UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Again my post is to correct a factual error. I do think the EU would come to a trade agreement with the UK if we choose to leave. The question is not can we agree but how long will it take to agree. With 28 nations each with there own agenda negotiating trade agreement with the EU is a major undertaking. Since the only way to force an exit is an article 50 notice to leave I do not think 2 years is enough time to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which must include not just goods but services.
Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
mostly horlicks...Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
Mrr T said:
Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
You seem to have an over inflated opinion of treaties and their power. There is an easy way to declare all treaties null and void which has been used throughout the ages.We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
Mrr T said:
Again my post is to correct a factual error. I do think the EU would come to a trade agreement with the UK if we choose to leave. The question is not can we agree but how long will it take to agree. With 28 nations each with there own agenda negotiating trade agreement with the EU is a major undertaking. Since the only way to force an exit is an article 50 notice to leave I do not think 2 years is enough time to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which must include not just goods but services.
Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
The process after Article 50 is invoked is pretty straight forward actually. A negotiator is appointed on behalf of the commission to deal with the exiting country. Proposed terms are then brought before the commissioners, I believe, who then yay or nay it. With the new rules, only a small majority would need to agree to have it pass.Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
Again my post is to correct a factual error. I do think the EU would come to a trade agreement with the UK if we choose to leave. The question is not can we agree but how long will it take to agree. With 28 nations each with there own agenda negotiating trade agreement with the EU is a major undertaking. Since the only way to force an exit is an article 50 notice to leave I do not think 2 years is enough time to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which must include not just goods but services.
Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
mostly horlicks...Therefore I believe the only viable exit strategy is via either the EEA or EFTA. The problem for this strategy for UKIP is neither give any control over the free movement of labour.
We can from EFTA or the EEA negotiate to restrict movement of labour but to do so will take several years.
The UKIP lie is that there is an easy way to restrict immigration form the EU.
I assume the reply is from a kipper. Typical kipper answer no facts, no explanation, just you must be wrong.
Art0ir said:
The process after Article 50 is invoked is pretty straight forward actually. A negotiator is appointed on behalf of the commission to deal with the exiting country. Proposed terms are then brought before the commissioners, I believe, who then yay or nay it. With the new rules, only a small majority would need to agree to have it pass.
From Wiki but is I belive correct:"The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. "
The problem is 2 years is very short to negotiate future relationships. Also while the above uses qualified majority voting a trade treat has to be unanimous.
The 2 years can be extended but that could then involve a new UK government.
For that reason I believe any exit must be achieved in the 2 year period and remaining in the EEA or joining the EFTA is the only practicable strategy. We can leave the EEA or EFTA later.
Mrr T said:
Not sure of the connection between my comments and a malted milk drink!!
I assume the reply is from a kipper. Typical kipper answer no facts, no explanation, just you must be wrong.
more like CBA to listen to your constant keyboard diarrhoea...I assume the reply is from a kipper. Typical kipper answer no facts, no explanation, just you must be wrong.
you make it sound like the 6th largest trading nation on the planet is incapable of sorting out trade agreements?
are you for real?
back to the real point, no way is Germany going to do anything to jeopardize their relationships with the UK, they simply can't afford to loose the UK as a market.
Mrr T said:
From Wiki but is I belive correct:
"The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. "
The problem is 2 years is very short to negotiate future relationships. Also while the above uses qualified majority voting a trade treat has to be unanimous.
The 2 years can be extended but that could then involve a new UK government.
For that reason I believe any exit must be achieved in the 2 year period and remaining in the EEA or joining the EFTA is the only practicable strategy. We can leave the EEA or EFTA later.
You shouldn't underestimate how strong the UK's hand could be in negotiations if we had a leader with some back bone. Our massive trade deficit and the fact we are their largest export market means it is very much in their interest to see an efficient and amicable agreement."The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. "
The problem is 2 years is very short to negotiate future relationships. Also while the above uses qualified majority voting a trade treat has to be unanimous.
The 2 years can be extended but that could then involve a new UK government.
For that reason I believe any exit must be achieved in the 2 year period and remaining in the EEA or joining the EFTA is the only practicable strategy. We can leave the EEA or EFTA later.
Mrr T said:
sjn2004 said:
Transmitter Man said:
Mrr T said:
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.
Commerce done with the ROW dwarf what we do with the EU countries.
There is little chance pulling out will 'destroy' the UK's economy.
Phil
So we leave the EU.Commerce done with the ROW dwarf what we do with the EU countries.
There is little chance pulling out will 'destroy' the UK's economy.
Phil
France and Germany will have to do a deal as we buy more from them than we sell. Renault, Audi,BMW, Mercedes etc etc.
Who will want us to stay? Obviously the parasitical countries, mainly from the old Eastern Bloc wanting lots more free stuff from our tax payers.
You do realise trade is an EU competency so France and Germany cannot do a deal with us. The deal must be with the whole EU and requires unanimous agreement.
In case anyone isn't following the LibDem disaster thread thought that the 'kippers fed up of people pointing out the bits of dopy stuff in the 2010 manifesto might wish to read my swipe at the LDs.
I wrote:-
Further to the hypothetical question regarding "If the LibDems didn't exist would anybody invent them?" or the alternative "If they ceased to exist would anybody notice? "
The Telegraph has a piece on 7 bats
t crazy LibDem policies, linked below.
Included are
A total ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
Tax inspectors to be allowed to access your home to assess value of jewellery, paintings, furniture and all other valuables to determine how much tax you had to pay on these possessions.
Promote cycling budget which would be in excess of the entire Foreign Office budget, more than 1,200 million gbp per year.
Send out our strategic nuclear defence subs with dummy missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...
I wrote:-
Further to the hypothetical question regarding "If the LibDems didn't exist would anybody invent them?" or the alternative "If they ceased to exist would anybody notice? "
The Telegraph has a piece on 7 bats
t crazy LibDem policies, linked below. Included are
A total ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
Tax inspectors to be allowed to access your home to assess value of jewellery, paintings, furniture and all other valuables to determine how much tax you had to pay on these possessions.
Promote cycling budget which would be in excess of the entire Foreign Office budget, more than 1,200 million gbp per year.
Send out our strategic nuclear defence subs with dummy missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...
FiF said:
In case anyone isn't following the LibDem disaster thread thought that the 'kippers fed up of people pointing out the bits of dopy stuff in the 2010 manifesto might wish to read my swipe at the LDs.
I wrote:-
Further to the hypothetical question regarding "If the LibDems didn't exist would anybody invent them?" or the alternative "If they ceased to exist would anybody notice? "
The Telegraph has a piece on 7 batst crazy LibDem policies, linked below.
Included are
A total ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
Tax inspectors to be allowed to access your home to assess value of jewellery, paintings, furniture and all other valuables to determine how much tax you had to pay on these possessions.
Promote cycling budget which would be in excess of the entire Foreign Office budget, more than 1,200 million gbp per year.
Send out our strategic nuclear defence subs with dummy missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...
Right wing paper calls LibDem policies crazy. I would never have expected that.I wrote:-
Further to the hypothetical question regarding "If the LibDems didn't exist would anybody invent them?" or the alternative "If they ceased to exist would anybody notice? "
The Telegraph has a piece on 7 bats
t crazy LibDem policies, linked below. Included are
A total ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
Tax inspectors to be allowed to access your home to assess value of jewellery, paintings, furniture and all other valuables to determine how much tax you had to pay on these possessions.
Promote cycling budget which would be in excess of the entire Foreign Office budget, more than 1,200 million gbp per year.
Send out our strategic nuclear defence subs with dummy missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberalde...
For balance, try this - Gruniard - a lefty paper calling UKIP policies crazy. Such highlights as :
Restricting foreigners on football teams.
Proper dress in theatres.
Making the circle line a circle again.
Referendums on building mosques and banning the burqa.
Glamorous railways.
Restoration of imperial measures and the crown symbol on pint glasses.
The same income tax level for rich & poor.
Banning European studies in Universities.
tangerine_sedge said:
Right wing paper calls LibDem policies crazy. I would never have expected that.
For balance, try this - Gruniard - a lefty paper calling UKIP policies crazy. Such highlights as :
Restricting foreigners on football teams.
Proper dress in theatres.
Making the circle line a circle again.
Referendums on building mosques and banning the burqa.
Glamorous railways.
Restoration of imperial measures and the crown symbol on pint glasses.
The same income tax level for rich & poor.
Banning European studies in Universities.
I actually agree with all of them!For balance, try this - Gruniard - a lefty paper calling UKIP policies crazy. Such highlights as :
Restricting foreigners on football teams.
Proper dress in theatres.
Making the circle line a circle again.
Referendums on building mosques and banning the burqa.
Glamorous railways.
Restoration of imperial measures and the crown symbol on pint glasses.
The same income tax level for rich & poor.
Banning European studies in Universities.
not sure what that says....
tangerine_sedge said:
Right wing paper calls LibDem policies crazy. I would never have expected that.
For balance, try this...
Do try and keep up.For balance, try this...
That lot has been done on this very thread several times over now. Of course in the cause of "balance" you ignored that it comes from the defunct and discredited 2010 Lord Pearson manifesto.
FiF said:
Do try and keep up.
That lot has been done on this very thread several times over now. Of course in the cause of "balance" you ignored that it comes from the defunct and discredited 2010 Lord Pearson manifesto.
The point of the post was to show that I could also (with a simple search) find an equally silly list of manifesto items for UKIP. If I could be bothered, I'd do the same with the Tories, Labour, and the Green party too.That lot has been done on this very thread several times over now. Of course in the cause of "balance" you ignored that it comes from the defunct and discredited 2010 Lord Pearson manifesto.
tangerine_sedge said:
The point of the post was to show that I could also (with a simple search) find an equally silly list of manifesto items for UKIP. If I could be bothered, I'd do the same with the Tories, Labour, and the Green party too.
But if you looked at both lists in isolation would you be able to say which one was from a party of "swivel-eyed loons"?True but the difference is that whilst those UKIP ones are old hat from the last election under a useless leader, at least one of those of the LibDems is current policy and another from a recent conference. CBA to figure out if it's still policy or not seeing as it's not much more than a bit of a deserved piss take of the LibDems, ref the photo of the sandals with suitably coloured socks.
But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
Scuffers said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Right wing paper calls LibDem policies crazy. I would never have expected that.
For balance, try this - Gruniard - a lefty paper calling UKIP policies crazy. Such highlights as :
Restricting foreigners on football teams.
Proper dress in theatres.
Making the circle line a circle again.
Referendums on building mosques and banning the burqa.
Glamorous railways.
Restoration of imperial measures and the crown symbol on pint glasses.
The same income tax level for rich & poor.
Banning European studies in Universities.
I actually agree with all of them!For balance, try this - Gruniard - a lefty paper calling UKIP policies crazy. Such highlights as :
Restricting foreigners on football teams.
Proper dress in theatres.
Making the circle line a circle again.
Referendums on building mosques and banning the burqa.
Glamorous railways.
Restoration of imperial measures and the crown symbol on pint glasses.
The same income tax level for rich & poor.
Banning European studies in Universities.
not sure what that says....
Jinx said:
But if you looked at both lists in isolation would you be able to say which one was from a party of "swivel-eyed loons"?
Yes. The LibDem one reads like a list of oddball/crazy suggestions to try and get some result (heavier taxation for the richest in society, reduction of fuel use etc). As odd as they are, you can (with some effort) see that there is some final aim in the proposal however silly it is.The other reads like a wish list for Colonel Blimp.
FiF said:
True but the difference is that whilst those UKIP ones are old hat from the last election under a useless leader, at least one of those of the LibDems is current policy and another from a recent conference. CBA to figure out if it's still policy or not seeing as it's not much more than a bit of a deserved piss take of the LibDems, ref the photo of the sandals with suitably coloured socks.
But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
Did Farage, as a senior member of the party at the time have absolutely nothing to do with the manifesto? Did he even read it (besides the introduction that he wrote)? I would have thought that even the most useless of candidate would have at least read his own parties manifesto?But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
So which is it? Did he support the manifesto or is he an incompetent politician?
tangerine_sedge said:
FiF said:
True but the difference is that whilst those UKIP ones are old hat from the last election under a useless leader, at least one of those of the LibDems is current policy and another from a recent conference. CBA to figure out if it's still policy or not seeing as it's not much more than a bit of a deserved piss take of the LibDems, ref the photo of the sandals with suitably coloured socks.
But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
Did Farage, as a senior member of the party at the time have absolutely nothing to do with the manifesto? Did he even read it (besides the introduction that he wrote)? I would have thought that even the most useless of candidate would have at least read his own parties manifesto?But seeing as many of their watermelon supporters are increasingly deserting to the Greens they will probably be more at home there and subscribe to further LD decline.
So which is it? Did he support the manifesto or is he an incompetent politician?
@hattmarris84: Lord Ashdown on ukip threat: 'We are in an era of four party politics. We are seeing the beginning of a citizens revolt against Westminster'
tangerine_sedge said:
Did Farage, as a senior member of the party at the time have absolutely nothing to do with the manifesto? Did he even read it (besides the introduction that he wrote)? I would have thought that even the most useless of candidate would have at least read his own parties manifesto?
So which is it? Did he support the manifesto or is he an incompetent politician?
neither, you are an abusive sob, go and find something useful to do.So which is it? Did he support the manifesto or is he an incompetent politician?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff