UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[zygalski]

s2art said:

zygalski said:

s2art said:

Not sure if that made much difference. The UK could undercut anybody in the world at that point.

Do you just ignore great chunks of our fairly recent past that don't fit in with your particular political bent?
I'm talking British rule over the largest empire in history. All those captive markets, slave traders, sweatshops, tax revenues, free defence forces... honestly you really need to go back to school to find out just to what extent a country like India was plundered for many decades.
I doubt you'll like what you discover.

More nonsense. Do you think we sold cotton to the Indians at the barrel of a gun? No, the Indians bought UK cotton from us because it was cheaper than they could make it. Remember India was chock-a-block full of cottage industry spinners and weavers (The Indian flag has a spinning wheel on it), just like the UK had been before industrialisation. If you think India was our captive market for cotton, then who were we protecting our cotton trade against?

Indian raw cotton was, by law, sent to Britain for looming & then again, by law, sent back to India as the only finished product that was on offer.
What exactly do you not understand about the process? Even for a kipper it does seem a remarkably straightforward concept.
The gun was superseded by imposed legislation.

http://newint.org/features/2007/04/01/history/
"The Lancashire textile boom could never have taken hold without the protection of high tariff walls against the world’s great textile workshop in India. Indian hand weavers, whose quality was high and wages low, had been the centre of world production for centuries. But British protectionism, in combination with the extension of imperial power through the East India Company (an early example of a ‘public-private’ partnership), changed the rules of the game. British policy transformed India from an exporter of textiles to a supplier of raw cotton for Lancashire factories"

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 23 December 16:28

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

exactly...

like it or not, the truth of the matter is that realistically the only EU exit part is UKIP.

Do you mean the party which after 20 years still has no idea how to leave the EU?

If you do then I would say a vote for UKIP is a vote to stay in the EU. I assume that's the Great Leaders plan since I am sure he does not want to give up the salary and expenses.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

exactly...

like it or not, the truth of the matter is that realistically the only EU exit part is UKIP.

Do you mean the party which after 20 years still has no idea how to leave the EU?

If you do then I would say a vote for UKIP is a vote to stay in the EU. I assume that's the Great Leaders plan since I am sure he does not want to give up the salary and expenses.

are you really that pathetic that you think anybody here is stupid enough to believe that?

think what you want, but if UKIP get into a position of being able to force the issue, independence from the EU will happen.

[Esseesse]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

exactly...

like it or not, the truth of the matter is that realistically the only EU exit part is UKIP.

Do you mean the party which after 20 years still has no idea how to leave the EU?

If you do then I would say a vote for UKIP is a vote to stay in the EU. I assume that's the Great Leaders plan since I am sure he does not want to give up the salary and expenses.

Apparently the great leader lives in a 3 bedroom semi.

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

are you really that pathetic that you think anybody here is stupid enough to believe that?

think what you want, but if UKIP get into a position of being able to force the issue, independence from the EU will happen.

I expect all but the kippers believe me.

UKIP is a joke.

20 years and it still has no idea how to carry out its key aim.

So if UKIP get any influence it will suddenly discover a plan. Maybe the Great Leader will find it next to the SNP legal advise on continued membership of the EU.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

I expect all but the kippers believe me.

UKIP is a joke.

20 years and it still has no idea how to carry out its key aim.

So if UKIP get any influence it will suddenly discover a plan. Maybe the Great Leader will find it next to the SNP legal advise on continued membership of the EU.

so, we (the UK) get a referendum on the EU, we choose to leave, what are you suggesting?

that it's all too hard so the government does nothing?

Get real, nobody is pretending it's a five minute job, but with the political will and public support, it would happen.

the first step is to force a referendum, at the end of the day, issues like this should be at the will of the electorate as a whole.

If UKIP get a referendum though, and subsequently loose, then I would expect them to respect the will of the people (just like the SNP have!)

[s2art]

zygalski said:

s2art said:

zygalski said:

s2art said:

Not sure if that made much difference. The UK could undercut anybody in the world at that point.

Do you just ignore great chunks of our fairly recent past that don't fit in with your particular political bent?
I'm talking British rule over the largest empire in history. All those captive markets, slave traders, sweatshops, tax revenues, free defence forces... honestly you really need to go back to school to find out just to what extent a country like India was plundered for many decades.
I doubt you'll like what you discover.

More nonsense. Do you think we sold cotton to the Indians at the barrel of a gun? No, the Indians bought UK cotton from us because it was cheaper than they could make it. Remember India was chock-a-block full of cottage industry spinners and weavers (The Indian flag has a spinning wheel on it), just like the UK had been before industrialisation. If you think India was our captive market for cotton, then who were we protecting our cotton trade against?

Indian raw cotton was, by law, sent to Britain for looming & then again, by law, sent back to India as the only finished product that was on offer.
What exactly do you not understand about the process? Even for a kipper it does seem a remarkably straightforward concept.
The gun was superseded by imposed legislation.

http://newint.org/features/2007/04/01/history/
"The Lancashire textile boom could never have taken hold without the protection of high tariff walls against the world’s great textile workshop in India. Indian hand weavers, whose quality was high and wages low, had been the centre of world production for centuries. But British protectionism, in combination with the extension of imperial power through the East India Company (an early example of a ‘public-private’ partnership), changed the rules of the game. British policy transformed India from an exporter of textiles to a supplier of raw cotton for Lancashire factories"

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 23 December 16:28

Nope. What did for the Indian cotton business was technological advance; cotton gin, power loom, steam etc, coupled to cheap and abundant supplies of cotton from America (and Egypt).By approx mid 19th century the indian cottage industries could not match the cost effectiveness of the factories in the north of England. Up until that point India could and did export huge amounts of cotton goods, and raw cotton.

[zygalski]

s2art said:

Nope. What did for the Indian cotton business was technological advance; cotton gin, power loom, steam etc, coupled to cheap and abundant supplies of cotton from America (and Egypt).By approx mid 19th century the indian cottage industries could not match the cost effectiveness of the factories in the north of England. Up until that point India could and did export huge amounts of cotton goods, and raw cotton.

Wrong again, sir!

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ch/2010...

"Britain’s textile industry was able to develop behind tariff barriers, and the home market started to develop a cotton textile industry. In fact, just before the industrial revolution, the tariff on Indian cotton goods imported into Britain had gone up to 50% (Alavi 1982: 56).

However, the early cotton industry in Britain could not match the quality of Indian textiles. In the early 18th century, Britain generally produced fustians (a mixture of linen and cotton/wool) and linen-cotton textiles, but not pure cotton goods.

Furthermore, the price of raw cotton imports rose in the 1770s and 1780s. It was only after the slave-based plantations of North America started to export to the UK that cotton imports started to fall in price.

I need hardly point out the paradox that the industrial revolution in Manchester through production of textile goods was itself dependent on, and effectively subsidized by, slave labour in the New World (see Pomeranz 2000: 277). How competitive would Manchester textiles have been, if production of cotton in the American south had been carried on by free laborers and farmers?"

[turbobloke]

Import duty over here boosted the domestic cotton industry and reduced our share of exports from India dramatically, but it was definitely the case that machined textiles were cheaper and as a result Indian weavers could not compete - when eventually mechanised mills were set up in India the last of the hand weavers were put out of work.

[voyds9]

Mrr T said:

I expect all but the kippers believe me.

UKIP is a joke.

20 years and it still has no idea how to carry out its key aim.

So if UKIP get any influence it will suddenly discover a plan. Maybe the Great Leader will find it next to the SNP legal advise on continued membership of the EU.

Surely it's far better to have an aim no idea how to achieve it than having no ambition at all.

And if planning was all it was cracked up to be we wouldn't be in this state to start with.

[s2art]

zygalski said:

s2art said:

Nope. What did for the Indian cotton business was technological advance; cotton gin, power loom, steam etc, coupled to cheap and abundant supplies of cotton from America (and Egypt).By approx mid 19th century the indian cottage industries could not match the cost effectiveness of the factories in the north of England. Up until that point India could and did export huge amounts of cotton goods, and raw cotton.

Wrong again, sir!

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ch/2010...

"Britain’s textile industry was able to develop behind tariff barriers, and the home market started to develop a cotton textile industry. In fact, just before the industrial revolution, the tariff on Indian cotton goods imported into Britain had gone up to 50% (Alavi 1982: 56).

However, the early cotton industry in Britain could not match the quality of Indian textiles. In the early 18th century, Britain generally produced fustians (a mixture of linen and cotton/wool) and linen-cotton textiles, but not pure cotton goods.

Furthermore, the price of raw cotton imports rose in the 1770s and 1780s. It was only after the slave-based plantations of North America started to export to the UK that cotton imports started to fall in price.

I need hardly point out the paradox that the industrial revolution in Manchester through production of textile goods was itself dependent on, and effectively subsidized by, slave labour in the New World (see Pomeranz 2000: 277). How competitive would Manchester textiles have been, if production of cotton in the American south had been carried on by free laborers and farmers?"

Nope. However we are talking about slightly different periods. My point is from early to mid 18th century as technology reached the point where even cottage industry Indian peasants being paid peanuts could not compete with the Northern UK mills. Its difficult to know the effect of slavery on this. For all we know paying workers may well have produced higher productivity to compensate. And it wasnt just America, Egypt also supplied raw cotton to the UK.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

SilverSixer said:

Then you're a fool. Not everyone's first priority when deciding which party to vote for is the EU. I can v

To be fair to XJ, it is the single biggest issue we have to deal with,.as.it affects just about everything.from the UK constitution (and our viability as a sovereign country) though to our economy, and the ruinous effects of climate change policies.

It is the single biggest issue to Kippers.

Why assume it is for everyone else when it has been repeatedly said several times on this thread that it isn't for others?

Indeed the voting pattern showing a much higher percentage in favour of leaving the EU than supporting the "anti-EU" parties demonstrates that. They vote for other parties because other issues are more important to them,

And if any of the parties that are in favour of leaving want to change that, then they need a much better set of policies as a whole. Trouble is, defining those will highlight the divisions that actually exist but are hidden at present (at least within UKIP) because not all of their current support will agree with those policies (inevitably)

[NicD]

Mrr T said:

I expect all but the kippers believe me.

UKIP is a joke.

20 years and it still has no idea how to carry out its key aim.

So if UKIP get any influence it will suddenly discover a plan. Maybe the Great Leader will find it next to the SNP legal advise on continued membership of the EU.

You see a good joke in the mirror each morning.
stop posting until you can present a coherent discussion, that is your point, and the reasoning and facts that support it.

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Scuffers said:

SilverSixer said:

Then you're a fool. Not everyone's first priority when deciding which party to vote for is the EU. I can v

To be fair to XJ, it is the single biggest issue we have to deal with,.as.it affects just about everything.from the UK constitution (and our viability as a sovereign country) though to our economy, and the ruinous effects of climate change policies.

It is the single biggest issue to Kippers.

Why assume it is for everyone else when it has been repeatedly said several times on this thread that it isn't for others?

Indeed the voting pattern showing a much higher percentage in favour of leaving the EU than supporting the "anti-EU" parties demonstrates that. They vote for other parties because other issues are more important to them,

And if any of the parties that are in favour of leaving want to change that, then they need a much better set of policies as a whole. Trouble is, defining those will highlight the divisions that actually exist but are hidden at present (at least within UKIP) because not all of their current support will agree with those policies (inevitably)

that just goes to show the total dishonesty of the debate.

No other party will attempt to leave the EU, yet a clear majority of the population want them to.

Based on this single point alone, everybody should support UKIP just to achieve that goal.

As for other issues, the problem is that just about every other major issue to the public is related to our membership of the EU, from the obvious (Immigration), to the obscure (costs of red tape eg. allergy laws - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30395142)

Yes, leaving will not be easy or painless, but it has to be the choice of the people

[Transmitter Man]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

are you really that pathetic that you think anybody here is stupid enough to believe that?

think what you want, but if UKIP get into a position of being able to force the issue, independence from the EU will happen.

I expect all but the kippers believe me.

UKIP is a joke.

20 years and it still has no idea how to carry out its key aim.

So if UKIP get any influence it will suddenly discover a plan. Maybe the Great Leader will find it next to the SNP legal advise on continued membership of the EU.

Here's my plan;

Dear Angela,

Thank you for the money - not.

Goodbye and have a great day.

N

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

No other party will attempt to leave the EU, yet a clear majority of the population want them to.

Really?

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

Scuffers said:

Based on this single point alone, everybody should support UKIP just to achieve that goal.

If your first point were right, then UKIP will form the next Government. Err...

Scuffers said:

As for other issues, the problem is that just about every other major issue to the public is related to our membership of the EU, from the obvious (Immigration), to the obscure (costs of red tape eg. allergy laws - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30395142)

I think you may be very mistaken if you think that the volume of legislation in the country would reduce materially, even appreciably, if the UK left the EU.

[don4l]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

exactly...

like it or not, the truth of the matter is that realistically the only EU exit part is UKIP.

Do you mean the party which after 20 years still has no idea how to leave the EU?

You bedwetters really crack me up.

Why do you think that it would be difficult to leave the EU?

We would be welcomed into the WTO with open arms.

We would close down the blue lanes at our ports.

There might be a couple of other minor things that need addressing, but nothing that is difficult.

Perhaps you could share your worst nightmares with us???

What do you think will be difficult about a BrExit?

[FiF]

Greg66 said:

Scuffers said:

No other party will attempt to leave the EU, yet a clear majority of the population want them to.

Really?

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

Scuffers said:

Based on this single point alone, everybody should support UKIP just to achieve that goal.

If your first point were right, then UKIP will form the next Government. Err...

Scuffers said:

As for other issues, the problem is that just about every other major issue to the public is related to our membership of the EU, from the obvious (Immigration), to the obscure (costs of red tape eg. allergy laws - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30395142)

I think you may be very mistaken if you think that the volume of legislation in the country would reduce materially, even appreciably, if the UK left the EU.

That selection of that particular ipsos-mori poll does your argument no favours.

If you look at the trend it's an outlier.

In reality for standard polling ie as things stand now it's pretty much a draw with a not insignificant number of don't knows. It's been like that for ages and that ipsos poll is the most favourable out of dozens by a long way.

Shame on you.

The other point is that in polls where people are asked how they would vote in the event of a renegotiated relationship with the EU where the government of the day recommended a vote to stay in, even though people were given no clue as to the nature of any renegotiated relationship then an overwhelming majority would vote to stay in. Not even a close contest.

That imo is why Cameron is following the strategy he is.

My own view is that in the event of a referendum where the EU had largely said get stuffed and we had had more of the jaw dropping stuff like the 1.7bn peremptorily demanded due to back counting on changed rules then the public would become increasingly anti EU. Likewise more turbulence in the EZ would demonstrate the madness of the EU experiment.

[vonuber]

What if there is a referendum and the vote is clearly to stay in? Then what?

[FiF]

Personally as written earlier, it's the democratic decision, accept it, move on with life.

If there are moves towards further and/or full integration, including adopting the euro wouldn't this be subject to another referendum anyway?