UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[XJ Flyer]

cookie118 said:

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.

The relevant bit being that the argument that the EU could impose unfavourable conditions on us,as it has in the case of Switzerland,under threat of 'trade sanctions',could only actually,in reality,result in a win win situation for us and backfire catastrophically for EU exporters to the UK.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

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.

You think it is fairer putting the "power" in the hands of a party that thinks it knows the answer already and doesn't need a referendum, so is as biased as any, and which has less than 1% of the MPs, and approx 16% of the vote (average of polls)?

Fairer because their propaganda accords with your views.

I think if there is a referendum, both points of view will be heard. Many will be swayed by rhetoric rather than evidential argument. But that's democracy. Still the least worst system

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

You think it is fairer putting the "power" in the hands of a party that thinks it knows the answer already and doesn't need a referendum, so is as biased as any, and which has less than 1% of the MPs, and approx 16% of the vote (average of polls)?

Fairer because their propaganda accords with your views.

I think if there is a referendum, both points of view will be heard. Many will be swayed by rhetoric rather than evidential argument. But that's democracy. Still the least worst system

Great if it is all about 'democracy' then the pro EU side will be happy with a compulsory equal spending and resource limit on both campaigns this time.

[FiF]

Ouch. Good point. Level playing field. Completely honest debate. That's going to happen - not. Be nice if it did but it won't. It didn't happen in 75 and it won't happen over 40 years later.

It didn't happen in Rochester or Clacton either and it's not happening now. It didn't happen in the Nick Mr 6% Clegg debate. Unfortunately he got called out on it.

[ninja-lewis]

XJ Flyer said:

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.

How would leaving the EU change that unless you're proposing to adopt US/Australian type approval regs wholesale instead? After all, if the UK exercised its sovereignty to determine its own type approval regs and created different rule, said truck sales agency is still going difficulty to utilising non-compliant parts from the US...

In fact why are you even worried about using US parts anyway in your Fortress Britain? In any event any domestic manufacturer/sales agency with any ambition of export sales will obey the EU regulations anyway (given their best chance of export sales is going to be nearby countries...). Or perhaps your fortress is really a prison for those inside?

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.Assuming that is the EU would be economically suicidal enough to kick off a trade war with us.

And what if the domestic market for my particular product is too small? Should I just spread my substantial R&D costs over the fewer UK customers? Do I forgo the R&D and we make do with an inferior product? Or do we simply do without?

In other words, where is the interest of the UK consumer in all this? A clue: Deadweight loss isn't just the gap between your ears.

You're not just proposing to leave the EU like the normal nutters; you're proposing to undo thousands of years of economic development. Our Stone Age ancestors had a better grasp of trade, specialisation and comparative advantage than you with your childish delusion that we can tariff everyone else and nobody is going tariff us.

[XJ Flyer]

ninja-lewis said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

How would leaving the EU change that unless you're proposing to adopt US/Australian type approval regs wholesale instead? After all, if the UK exercised its sovereignty to determine its own type approval regs and created different rule, said truck sales agency is still going difficulty to utilising non-compliant parts from the US...

In fact why are you even worried about using US parts anyway in your Fortress Britain? In any event any domestic manufacturer/sales agency with any ambition of export sales will obey the EU regulations anyway (given their best chance of export sales is going to be nearby countries...). Or perhaps your fortress is really a prison for those inside?

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.Assuming that is the EU would be economically suicidal enough to kick off a trade war with us.

And what if the domestic market for my particular product is too small? Should I just spread my substantial R&D costs over the fewer UK customers? Do I forgo the R&D and we make do with an inferior product? Or do we simply do without?

In other words, where is the interest of the UK consumer in all this? A clue: Deadweight loss isn't just the gap between your ears.

You're not just proposing to leave the EU like the normal nutters; you're proposing to undo thousands of years of economic development. Our Stone Age ancestors had a better grasp of trade, specialisation and comparative advantage than you with your childish delusion that we can tariff everyone else and nobody is going tariff us.

Firstly assuming we are going back to where we were before we joined the EU we never actually had any 'type approval' rules of our own or at least any which made it any more difficult to put an American manufactured vehicle on the road than one made here or in Europe.

As for my ideas of how to run an economy under that situation the policy was mostly based on that idea if it is sold here then it is made here.Which is how we ended up with car manufacturing operations like Ford at Dagenham and truck component manufacture like Cummins engine plant at Shotts etc.That isn't fortress mentality it is/was actually just a pragmatic form of looking after the national interest.

As for your comments regarding R and D costs being recovered.As usual in the case of the pro EU cause you seem to have conveniently missed the point,that in a trade deficit situation,there is more chance of recovering those costs in a protected domestic market.Than by keeping access to the obviously less valuable EU market at all costs.

As for that idea supposedly 'throwing away thousands of years' of trade links we never actually joined the EEC/EU until 1973 so how does that translate as 'thousands of years' in your view.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 24th December 03:03

[NicD]

JustAnotherLogin said:

You think it is fairer putting the "power" in the hands of a party that thinks it knows the answer already and doesn't need a referendum, so is as biased as any, and which has less than 1% of the MPs, and approx 16% of the vote (average of polls)?

err how could this happen? If this party were elected, it would have to be... yes, elected.

why write such rubbish?
ah, so you could throw in an insult or two.

[JensenA]

Whenever you hear discussions on TV or radio regarding the EU, The Red Herring of the EU being an Economic and Trading bloc is the only subject discussed. The EU is NOT an organization set up to promote free trade, it is a Political organization with its main aim being to create an European superstate. That ideal has more or less been achieved it is NOT a democratic organization, we don't elect any of its leaders, nor any of its policy makers It is actually more akin to the Communist model of state government.
If the UK left the EU, we would still trade with the EU, we would still manufacture goods to EU standards, and abide by EU trade regulations, and we would still export and import goods to and from the EU. Would the EU really impose import tariffs on all goods imported from the UK? If they did, the UK would at least be free to retaliate and impose import duties on all EU goods. More expensive BMW's, Mercedes, VW, Skoda, Audi, VW, Bosch, Neff, Siemens etc? it won't happen, the EU needs to trade with the UK.
It is the political integration and ideal of the EU that UKIP is against, not the trading with the EU.

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

You think it is fairer putting the "power" in the hands of a party that thinks it knows the answer already and doesn't need a referendum, so is as biased as any, and which has less than 1% of the MPs, and approx 16% of the vote (average of polls)?

err...

said party is basically campaigning on (and has manifesto commitment to) exiting the EU

thus a vote for UKIP is a vote to exit, this is how elections work.

Look, being realistic, UKIP are not going to win a majority, so they best they can hope for is enough MP's to force a referendum from whoever they agree to support.

[BGARK]

cookie118 said:

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?

Forget the EU, name some physical items that you buy, work out where they come from.

What you are suggesting is a myth, and the same nonsense scare tactics used by those who simply want to remain in power.

[Esseesse]

BGARK said:

cookie118 said:

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?

Forget the EU, name some physical items that you buy, work out where they come from.

What you are suggesting is a myth, and the same nonsense scare tactics used by those who simply want to remain in power.

Indeed, the lies to swing a pro-EU vote have long been ingrained in the average voters mind.

[Mrr T]

NicD said:

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.

You can always spot a kipper post, any suggestion the party or the Great Leader are less than prefect and straight to the insults.

So are you suggesting I should stop posting while UKIP come up with an EU exit plan?

[NicD]

Mrr T said:

You can always spot a kipper post, any suggestion the party or the Great Leader are less than prefect and straight to the insults.

So are you suggesting I should stop posting while UKIP come up with an EU exit plan?

did you not read my suggestion to you? To present a coherent discussion replete with facts.

but going past your guff, why would UKIP need a plan, that is people, dates, action items NOW, at this rather premature stage.

Or, in your quaint and insulting way are you suggesting the UK cannot ever leave the EU?

If the latter, then have the gumption to say so and why.

[Mrr T]

NicD said:

Mrr T said:

You can always spot a kipper post, any suggestion the party or the Great Leader are less than prefect and straight to the insults.

So are you suggesting I should stop posting while UKIP come up with an EU exit plan?

did you not read my suggestion to you? To present a coherent discussion replete with facts.

but going past your guff, why would UKIP need a plan, that is people, dates, action items NOW, at this rather premature stage.

Or, in your quaint and insulting way are you suggesting the UK cannot ever leave the EU?

If the latter, then have the gumption to say so and why.

So after 20 years UKIP has no plan to leave the EU. Do you disagree and they have a plan and are just not telling any one?

Why should UKIP have a plan to leave the EU? Because this has been the only consistent policy for 20 years and knowing how to do it would be a good idea.

Why do we need a plan? Because we maybe getting a referendum on the EU in 2 years. To win a referendum those who support exit will need to overcome the fear of change factor. The only way to be able to do that is to present to the voters a coherent and workable plan for exit which will not devastate the UK economy. The Scottish independence vote showed how important a plan is.

Can the UK leave the UK? Yes and Owen Pattreson presented a good starting point for discuss 3 weeks ago and what happened UKIP dismissed it.

[NicD]

Mrr T said:

So after 20 years UKIP has no plan to leave the EU. Do you disagree and they have a plan and are just not telling any one?

Why should UKIP have a plan to leave the EU? Because this has been the only consistent policy for 20 years and knowing how to do it would be a good idea.

Why do we need a plan? Because we maybe getting a referendum on the EU in 2 years. To win a referendum those who support exit will need to overcome the fear of change factor. The only way to be able to do that is to present to the voters a coherent and workable plan for exit which will not devastate the UK economy. The Scottish independence vote showed how important a plan is.

Can the UK leave the UK? Yes and Owen Pattreson presented a good starting point for discuss 3 weeks ago and what happened UKIP dismissed it.

I explained what a plan is, and this at this early stage, it would be premature.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.

So you lambast UKIP and on the hand, you applaud an opposing politician for presenting a 'good starting point for discuss'

Can you try to order your thoughts.

Btw, I would vote for the Conservatives if they embodied all 'my' policies and I could trust them.
But they fail on both counts.

[BGARK]

Mrr T said:

Can the UK leave the UK?

Not until we have a leader with some balls.

[brenflys777]

Mrr T said:

You can always spot a kipper post, any suggestion the party or the Great Leader are less than prefect and straight to the insults.

So are you suggesting I should stop posting while UKIP come up with an EU exit plan?

I don't think the insults are helpful to either side. Personal insults distract and I find a strong correlation between people who say 'dear leader' about any politician other than Jong Un and poor debating points... however..

We've been around the houses before about UKIPs exit plans. Unless you see 'cast iron' plans you won't be content, but the membership of the EU is not a static event. Things can and doubtless will change in the EU and until we know exactly what the conditions are at the time, including the state of the EU and our own economy, we can't be absolute.

UKIP have given a strategic plan for what they want to achieve, trade agreements with the EU and the ability to trade with other countries on bilateral terms not the EUs and of course we want to extract ourselves from the EU's social control. That's the strategic plan and the options for how to achieve that will vary depending on circumstance.

I can understand why you'd want it to be more specific but the EU isn't static. If you asked the pro EU side to be specific about what will happen in terms of us staying in they can give you the strategic aim of ever closer union, but not when they will take more powers from the UK or how. In the case of Cameron he gives a very basic strategic view of 'reforming' the EU and getting a better deal for the UK, but his inability to set the strategic bottom line (Ukips being EU exit) means it's next to useless.

I think until the pro EU side can define exactly what our membership means, it's perfectly reasonable for UKIP to give a direction of travel but not the means. The UK is a much better prospect than most of the EU, we are net contributors and they need us more than we need them IMO, if we could have a membership which brought us back to the economic trading group that the UK public have been told the EU was, then I'd be perfectly happy to stay, but before any referendum the pro EU side need to be honest about what continued membership means. Ever closer union.

Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 24th December 10:25

[DeanR32]

Other than EU exit, what are your next big issues you want to see things done about NicD?

If we were ever to get a referendum on the EU, would UKIP have achieved their ultimate goal? I mean, that'd be the most fair way. Where would they go from there? That'd be their trump card beat pretty much

[NicD]

DeanR32 said:

Other than EU exit, what are your next big issues you want to see things done about NicD?

If we were ever to get a referendum on the EU, would UKIP have achieved their ultimate goal? I mean, that'd be the most fair way. Where would they go from there? That'd be their trump card beat pretty much

Dean,

I know you cant rely on any politicians promises but there are several UKIP policies that attract me.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Even the heading 'POLICIES FOR PEOPLE' appeals.

so not policies for the union barons or scroungers, or policies for the big company bosses and owners

[Esseesse]

Mrr T said:

So after 20 years UKIP has no plan to leave the EU. Do you disagree and they have a plan and are just not telling any one?

Why should UKIP have a plan to leave the EU? Because this has been the only consistent policy for 20 years and knowing how to do it would be a good idea.

Why do we need a plan? Because we maybe getting a referendum on the EU in 2 years. To win a referendum those who support exit will need to overcome the fear of change factor. The only way to be able to do that is to present to the voters a coherent and workable plan for exit which will not devastate the UK economy. The Scottish independence vote showed how important a plan is.

Can the UK leave the UK? Yes and Owen Pattreson presented a good starting point for discuss 3 weeks ago and what happened UKIP dismissed it.

The Scottish independence vote didn't need a plan, it just needed a credible independence option.

Their version of independence involved using another country's currency, remaining in political union anyway with the EU (and even this was not certain), and that a chunk of their industry would likely go because it was done directly for the UK (ship building) and would not have been replaced.

A version of independence that involved full independence from the EU with their own Scottish currency and central bank and a pledge to continue building ships for the Scottish navy would have been believable and possibly worthwhile (but a scary jump for the electorate, and time for Salmond to put his big-boy pants on). A version of independence that actually involved going deeper into the EU and taking the Euro would have been more believable (not so scary, but been a real turn off for the at least significant minority of Scottish eurosceptics).

Salmond tried to be all things for all (Scottish) men. His proposals therefore lacked consistency and credibility, and there's nothing more scary than feeling like the guy wanting to leave doesn't have a clear idea.

A plan is not needed, but a clear idea is. For the UK to leave the EU is far less scary. We already have our own currency, institutions (eroding however), and defence force. A clear idea of freedom from Europe is all that is needed and is what UKIP have. If UKIP were the SNP they'd be arguing to leave the EU, but still be represented by them at the WTO etc, which would be a weird half measure that nobody wants.

Edited by Esseesse on Wednesday 24th December 10:36