UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

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?

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Partnership (TTIP) deal has been 24 years in the making (and is not there yet). It would create the worlds biggest free trade area covering 60% of the worlds GDP.

Whereas you believe that having opted out of the EU, you could in a few years (with our immense negotiating power relative to the rest of the EU, or the US) negotiate agreements that are just as favourable, or more favourable in a few hours, time for a celebratory lunch.

Just joining the WTO doesn't cut it. Or is a replacement for TTIP one of your "minor other things"?

[XJ Flyer]

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)

How can there possibly be any more important an issue than the argument between wether the national government holds sovereignty over every aspect of the country's decision making process and future direction.Being that very few,in any,other policies can be sorted out before we've established that essential question.IE the issue of wether we continue on a global warmist agenda or ditch it in favour of a global warmist sceptic energy policy for just one example.

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

don4l said:

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?

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Partnership (TTIP) deal has been 24 years in the making (and is not there yet). It would create the worlds biggest free trade area covering 60% of the worlds GDP.

Where's the logic in maintaining a trade deficit with Europe and paying a fortune in net contributions,in addition to handing over the sovereignty of the nation's government for the privilege.Just to return to/maintain a trading relationship with the USA which we had anyway before we joined the federalist scam.

'However' assuming the US would only be prepared to offer 'better' trade deals with the EU and/or EU aligned European states as opposed to non aligned non EU ones the inference seems obvious.IE conform with the idea of paying off,taking in,and defending Eastern Europe,to keep it onside v Russia or face effective trade sanctions.In which case that idea would just take us ( much ) closer to war with Russia anyway at which point our trading relationship with the EU or the US would be the last thing to worry about anyway.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

How can there possibly be any more important an issue than the argument between wether the national government holds sovereignty over every aspect of the country's decision making process and future direction.Being that very few,in any,other policies can be sorted out before we've established that essential question.IE the issue of wether we continue on a global warmist agenda or ditch it in favour of a global warmist sceptic energy policy for just one example.

The UK has been signing international treaties for several hundred years. Did they mean that the national government did not hold complete sovereignty over every aspect of the country's decision making process?

Of course they could renounce the treaty. As we could now. So whilst I acknowledge the EU is a far more encompassing treaty, the situation is this. Whilst it is the will of the country, expressed through democracy that we adhere to the treaty, then it is not a loss of sovereignty, but a deliberate decision.

I think we all recognise that the day might come when that will is no longer there. That day has not yet come however. So don't argue from some philosophical position that we have handed over sovereignty. We have the ability to take it back when we want so we have not.
Instead you must persuade the rest of us that it is right to leave because it is no longer to our advantage. That you have not yet done.

Labour offers no choice but to stay
UKIP offers no choice but to leave
Lib Dem offers no choice but to stay
Tories offer a referendum after negotiation

A referendum on such an important matter seems reasonable to me. You may not believe Cameron. That is your choice. many others do. Your choice has no primacy

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

How can there possibly be any more important an issue than the argument between wether the national government holds sovereignty over every aspect of the country's decision making process and future direction.Being that very few,in any,other policies can be sorted out before we've established that essential question.IE the issue of wether we continue on a global warmist agenda or ditch it in favour of a global warmist sceptic energy policy for just one example.

The UK has been signing international treaties for several hundred years. Did they mean that the national government did not hold complete sovereignty over every aspect of the country's decision making process?

Of course they could renounce the treaty. As we could now. So whilst I acknowledge the EU is a far more encompassing treaty, the situation is this. Whilst it is the will of the country, expressed through democracy that we adhere to the treaty, then it is not a loss of sovereignty, but a deliberate decision.

I think we all recognise that the day might come when that will is no longer there. That day has not yet come however. So don't argue from some philosophical position that we have handed over sovereignty. We have the ability to take it back when we want so we have not.
Instead you must persuade the rest of us that it is right to leave because it is no longer to our advantage. That you have not yet done.

Labour offers no choice but to stay
UKIP offers no choice but to leave
Lib Dem offers no choice but to stay
Tories offer a referendum after negotiation

A referendum on such an important matter seems reasonable to me. You may not believe Cameron. That is your choice. many others do. Your choice has no primacy

The idea that our EU membership doesn't mean loss of sovereignty is as much a lie as that which Heath relied on when taking us into the scam.No I don't believe Cameron but even if I did there is no more reason now to believe that such a referendum would not inevitably be swung by the same Con and CBI backed pro EU propaganda blitz,as it was in 1975.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

The idea that our EU membership doesn't mean loss of sovereignty is as much a lie as that which Heath relied on when taking us into the scam.No I don't believe Cameron but even if I did there is no more reason now to believe that such a referendum would not inevitably be swung by the same Con and CBI backed pro EU propaganda blitz,as it was in 1975.

So you don't believe the electorate should be trusted with such a decision, because they will be swung by propaganda. But you know the truth?

Dangerous road to go down that one

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So you don't believe the electorate should be trusted with such a decision, because they will be swung by propaganda. But you know the truth?

Dangerous road to go down that one

Ah, the old were too stupid to make decisions line?

Remind me again what democracy is supposed to be about?

[XJ Flyer]

Scuffers said:

SilverSixer said:

No, it's these parties vs the rest in terms of leaving the EU (not an exhaustive list):

UKIP
BNP
English Democrats
An Independence from Europe
Britain First
No2EU - Yes to Democracy
Socialist Labour Party
Liberty GB Party

Blimey, you're really scraping it with that lot, I bet 50% of the electorate would not recognice most of those as parties!

FiF said:

So a list of parties that are, well, nonentities and barking at the moon basically. None of which even registered during an election with proportional representation. Not even close. Not that PR has any relevance to a UK general election anyway, which is what this thread is about.

As I said not far off the mark, effectively.

Flyer btw has repeatedly said he can't give his vote to UKIP, not sure who he will vote for.

exactly...

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

I think it was obvious that I meant 'only Party' in the sense of 'only realistic' anti EU option ( assuming it manages a result which gives it sufficient power in government ) which would provide a guaranteed possibility of an EU exit on the basis of a fair referendum held without the massive government/CBI instigated pro EU campaign which took place in 1975.While it would also be fair to say that the main 'realistic' alternatives,in the form of Lab/Libdem/Con/SNP/Green,are all on the pro EU side not anti as part of that campaign.

As for me the choice is either vote UKIP with obvious reservations regarding the effectiveness and consistency in the ideology contained within its economic/immigration policies or don't vote.On balance I'd probably consider the issue of sovereignty over the decision making process of national government to be the overriding factor in that decision.In which case it is probably more likely that I'll vote UKIP than not vote at all.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 December 22:17

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Just joining the WTO doesn't cut it. Or is a replacement for TTIP one of your "minor other things"?

I get the impression that you are not a businessman.

I have been importing, and exporting, since 1992.

In 1992 we had huge amounts of paperwork, and we also had to pay 10% import duty on most of the products that we imported from outside the EU.

Last year we paid 0%.

Selling to, or buying from, Taiwan is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, the USA is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, Australia is no different to trading with France.

I would suggest that you are not a businessman.

I would also suggest that you know nothing about this subject.

[WinstonWolf]

vonuber said:

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

If politicians believed that would be the outcome we'd have had one already.

[Scuffers]

Exactly...

I see the libconlab notcsure launching a pro EU campaign shortly, much like they did with the Scottish referendum.

[AmitG]

s2art said:

zygalski said:

s2art said:

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.

Going OT but - zygalski is right on this one.

When the British ruled India it was illegal for Indians to process cotton themselves. They had to send the raw material to Britain for processing, and buy the finished goods. Nothing to do with economics or free-market competition. It was compulsory.

This was one of Gandhi's biggest causes. You will see many pictures of him with a spinning wheel, spinning his own cotton in open defiance of the rules. To him, this symbolised the tyranny of British rule. And that white thing he wore was made of homespun cotton.

That wheel thing on the centre of the Indian flag is a spinning wheel. It's there because the right of Indians to spin their own cotton from their own materials, and make their own stuff from it, was considered so symbolic to the independence movement that it was put on the flag.

After independence it's another story - and in that case, I agree that the cottage industry weavers in India were left behind by mechanisation and cheaper labour in other countries (including what became Bangladesh).

It was similarly illegal for Indians to take salt from the sea and use it. By law, it had to be bought from British-owned suppliers (who had taken over the Indian salt industry) at punitive tax rates. Hence another of Gandhi's causes, the Salt March (probably googleable).

[XJ Flyer]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Just joining the WTO doesn't cut it. Or is a replacement for TTIP one of your "minor other things"?

I get the impression that you are not a businessman.

I have been importing, and exporting, since 1992.

In 1992 we had huge amounts of paperwork, and we also had to pay 10% import duty on most of the products that we imported from outside the EU.

Last year we paid 0%.

Selling to, or buying from, Taiwan is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, the USA is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, Australia is no different to trading with France.

I would suggest that you are not a businessman.

I would also suggest that you know nothing about this subject.

Now try setting up a truck sales agency selling American and Australian trucks here or even building trucks here using US based componentry.The fact is EU type approval regs were a large factor in the end of the domestic truck manufacturing industry here.A similar situation has long existed in the car manufacturing and retail sector in that EU products are sold under a totally different trading regime than American or Australian.

[anonymous-user]

My problem with leaving the EU is that the EU is a massive market for the UK, and so we could leave but our trade would still be dependant on the EU, and we would no longer have political input.

UKIP speak of a preferential trade agreement but what is the motivation for the EU to give it to us? Does it rely on the UK running a trade deficit to the EU-in which case would there be motivation to reduce this deficit? And if not what does that mean for UK industry? If the UK reverses the trade deficit-what would Europe's response be?

I just feel that we may leave the EU-but the UK would never be free of it's influence as some may claim.

[BGARK]

cookie118 said:

My problem with leaving the EU is that the EU is a massive market for the UK

No wrong, "customers" are a big market for products that they "want" to buy.

My German customers will still want to buy my products in/out.

Politicians have no part to play in our success, however businessmen and entrepreneur do and wherever they are located on the planet they will succeed.

The EU is a fog of bureaucracy and keeps people employed to troll the internet/media and tell lies. It serves no other purpose.

[XJ Flyer]

cookie118 said:

My problem with leaving the EU is that the EU is a massive market for the UK, and so we could leave but our trade would still be dependant on the EU, and we would no longer have political input.

UKIP speak of a preferential trade agreement but what is the motivation for the EU to give it to us? Does it rely on the UK running a trade deficit to the EU-in which case would there be motivation to reduce this deficit? And if not what does that mean for UK industry? If the UK reverses the trade deficit-what would Europe's response be?

I just feel that we may leave the EU-but the UK would never be free of it's influence as some may claim.

Unless you can magically turn the definition of deficit into surplus then the actual figures and the maths suggest that a protected domestic market is worth far more to domestic suppliers than the EU export market is.Assuming that is the EU would be economically suicidal enough to kick off a trade war with us.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

So you don't believe the electorate should be trusted with such a decision, because they will be swung by propaganda. But you know the truth?

Dangerous road to go down that one

Ah, the old were too stupid to make decisions line?

Remind me again what democracy is supposed to be about?

Go back and read.

I'm saying that everyone should be involved. XJ was the one saying the electorate would be swung by propaganda.

[anonymous-user]

BGARK said:

No wrong, "customers" are a big market for products that they "want" to buy.

My German customers will still want to buy my products in/out.

But would they want to buy it if the EU decides that the UK must add the common external tariff onto your goods and it makes them uncompetitive on price?

XJ Flyer said:

Unless you can magically turn the definition of deficit into surplus then the actual figures and the maths suggest that a protected domestic market is worth far more to domestic suppliers than the EU export market is.

Apologies-when I say reverse the deficit I mean run at a surplus to the EU.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Just joining the WTO doesn't cut it. Or is a replacement for TTIP one of your "minor other things"?

I get the impression that you are not a businessman.

I have been importing, and exporting, since 1992.

In 1992 we had huge amounts of paperwork, and we also had to pay 10% import duty on most of the products that we imported from outside the EU.

Last year we paid 0%.

Selling to, or buying from, Taiwan is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, the USA is no different to trading with France.

Selling to, or buying from, Australia is no different to trading with France.

I would suggest that you are not a businessman.

I would also suggest that you know nothing about this subject.

Wrong on all counts as usual

I don't know your business, as you don't know mine. Don't assume your case is the only one. TTIP would be a great benefit for me if it works as I hope

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Scuffers said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

So you don't believe the electorate should be trusted with such a decision, because they will be swung by propaganda. But you know the truth?

Dangerous road to go down that one

Ah, the old were too stupid to make decisions line?

Remind me again what democracy is supposed to be about?

Go back and read.

I'm saying that everyone should be involved. XJ was the one saying the electorate would be swung by propaganda.

To be fair I was going by first hand experience of what happened in 1975.Which went along the lines of lies,damned lies,and then the saturation point lies of the pro EU campaign and those running it.Assuming the pro EU cause think that the electorate is able to make up its own mind then it obviously won't mind UKIP being in a position of power to enforce a much fairer unbiased campaign this time.