UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

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.

Reports of our future demise are exaggerated.

Part of the reason the EU wants us in, apart from the positive net contribution and the loss of face with a country daring to get the hell out, is that a non-EU UK would prosper to such an extent that it would be embarrassing to the EU drones.

[TuscanOwner]

brenflys777 said:

To Cameron's supporters he offers no explanation of what his renegotiation will entail,

Actually, despite that being said repeatedly on here, he has offered quite a lot of explanation in the past, for example this speech offers quite a lot of insight
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/da...

brenflys777 said:

what his bottom lines are for change

Again, not true, take one example from his speech this week

cameron said:

But we know the bigger issue today is migration from within the EU. Immediate access to our welfare system. Paying benefits to families back home. Employment agencies signing people up from overseas and not recruiting here. Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted…at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe.

Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs. Anyone who thinks I can’t or won’t deliver this – judge me by my record. I’m the first Prime Minister to veto a Treaty…the first Prime Minister to cut the European budget…and yes I pulled us out of those European bail-out schemes as well. Around that table in Europe they know I say what I mean, and mean what I say. So we’re going to go in as a country, get our powers back, fight for our national interest…and yes – we’ll put it to a referendum…in or out – it will be your choice…and let the message go out from this hall: it is only with a Conservative Government that you will get that choice.

brenflys777 said:

what he will do if the electorate vote to leave.

Well leave. No govt could survive ignoring such a referendum. And possibly resign because whether he would survive in power personally after such a vote is probably questionable

[Art0ir]

TuscanOwner said:

brenflys777 said:

To Cameron's supporters he offers no explanation of what his renegotiation will entail,

Actually, despite that being said repeatedly on here, he has offered quite a lot of explanation in the past, for example this speech offers quite a lot of insight
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/da...

brenflys777 said:

what his bottom lines are for change

Again, not true, take one example from his speech this week

cameron said:

But we know the bigger issue today is migration from within the EU. Immediate access to our welfare system. Paying benefits to families back home. Employment agencies signing people up from overseas and not recruiting here. Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted…at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe.

Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs. Anyone who thinks I can’t or won’t deliver this – judge me by my record. I’m the first Prime Minister to veto a Treaty…the first Prime Minister to cut the European budget…and yes I pulled us out of those European bail-out schemes as well. Around that table in Europe they know I say what I mean, and mean what I say. So we’re going to go in as a country, get our powers back, fight for our national interest…and yes – we’ll put it to a referendum…in or out – it will be your choice…and let the message go out from this hall: it is only with a Conservative Government that you will get that choice.

brenflys777 said:

what he will do if the electorate vote to leave.

Well leave. No govt could survive ignoring such a referendum. And possibly resign because whether he would survive in power personally after such a vote is probably questionable

He told Andrew Marr exactly what he'll go for - new migrants won't be able to claim benefits.

That's it.

[steveT350C]

http://www.ukip.org/commissioner_designate_uk_has_...

unable to change the rules of free movement, as Paul Nuttal found out during CMD's speech.

[Mrr T]

Jinx said:

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.

So our embassy staff who have no economic experience, no experience of treaty negation, and no legal training, will knock up lots of new trade treaties over a cup of tea.

Also clearly all of our trading partners, USA, China, Japan, EU, Russia, etc etc, will put every thing aside to agree and ratify the treaties.

I just hope your post was a joke but I fear not.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

So our embassy staff who have no economic experience, no experience of treaty negation, and no legal training, will knock up lots of new trade treaties over a cup of tea.

Also clearly all of our trading partners, USA, China, Japan, EU, Russia, etc etc, will put every thing aside to agree and ratify the treaties.

I just hope your post was a joke but I fear not.

are you for real?

what do you think they are there for? decoration?

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

So our embassy staff who have no economic experience, no experience of treaty negation, and no legal training, will knock up lots of new trade treaties over a cup of tea.

Also clearly all of our trading partners, USA, China, Japan, EU, Russia, etc etc, will put every thing aside to agree and ratify the treaties.

I just hope your post was a joke but I fear not.

are you for real?

what do you think they are there for? decoration?

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

and there are no DoT staff in embassies ever!

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

and there are no DoT staff in embassies ever!

I have no idea. But trade treaty negation is I think a fairly specialist area.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

I have no idea. But trade treaty negation is I think a fairly specialist area.

I'm sure they are, and it's one of the functions of an Embassy to host such talks.

[DJRC]

Greg66 said:

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.

Its not a paradox at all, its quite easily reasoned. The blue collar working class are instinctively local orientated, distrustful of foreign influence and largely very patriotic. Pub going, pint drinking, kith n kin whilst retaining some respect for authority is in their marrow. This is not pure Labour territory, it is fact half of Tory territory. Socially left/right and economically left/right are and have always been two very different things. The art of the New Labour angle just as the art of the Maggie angle was to merge those elements to offer something approaching an attainable vision. Farage doesnt bother merging them both but offers meat to both and gets roaring approval. He can do this because he k ows he doesn't have to satisfy meeting them in the middle unlike a ruling party.

The working class is rarely naturally left leaning, its what ideologically minded folks often forget.

[Esseesse]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

and there are no DoT staff in embassies ever!

I have no idea. But trade treaty negation is I think a fairly specialist area.

Are we back to the 'we're inept and useless' argument? Best we let our guardians in the EU take care of these things for us.

[turbobloke]

Esseesse said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

and there are no DoT staff in embassies ever!

I have no idea. But trade treaty negation is I think a fairly specialist area.

Are we back to the 'we're inept and useless' argument? Best we let our guardians in the EU take care of these things for us.

They're ace. Sorted.

[steveT350C]

Esseesse said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

I expect represent UK interest, issue visas, drink tea. However, embassy staff have no experience and have never negotiated trade treaties.

you sure about that?

Yes. Trade agreements would not even fall under the remit of the FO but the Department of Trade.

and there are no DoT staff in embassies ever!

I have no idea. But trade treaty negation is I think a fairly specialist area.

Are we back to the 'we're inept and useless' argument? Best we let our guardians in the EU take care of these things for us.

I think we could negotiate much quicker and more sccessfully as a small, independent and nimble sovereign state.

Who created the commonwealth?

The EU's economy is in dire straits; best not get dragged down with them.

We have the international language of business on our side and the fastest growing economy in the G7.

To say that we need the EU is a rather sad state of mind and shows a defeatist attitude that hinders progress. All in my humble opinion.

ETA, you surpised me MrrT below saying that you do want us to leave the EU, i assumed you wanted in. apologies for my misunderstanding of your position

Edited by steveT350C on Friday 3rd October 16:53

Edited by steveT350C on Friday 3rd October 16:54

[Mrr T]

Esseesse said:

Are we back to the 'we're inept and useless' argument? Best we let our guardians in the EU take care of these things for us.

NO. You do understand I want us to leave the EU. I am just realistic about how we can do so without destroying the UK economy.

I believe we should give Article 50 notice.

However, I also believe that to leave in 2 years we most likely have to initially stay in the EEA.

From the EEA we can then negotiate for our longer term future.

[brenflys777]

TuscanOwner said:

brenflys777 said:

To Cameron's supporters he offers no explanation of what his renegotiation will entail,

Actually, despite that being said repeatedly on here, he has offered quite a lot of explanation in the past, for example this speech offers quite a lot of insight
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/da...

brenflys777 said:

what his bottom lines are for change

Again, not true, take one example from his speech this week

cameron said:

But we know the bigger issue today is migration from within the EU. Immediate access to our welfare system. Paying benefits to families back home. Employment agencies signing people up from overseas and not recruiting here. Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted…at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe.

Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs. Anyone who thinks I can’t or won’t deliver this – judge me by my record. I’m the first Prime Minister to veto a Treaty…the first Prime Minister to cut the European budget…and yes I pulled us out of those European bail-out schemes as well. Around that table in Europe they know I say what I mean, and mean what I say. So we’re going to go in as a country, get our powers back, fight for our national interest…and yes – we’ll put it to a referendum…in or out – it will be your choice…and let the message go out from this hall: it is only with a Conservative Government that you will get that choice.

brenflys777 said:

what he will do if the electorate vote to leave.

Well leave. No govt could survive ignoring such a referendum. And possibly resign because whether he would survive in power personally after such a vote is probably questionable

The Guardian article you link is nearly two years old. It states that he is giving the 'spirit' of how he will address the EU renegotiation. It doesn't give specifics. The only advancement noticeable from date of publication is the fact Cameron supports expanding the EU into other countries, the developments in the Ukraine have not been positive.

On the bottom lines, you're right he does give one. The EU say he won't get it, it's so important to Cameron that it's the only bottom line he indicates, but he's happy to wait at least 4 years from that statement before he will deliver on the ultimatum.

On the issue of what he will do if the vote goes against him, I think you've illustrated one of the problems. Cameron has little likelihood of surviving an exit vote. The anti EU part of the conservatives certainly don't have the balance of power in the conservatives, but the vote couldn't be ignored. I think it would just get kicked along until the next GE when they could say circumstances have changed. Cameron has already stated he wants to stay in, he's been happy to waste four years of renegotiation time already. If he was serious he could have stumped UKIP by showing some progress.

[don4l]

brenflys777 said:

The Guardian article you link is nearly two years old. It states that he is giving the 'spirit' of how he will address the EU renegotiation. It doesn't give specifics. The only advancement noticeable from date of publication is the fact Cameron supports expanding the EU into other countries, the developments in the Ukraine have not been positive.

On the bottom lines, you're right he does give one. The EU say he won't get it, it's so important to Cameron that it's the only bottom line he indicates, but he's happy to wait at least 4 years from that statement before he will deliver on the ultimatum.

On the issue of what he will do if the vote goes against him, I think you've illustrated one of the problems. Cameron has little likelihood of surviving an exit vote. The anti EU part of the conservatives certainly don't have the balance of power in the conservatives, but the vote couldn't be ignored. I think it would just get kicked along until the next GE when they could say circumstances have changed. Cameron has already stated he wants to stay in, he's been happy to waste four years of renegotiation time already. If he was serious he could have stumped UKIP by showing some progress.

The bit in bold says it all.

I'm amazed that there is anybody in the country who trusts Cameron after he broke previous promises on the same subject.

Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.

[FiF]

don4l said:

brenflys777 said:

The Guardian article you link is nearly two years old. It states that he is giving the 'spirit' of how he will address the EU renegotiation. It doesn't give specifics. The only advancement noticeable from date of publication is the fact Cameron supports expanding the EU into other countries, the developments in the Ukraine have not been positive.

On the bottom lines, you're right he does give one. The EU say he won't get it, it's so important to Cameron that it's the only bottom line he indicates, but he's happy to wait at least 4 years from that statement before he will deliver on the ultimatum.

On the issue of what he will do if the vote goes against him, I think you've illustrated one of the problems. Cameron has little likelihood of surviving an exit vote. The anti EU part of the conservatives certainly don't have the balance of power in the conservatives, but the vote couldn't be ignored. I think it would just get kicked along until the next GE when they could say circumstances have changed. Cameron has already stated he wants to stay in, he's been happy to waste four years of renegotiation time already. If he was serious he could have stumped UKIP by showing some progress.

The bit in bold says it all.

I'm amazed that there is anybody in the country who trusts Cameron after he broke previous promises on the same subject.

Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.

The thing is that he hasn't done anything because he thought that he could control the Eurosceptic element within the Tories with his "suck it up, and shut up, or ship out" policy. Many have shipped out, but the remaining haven't shut up.

He also thought that he could continue to marginalise UKIP by being rude, loons, fruitcakes etc, wasted vote, it's vote for Labour, only retired Colonels, racists bla bla bla. Well that worked well didn't it and basically we can see here and elsewhere they continue to deliver much the same. Added in with the intellectual bankruptcy of you have to do this in detail but we don't.

So his last throw of the dice is the stuff he has come up with, promising the earth, whilst not really promising anything at all. You'l find, in the detail his promise about dealing with EU migration only covers any new member states. He will not succeed with his plan for the existing members. I am totally sure of that. If he does all credit to him, not holding breath. If he acted and tried he could stymie UKIP in one move.

Let's assume that, next week, Farage suffers a major problem with health, or an accident. UKIP then tears itself apart again trying to find a new leader, or blunders around rudderless for a while.

Does anyone believe that Cameron will carry on with this EU negotiation because it's what he truly believes in. Despite his well acted emotion, not a chance, it will all be dropped quietly, maybe even like a hot potato.

Why? Because he is nothing but a no principled reed in the wind opportunist and a populist. Which is ironically what they accuse of Farage, a populist and an opportunist, which to be fair he is. Just a more competent one than either Cameron or Miliband, and that sticks right up their noses.

Problem with both of them is that they believe it is their birth right to govern, and will find out that they are mistaken. The peasants are revolting.


Just for the record, rolling reminder, NOT a UKIP supporter.