UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

Do you think that a UKIP government could not deliver an exit from the EU?

Why not?

UKIP has no idea how to leave the EU. Unless leaving and causing significant damage to the UK economy is UKIP policy. Even stated policy refers to a free trade agreement which shows zero understanding of how the WTO agreements operate.

[Zod]

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

UKIP has no idea how to leave the EU. Unless leaving and causing significant damage to the UK economy is UKIP policy. Even stated policy refers to a free trade agreement which shows zero understanding of how the WTO agreements operate.

you keep trotting this out, and it's still the same claptrap as it was when you first said it.

[Axionknight]

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Didn't we give a portion of our rebate up for that? Were those reforms ever carried out?

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

UKIP has no idea how to leave the EU. Unless leaving and causing significant damage to the UK economy is UKIP policy. Even stated policy refers to a free trade agreement which shows zero understanding of how the WTO agreements operate.

you keep trotting this out, and it's still the same claptrap as it was when you first said it.

Keep saying that often enough and someone might believe you.

As it is UKIP have no idea how to leave the EU or any idea why a free trade agreement is a stupid idea.

Thank god they will never have any power.

[Axionknight]

Mrr T said:

Keep saying that often enough and someone might believe you.

As it is UKIP have no idea how to leave the EU or any idea why a free trade agreement is a stupid idea.

Thank god they will never have any power.

Pass the crystal ball over will you - I want the weeks Euromillions numbers.

[smn159]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/28/lords...

No evidence that the EU interferes excessively in any aspect of British life.

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Why do you want to restrict free movement and which countries are you thinking of and in what numbers ? That sounds a bit too Cameron vague at the moment.

[NicD]

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

yes, that would do for a start, along with all EU entrants subject to an up to date criminal records check.

But when did you start supporting UKIP (since none of these things seems possible within the EU as it stands today)?

[NicD]

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

yes, that would do for a start, along with all EU entrants subject to an up to date criminal records check.

But when did you start supporting UKIP (since none of these things seems possible within the EU as it stands today)?

[FiF]

Axionknight said:

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Didn't we give a portion of our rebate up for that? Were those reforms ever carried out?

No they weren't.

Let's add some more.

Sort out the democratic deficit. The elected representatives have effectively no power, they simply rubber stamp things from the unelected civil servants. Give the MEPs the ability to introduce legislation, get some political competition into the place, foster coalitions across the institutions.

Stop the EU lavish generosity which permits and encourages tinpot countries to create states that cannot be supported by their activities.

Stop this common EU defence and security policy when some of its countries, eg Germany, spend a derisory amount on military defence.

Co-operation yes, unification, NO!

Localism, let decisions be made closer to where things will be affected. Shared competencies is a recipe for complication and administrative delay, plus decisions which might be appropriate in one area but totally disastrous for another, especially when rules are applied to the letter by Whitehall, and then gold plated.

Accountability, there seems to be none, financial nor political. EU cannot and should not survive unless this is dealt with. We need to be able to trust those we entrust with our money, and there should be integrity and justice for the leaders who act badly.


Again these are just starting points, please add to the list. But many of these are red lines for me.

[Mojocvh]

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Why do you want to restrict free movement and which countries are you thinking of and in what numbers ? That sounds a bit too Cameron vague at the moment.

Bit like the second referendum promise, does anyone actually believe these barstewards?

[s2art]

FiF said:

Sort out the democratic deficit. The elected representatives have effectively no power, they simply rubber stamp things from the unelected civil servants. Give the MEPs the ability to introduce legislation, get some political competition into the place, foster coalitions across the institutions.

In the words of Saint Maggie, NO NO NO! That is precisely what the Federalists want, and it would make Parliament redundant, or at least no more than a local council.
What we want is that any legislation is ratified by our parliament rather than being forced upon us. That way the bureaucrats in Brussels would be forced to get approval from the real democratic bodies.

[don4l]

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Good sentiments, but unfortunately, none of that will happen.

All major changes that the EEC/EU has undergone since 1957 have been in the same direction - towards ever closer union.

Anyone who thinks that Cameron can reverse this is deluded.

[Scuffers]

don4l said:

Good sentiments, but unfortunately, none of that will happen.

All major changes that the EEC/EU has undergone since 1957 have been in the same direction - towards ever closer union.

Anyone who thinks that Cameron can reverse this is deluded.

Mojocvh said:

Bit like the second referendum promise, does anyone actually believe these barstewards?

Deluded is the right word.

CMD has had 5 years to negotiate, and all we got was a £1.7bn bill.

Zod and co are deluded.

[FiF]

s2art said:

FiF said:

Sort out the democratic deficit. The elected representatives have effectively no power, they simply rubber stamp things from the unelected civil servants. Give the MEPs the ability to introduce legislation, get some political competition into the place, foster coalitions across the institutions.

In the words of Saint Maggie, NO NO NO! That is precisely what the Federalists want, and it would make Parliament redundant, or at least no more than a local council.
What we want is that any legislation is ratified by our parliament rather than being forced upon us. That way the bureaucrats in Brussels would be forced to get approval from the real democratic bodies.

But in the context of this discussion the question is what reforms are needed in the EU to make it work.

Whilst in principle I agree with your sentiments, the stipulation that all legislation must be ratified by the local national parliaments either means that the EU would never work, or that the national parliaments are another very expensive rubber stamping exercise unless they had the power to veto, which returns to the first point, the EU would never work. Therefore it's pointless to aim for that as a reform however much we'd like it.

[NicD]

Contrast the Channel 4 nasty dark fantasy about the country under UKIP with their latest:

'the ringing authenticity of Coalition, the Channel 4 drama about the coupling of Cameron and Clegg'

Not that I watched either.

This is the latest on that botched piece of ste:
'Media watchdog Ofcom says it will investigate the Channel 4 docudrama UKIP: The First 100 Days for breaches of the broadcasting code.
More than 5,000 people complained about the programme, which imagined a future where Nigel Farage won the upcoming general election.
Ofcom said it might be in breach of rules on "offensive material, misleadingness and due impartiality".
"We are also considering fairness and privacy complaints," it said.'

Of course, no amount of apologies and retractions can undo the damage a biased program can cause.

[Zod]

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

Here are a few areas to begin with:

restrict free movement of people from Member States with GDP per capita of less than a specified percentage of the average of the top five Member States;

work with the current Capital Markets Union proposal, but admit that the financial regulators of all but the top economies are not equivalent (although I struggle to view the AMF as competent);

reduce the CAP subsidies to uneconomic farming in other Member States, France being a good place to start;

Accept that if the Common Fisheries Policy os to be viable, then the fishing fleets of other Member States must be policed by the Member State in whose waters they fish.

Why do you want to restrict free movement and which countries are you thinking of and in what numbers ? That sounds a bit too Cameron vague at the moment.

I was pretty specific about the countries - the less developed ones.

[Zod]

NicD said:

yes, that would do for a start, along with all EU entrants subject to an up to date criminal records check.

But when did you start supporting UKIP (since none of these things seems possible within the EU as it stands today)?

You know I don't. The difference is in our expectations of what is possible. I believe that if we show that we really mean it and back up our negotiations with the threat of a referendum in which our PM will campaign for an out if the reforms are not sufficient.

[Axionknight]

Zod said:

You know I don't. The difference is in our expectations of what is possible. I believe that if we show that we really mean it and back up our negotiations with the threat of a referendum in which our PM will campaign for an out if the reforms are not sufficient.

Do you think the EU will accede to the wishes of the UK government, say, very similar to the ones you laid out previously?