UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Einion Yrth]

Axionknight said:

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?

The answer to that question may well encapsulate the greatest difference between the zod wing of the conservative party and those who lean toward UKIP.

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

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.

Rather than just which ones, you applied a GDP which you neglect to say what, so pointless in other words. You obviously have in mind which without needing to be vague as to which and also why you want to restrict movement. Also might want to suggest even a rough range of what you are then going to restrict those countries to when it comes to immigration as so far its somewhere between 0 and 100% , which again utterly meaningless. Cameron could use your skills in vagueness during renegotiation it seems.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Einion Yrth said:

Axionknight said:

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?

The answer to that question may well encapsulate the greatest difference between the zod wing of the conservative party and those who lean toward UKIP.

yes, the Zod wing believe that we can negotiate a little whilst we have the threat of leaving. The UKIP wing think we can negotiate loads after we use that threat and have no bargaining chips left

[Zod]

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

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.

Rather than just which ones, you applied a GDP which you neglect to say what, so pointless in other words. You obviously have in mind which without needing to be vague as to which and also why you want to restrict movement. Also might want to suggest even a rough range of what you are then going to restrict those countries to when it comes to immigration as so far its somewhere between 0 and 100% , which again utterly meaningless. Cameron could use your skills in vagueness during renegotiation it seems.

I was merely posting a formula for the sake of argument. Personally, I'd probably set the level at 75%+ of the average GDP per capita of the top five or so Member States. Greeks would be treated the same way as Bulgarians therefore.

[Einion Yrth]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Einion Yrth said:

Axionknight said:

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?

The answer to that question may well encapsulate the greatest difference between the zod wing of the conservative party and those who lean toward UKIP.

yes, the Zod wing believe that we can negotiate a little whilst we have the threat of leaving. The UKIP wing think we can negotiate loads after we use that threat and have no bargaining chips left

Spin much? Get back to me after you've wrung any concessions whatsoever out of Brussels - don't be too long though I'm in my mid 50s and may not live that long.

[Zod]

Einion Yrth said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Einion Yrth said:

Axionknight said:

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?

The answer to that question may well encapsulate the greatest difference between the zod wing of the conservative party and those who lean toward UKIP.

yes, the Zod wing believe that we can negotiate a little whilst we have the threat of leaving. The UKIP wing think we can negotiate loads after we use that threat and have no bargaining chips left

Spin much? Get back to me after you've wrung any concessions whatsoever out of Brussels - don't be too long though I'm in my mid 50s and may not live that long.

I do a lot of negotiation. I have even managed to get a couple of changes to an EU Directive (through the Treasury - I don't get to speak to the Commission).

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

Mr_B said:

Zod said:

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.

Rather than just which ones, you applied a GDP which you neglect to say what, so pointless in other words. You obviously have in mind which without needing to be vague as to which and also why you want to restrict movement. Also might want to suggest even a rough range of what you are then going to restrict those countries to when it comes to immigration as so far its somewhere between 0 and 100% , which again utterly meaningless. Cameron could use your skills in vagueness during renegotiation it seems.

I was merely posting a formula for the sake of argument. Personally, I'd probably set the level at 75%+ of the average GDP per capita of the top five or so Member States. Greeks would be treated the same way as Bulgarians therefore.

OK, and why do you want to restrict movement of those people and to what level ?

[Axionknight]

Einion Yrth said:

The answer to that question may well encapsulate the greatest difference between the zod wing of the conservative party and those who lean toward UKIP.

But but, Mr Junker said he was against a federal Europe, so surely we'd be more likely to get powers back than hand them over**

Despite the fact that he is associated with the European Movement group that campaigns for a federal Europe and supports the idea of children being given a school education that "combats Euro-scepticsism"......

[JustAnotherLogin]

Einion Yrth said:

Spin much? Get back to me after you've wrung any concessions whatsoever out of Brussels - don't be too long though I'm in my mid 50s and may not live that long.

Like Zod I've done a fair bit of negotiation

UKIP witter on about our trade deficit with the EU and how this means they need us more than we need them. Of course if such a bargaining chip exists, then we have it now for the negotiations with the EU before a referendum.

There are obvious advantages to negotiating now, with the threat of leaving. Anyone care to suggest any way in which we would have a stronger negotiating position AFTER we have left? When we would need to negotiate far far more?

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Like Zod I've done a fair bit of negotiation

UKIP witter on about our trade deficit with the EU and how this means they need us more than we need them. Of course if such a bargaining chip exists, then we have it now for the negotiations with the EU before a referendum.

There are obvious advantages to negotiating now, with the threat of leaving. Anyone care to suggest any way in which we would have a stronger negotiating position AFTER we have left? When we would need to negotiate far far more?

Why does it take a constant carrot on a stick to get this referendum though? Each of the main three parties is guilty of it, and has been for years..... It's almost like they don't want to carry out that promise.

Imagine that.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Axionknight said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Like Zod I've done a fair bit of negotiation

UKIP witter on about our trade deficit with the EU and how this means they need us more than we need them. Of course if such a bargaining chip exists, then we have it now for the negotiations with the EU before a referendum.

There are obvious advantages to negotiating now, with the threat of leaving. Anyone care to suggest any way in which we would have a stronger negotiating position AFTER we have left? When we would need to negotiate far far more?

Why does it take a constant carrot on a stick to get this referendum though? Each of the main three parties is guilty of it, and has been for years..... It's almost like they don't want to carry out that promise.

Imagine that.

Show me a manifesto that has ever held that promise (apart from UKiP's obviously)

This time the Tory one (I assume) will

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

yes, the Zod wing believe that we can negotiate a little whilst we have the threat of leaving. The UKIP wing think we can negotiate loads after we use that threat and have no bargaining chips left

I've seen some weird stuff on the Internet.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world.

Many smaller countries, with even smaller economies have negotiated trade agreements with the EU.

Guernsey has.

The Isle of Man has.

Why do you think that the UK couldn't?

We have a negative trade surplus with the rest of the EU. The lack of a trade agreement would hurt them much more than it would hurt us.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

I've seen some weird stuff on the Internet.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world.

Many smaller countries, with even smaller economies have negotiated trade agreements with the EU.

Guernsey has.

The Isle of Man has.

Why do you think that the UK couldn't?

We have a negative trade surplus with the rest of the EU. The lack of a trade agreement would hurt them much more than it would hurt us.

Read the question I asked
Even if those factors are all relevant, they all those factors apply now. And more. So why do Kippers think we will not be able to negotiate something small inside, but could negotiate something much bigger once we have left

[brenflys777]

Slightly off topic, but Farage still hasn't got any publicly funded protection as far as I know. He has been attacked several times, both physically when he got hit by a placard and recently where someone jumped on his car (a capital offence in my mind...) and intimidated his children in a pub. These are actual attacks and the BBC reports of the time reminded people that this protection would have to be taxpayer funded....

Fast forward and a BBC boss has been threatened by Internet trolls and is apparently getting immediate protection for him and his family. No mention of who is funding it appears on the BBC news reports.

Farage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31634837

Lord Hall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32103...

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

don4l said:

I've seen some weird stuff on the Internet.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world.

Many smaller countries, with even smaller economies have negotiated trade agreements with the EU.

Guernsey has.

The Isle of Man has.

Why do you think that the UK couldn't?

We have a negative trade surplus with the rest of the EU. The lack of a trade agreement would hurt them much more than it would hurt us.

Read the question I asked
Even if those factors are all relevant, they all those factors apply now. And more. So why do Kippers think we will not be able to negotiate something small inside, but could negotiate something much bigger once we have left

I'd be very happy to read the question that you asked... except for the fact that you didn't quote it. So, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

However, I will attempt to answer the questions that you have just posed.

Your question is a strawman. You have mentioned something "small inside" and compared it to something "much bigger once we have left". This is total nonsense.

If we leave the EU, then we will regain control of our borders.

A Free Trade agreement isn't comparable with the free movement of people. It is neither "much bigger", nor smaller.


My experience as an importer/exporter is that the WTO has effectively replaced the EU. It has done so without interference in the laws of member states. We don't need to build useless windmills to be a member of the WTO.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

I'd be very happy to read the question that you asked... except for the fact that you didn't quote it. So, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

However, I will attempt to answer the questions that you have just posed.

Your question is a strawman. You have mentioned something "small inside" and compared it to something "much bigger once we have left". This is total nonsense.

If we leave the EU, then we will regain control of our borders.

A Free Trade agreement isn't comparable with the free movement of people. It is neither "much bigger", nor smaller.


My experience as an importer/exporter is that the WTO has effectively replaced the EU. It has done so without interference in the laws of member states. We don't need to build useless windmills to be a member of the WTO.

But you are still missing the point
Whilst inside we have a much better bargaining position because we have the threat of leaving
Once we have left we have lost that

So why do Kippers think that we will not be able to negotiate successfully before a referendum, but would be able to once we have left?

[s2art]

JustAnotherLogin said:

But you are still missing the point
Whilst inside we have a much better bargaining position because we have the threat of leaving
Once we have left we have lost that

So why do Kippers think that we will not be able to negotiate successfully before a referendum, but would be able to once we have left?

Because treaty(s) change is really hard to do, if they try and change the treaties to suit the UK then it would just run into the mud. And they almost certainly will not change free movement. Making a free trade agreement is much much easier.

[BGARK]

JustAnotherLogin said:

But you are still missing the point
Whilst inside we have a much better bargaining position because we have the threat of leaving
Once we have left we have lost that

So why do Kippers think that we will not be able to negotiate successfully before a referendum, but would be able to once we have left?

Negotiate what? what do you think we "need" from the EU (can you explain what the EU actually is other than a name?).

When we leave I will still trade with "customers" both in Europe (the few who have money) and globally, nothing changes.

Remove all politicians, bureaucrats and those in "non-jobs" and the UK will survive and prosper, its creative, extravagant and entrepreneurial people will make that happen.

Maybe a bit of discomfort in the early stages but sovereignty and my children's future mean more to me than anything else. To the point where if forced I would fight for it.

[MGJohn]

Scuffers said:

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.

That above all is what I find so very disappointing. With further delaying tactics no doubt.

Penalised £1.7billion for being successful!



What's really to stop being successful in or out of the all devouring EU?

Dave will not get my vote and Ed most definitely will not. Voting for either will be a waste so I will waste my vote more productively elsewhere.

Many folks who used to regularly vote no longer bother. They feel it is a waste from all aspects. Based on years of mismanagement by those we entrust to this Nation's well being, I find their stance on not voting perfectly understandable. There's a huge flaw in our FPTP system .. It is this.

The Government always gets in ...

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Show me a manifesto that has ever held that promise (apart from UKiP's obviously)

This time the Tory one (I assume) will

Well this is it again, the carrot on the stick I mentioned - it gets talked about, but nothing more than that. David Cameron urged voters to use the EU elections in 2009 to help gain a referendum on the Lisbon treaty - vote Tory to assure this! Clegg has similarly made such overtures on the campaign trail - nada.

Where is this negotiation? Why hasn't anything been done in the last five years? Instead of reform we've had an ever increasing bill.

Why would they restrict the free movement of peoples anyway? This is a ley issue for many..... They wouldn't for Switzerland : http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-confirm-eu-s-key...

Cynical old me thinks that Cameron knows he can't win a majority and has for a long time so he can offer what he likes - either he's out of power and it isn't an issue or he's in bed with the Lib Dems again and they won't support a referendum because democracy isn't their thing....... The only party in the UK that the Tories could do an election deal with that would support such a vote is UKIP and obviously their post electoral representation in the house is by no means guarenteed to be sufficient (unlikely, infact).