread which looked at three detailed analyses for a Brexit - the Mansfield Prize Essay, a Bruges Group study, and the R A E North doc.

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

[steveT350C]

FiF said:

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:

facepalm indeed!

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

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.

See the bit in bold above.

There is no EU legislation that has any direct effects here. There is lots that has been implemented indirectly through the British parliament. None of this would be affected by our departure from the EU.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I've already explained what a simple exit entails. It really isn't much more complicated than closing the blue lanes in our ports. Eurostar may have to change the way it operates, but for everything else, the infrastructure and systems are already in place.

[don4l]

Mrr T said:

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.

What delicious irony!

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

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

that said, it's hardly mission impossible.

I agree its not mission impossible since by definition that mission is impossible.

However, lets start considering trade treaties. Now its all very well to say we just replicate the current EU treaties. it sounds easy but its not as many countries require legislative approval of such treaties. So lets say we start negotiating a trade treaty with the USA, This will require ratification in both the HOR and Congress. Both houses will have members who want changes to suit there constituents. The negotiations might take 5 years and then another 3/4 to be ratified. Some will be easier, but you can be sure the EU will be in no hurry to negotiate. Yes some countries such as Germany have large export surpluses with the UK but not all countries do, so as with the current USA/EU trade treaty which has taken about 10 years and is still not finalised.

It not impossible but it might take 10 years, can you wait that long?

[Jinx]

Mrr T said:

I agree its not mission impossible since by definition that mission is impossible.

However, lets start considering trade treaties. Now its all very well to say we just replicate the current EU treaties. it sounds easy but its not as many countries require legislative approval of such treaties. So lets say we start negotiating a trade treaty with the USA, This will require ratification in both the HOR and Congress. Both houses will have members who want changes to suit there constituents. The negotiations might take 5 years and then another 3/4 to be ratified. Some will be easier, but you can be sure the EU will be in no hurry to negotiate. Yes some countries such as Germany have large export surpluses with the UK but not all countries do, so as with the current USA/EU trade treaty which has taken about 10 years and is still not finalised.

It not impossible but it might take 10 years, can you wait that long?

We revert to the existing treaties between the commonwealth and the ROW in the short term.

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

See the bit in bold above.

There is no EU legislation that has any direct effects here. There is lots that has been implemented indirectly through the British parliament. None of this would be affected by our departure from the EU.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I've already explained what a simple exit entails. It really isn't much more complicated than closing the blue lanes in our ports. Eurostar may have to change the way it operates, but for everything else, the infrastructure and systems are already in place.

How about our international trade, British companies, Banks and financial service companies operating across the world. The 1m living in the EU with British passports. Aircraft wanting to fly outside the UK. Lorries carrying British exports across Europe.

Or do these things not matter.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

See the bit in bold above.

There is no EU legislation that has any direct effects here. There is lots that has been implemented indirectly through the British parliament. None of this would be affected by our departure from the EU.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I've already explained what a simple exit entails. It really isn't much more complicated than closing the blue lanes in our ports. Eurostar may have to change the way it operates, but for everything else, the infrastructure and systems are already in place.

Because, like so many things that are wrong, it's wrong.

See (for example) Council Reg 1346/2000.

Your simplistic approach does not nothing more than reveal, very starkly, that you have not the first idea what you're talking about.

You might as well say "It's very easy to get to the moon. You just get off the ground and keep going".

Well, see how far you get with that level of thought.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

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

that said, it's hardly mission impossible.

It not impossible but it might take 10 years, can you wait that long?

It will never be complete in one sense as new trade arrangements and other political agreements can be forged at any time, what isn't going to take 10 years is Brexit in which the basic changes are made.

Mansfield essay said:

Domestically, a Leaving The EU Bill should be brought forward rapidly,
to implement the legal secession from the EU two years after activation
of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Separately, a Great Repeal Bill based
upon the Public Bodies Act (2011) should be enacted, bringing about
within three years the comprehensive review and, where appropriate,
repeal, of regulation of EU origin with the aim of lessening the bureaucratic
burden on business, the public sector and third sector.

That looks like about 3 years for implementation as described.

Any sense of urgency would be mutual with trading partners.

[Mrr T]

Jinx said:

We revert to the existing treaties between the commonwealth and the ROW in the short term.

What treaties existing treaties? Trade is now an EU competency. So all (I believe but I am sure most of the important ones) of our trade treaties have been signed by the EU.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

That looks like about 3 years for implementation as described.

Any sense of urgency would be mutual with trading partners.

If you are happy leave the EU and at the same time destroy the UK economy that's great.

Of cause our partners will want to negotiate new treaties. However, any treaty takes years to be agreed and ratified.

There is of cause a solution, which is to remain in the EEA or join EFTA.

[mrpurple]

And to think it all started as an iron and steel treaty to stop France and Germany having another war.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

That looks like about 3 years for implementation as described.

Any sense of urgency would be mutual with trading partners.

If you are happy leave the EU and at the same time destroy the UK economy that's great.

Clearly you are happy to post that but it's just your view and it looks suspiciously like scaremongering.

The Mansfield essay puts a Brexit best estimate at +0.1% GDP, with high confidence for the longer term future, and there are credible studies with better outcomes.

Mrr T said:

Of cause our partners will want to negotiate new treaties. However, any treaty takes years to be agreed and ratified.

Some long, some not, as below.

Mrr T said:

There is of cause a solution, which is to remain in the EEA or join EFTA.

The so-called 'Norway Option' involving membership of EFTA and use of the 'off-the-shelf EEA agreement' is also part of Brexit considerations.

[brenflys777]

It's been said on here before, but, if leaving the EU is so fiendishly difficult and dreadful for the UK...what will Caneron do IF he gets elected, IF he loses the referendum to stay in? He seems to be offering an option to leave that his supporters suggest is practically impossible.

UKIP and their supporters like myself think that the UK is actually capable of extracting itself from the EU, relying on our merits for trade and coping without someone to supervise the criminal justice system. I don't think it will be easy but I don't think we are incapable of self management. To Cameron's supporters he offers no explanation of what his renegotiation will entail, what his bottom lines are for change and what he will do if the electorate vote to leave. I think the reason is he will procrastinate and ensure that there is another GE before he actually made any change.

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

Because, like so many things that are wrong, it's wrong.

See (for example) Council Reg 1346/2000.
<insults snipped>

Fair enough. This law would be lost if all the treaties were repealed.

However, just as this example is included in UK law as a result of an act of parliament, a replacement act could be produced which retained all primary legislaton that existed at the point of exit.

[turbobloke]

brenflys777 said:

It's been said on here before, but, if leaving the EU is so fiendishly difficult and dreadful for the UK...what will Caneron do IF he gets elected, IF he loses the referendum to stay in? He seems to be offering an option to leave that his supporters suggest is practically impossible.

The thing is, it's not practically impossible!

brenflys777 said:

UKIP and their supporters like myself think that the UK is actually capable of extracting itself from the EU, relying on our merits for trade and coping without someone to supervise the criminal justice system. I don't think it will be easy but I don't think we are incapable of self management.

We were once, in the recent past, currently there are grounds for taking the lack of self management to entail a costly, burdensome and unnecessary layer called the EU. There are no reasons to expect self-direction and self-management not to be liberating and rewarding in every sense of the words.

[FiF]

brenflys777 said:

It's been said on here before, but, if leaving is so fiendishly difficult and dreadful for the UK...what will Caneron do IF he gets elected, IF he loses the referendum to stay in? He seems to be offering an option to leave that his supporters suggest is practically impossible.

UKIP and their supporters like myself think that the UK is actually capable of extracting itself from the EU, relying on our merits for trade and coping without someone to supervise the criminal justice system. I don't think it will be easy but I don't think we are incapable of self management. To Cameron's supporters he offers no explanation of what his renegotiation will entail, what his bottom lines are for change and what he will do if the electorate vote to leave. I think the reason is he will procrastinate and ensure that there is another GE before he actually made any change.

Whilst not a UKIP supporter this is more or less my view. The 2017 date for this supposed referendum is simply to kick the can down the road until it gets to another GE.

I find the moral bankruptcy of the anti arguments really quite depressing when taken in aggregate. We have the request for a full plan with i's dotted and t's crossed by UKIP. Existing carefully researched papers are discounted / ignored as worthless. Yet the anti brigade don't have to do anything and think it's sufficient to repeat what comes across rather like largely unsubstantiated scaremongering. Yet at the same time rely on a line of trust us even though we don't have a plan B and have no intention of even discussing one until we are forced to do so. In other words the classic British muddling along when faced with a crisis that has got us in the state things are over many decades and governments by the current 3 main parties of serial muddlers.

I cannot summon up the effort to be rude about this as the blatant tribalism is just so depressingly predictable.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

The so-called 'Norway Option' involving membership of EFTA and use of the 'off-the-shelf EEA agreement' is also part of Brexit considerations.

I have read the Mansfield essay. One of my major criticisms of the document is it glosses over assumption with out any discussion or indication that this is just an assumption. One such is whether EU Trade Agreements made with others when the UK was a member would still be applicable if the UK left the EU,

The answer is far from clear!

Indeed, president: from new countries being included in the agreements when they join the EU without treaty amendment suggests the treaties only cover member of the EU. So leaving the EU would in my view potentially mean the treaties would not apply.

As with so much of international law there is no clear answer and no court of finality. For the treaties to apply we would need the agreement of both the remaining EU members and the other country/countries involved.

The EU might well argue that it would be impossible for the treaties to cover the UK since it would make amendments and policing very difficult since the UK would no longer be subject to EU law.

I agree this is just my view.

[Esseesse]

mrpurple said:

And to think it all started as an iron and steel treaty to stop France and Germany having another war.

Hitchens said:

In the end, the Franco-German pact that lies at the very heart of the EU meant ( and Mitterrand and Attali well knew it) that when the long-anticipated moment for reunification of Germany actually arrived, France could not and would not oppose it, though most Frenchmen and women, in their hearts, would have liked to do so. Thanks to the two great wars, she knew she hadn’t the power to do so. And she had made a rather attractive deal in return for conceding German supremacy. She is allowed to claim victory in 1945. She is allowed her nuclear forces and her relations with her former empire. She is subsidized through the CAP and permitted to protect many of her basic industries. But she will never again challenge Germany for European supremacy, or seek to form an alliance with that aim.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/06/som...

Some time after WW2 it seems like politicians around the world realised you could operate an empire without recolouring the map, creating new flags and anthems and for the most part the natives in the areas that are under your control won't actually notice.

[Jinx]

Mrr T said:

What treaties existing treaties? Trade is now an EU competency. So all (I believe but I am sure most of the important ones) of our trade treaties have been signed by the EU.

And therefore will not apply to BRexit UK - the United Kingdom on the other hand has previously signed many trade agreements (UK and Her commonwealth) with the rest of the world which with a little negotiation can be brought up to date. This is paper shuffling exercise and not beyond the wit of our embassies. UK is a member of the G8, the world trade organisation and was the first to introduce free trade to the globe - to fear poking our heads from beneath the EU skirts because of some perceived "oh nos where are all the treaties gone" is rather strange. We are not creating a new country we are merely correcting the mistakes made in the modern era.