Yorkshire multi-millionaire businessman backs UKIP

[erebus]

Well someone with more money than sense, and who want to be noticed for giving to the deserving, and not helping the horrible poor, might be seen as a good thing. Its his money and he can squander it how he likes, and it could have been wine, women and song, but he decided giving it to the already well endowed, and why not????????????

[retep]

You've completely missed/misunderstood the points I made, in my reply to you

 

Thankfully, tzijlstra, altus and RutlandFlyer have since clarified them for you.

 

I bet you'll still miss them though.

 

No, they have just agreed with you on what ifs.

[tzijlstra]

No, they have just agreed with you on what ifs.

 

It is easy saying no isn't it?

 

So, can you come up with an argument that proves you right?

[L00b]

No, they have just agreed with you on what ifs.

I daresay both their and my "what ifs" are rather better supported than BoroB's own, so far:

 

The reasons why the UK Government "ensuring that countries that try to restrict UK exports are treated in a similar vane" would be entirely pointless, have been explained.

 

The reasons why EU companies/countries may indeed "put their trade with the UK under threat", have been explained.

 

The reasons why drawing parallels between the UK and China is a pointless exercise, have been explained.

 

I'd sooner read your arguments about how and why these reasons are (allegedly) wrong, if you please

[retep]

It is easy saying no isn't it?

 

So, can you come up with an argument that proves you right?

 

I'm sure these can,

http://www.brugesgroup.com/

 

And a link

http://www.brugesgroup.com/sayingnotothesinglemarket.pdf

[L00b]

I'm sure these can,

http://www.brugesgroup.com/

 

And a link

http://www.brugesgroup.com/sayingnotothesinglemarket.pdf

Ah yes, that old chestnut. Norway. So very highly representative and typical, what with its 90% smaller and far less culturally-/ethnically-diverse population, its budgetary excedent rivalling that of petrodollar kingdoms, etc. Who needs a national economy or the EU, when a country the socio-economical size of Yorkshire sits on enormous reserves natural gas and oil? Entirely comparable to the UK, for sure

 

I'm surprised you've not mentioned Switzerland yet. You know, also outside the EU. And, these days, singing like a canary about numbered account holders to the US' IRS, France's Fisc, the UK's HMRC, the German tax authorities, etc. and haemorraging banking clients to...guess who...EU-are-us-since-the-year-dot Luxembourg (these days, more than ever, still a tax haven and increasingly THE black hole of the financial world on a global scale). I'll let you guess how or why that is still the case -and worsening- despite all the noises and actions of everybody and their dog (Obama, Putin, China, the "EU", etc, etc, etc.) about tax havens since 2008 (unless you believe in coincidences, of course ).

 

By the time the EU's done with the Swiss (in tandem with the US), I doubt they'll be able to sustain their national lifestyle on chocolate exports alone.

 

Who'd have thought it? (besides me, obviously )

 

So, who's left? Turkey, as it happens, isn't bad in the economical stakes. A bit off-colour/not-quite-cricket on the old human rights side of things, of course, but I understand that's one of the bane of the anti-EU lot, so surely you're not going to hold that against them?

[retep]

Ah yes, that old chestnut. Norway. So very highly representative and typical, what with its 90% smaller and far less culturally-/ethnically-diverse population, its budgetary excedent rivalling that of petrodollar kingdoms, etc. Who needs a national economy or the EU, when a country the socio-economical size of Yorkshire sits on enormous reserves natural gas and oil? Entirely comparable to the UK, for sure

 

I'm surprised you've not mentioned Switzerland yet. You know, also outside the EU. And, these days, singing like a canary about numbered account holders to the US' IRS, France's Fisc, the UK's HMRC, the German tax authorities, etc. and haemorraging banking clients to...guess who...EU-are-us-since-the-year-dot Luxembourg. By the time the EU's done with them (in tandem with the US), I doubt they'll be able to sustain their national lifestyle on chocolate exports alone.

 

Who'd have thought it? (besides me, obviously )

 

Yep some old chestnuts are edible, yours aren't.

Did you miss this bit,

 

"Less that 10% of the British economy is involved with trade with the EU yet 100% of the economy is hamstrung by excessing EU regulations which disproportionately harm small and medium sized enterprises. SMEs employ the vast majority of workers in the UK. It has recently been calculated that the cost of EU regulation is some 5% of GBP equivalent to some £75billion per annum.

On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. The UK is the 26 other states of the EU biggest single customer. And actually has a trade deficit of £50 billion per year.

Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries – which it does.

Besides, discriminating against exports would be illegal under the rules of the

World Trade Organisation."

[Jason Bourne]

We don't need Europe.

 

We don't need the EU.

 

We just need to deal with China.

 

It's the Chinese zillionaires who are the reason behind 99% of UK exports, buying up all of our Bentleys and Rolls Royceses'

[L00b]

Did you miss this bit,

Not at all, on the contrary I am very familiar with the anti-EU rethoric. The problem is that it is, indeed, rethoric: big on vague statistics and loud numbers, and fundamentally lacking in verifiable facts.

"Less that 10% of the British economy is involved with trade with the EU yet 100% of the economy is hamstrung by excessing EU regulations which disproportionately harm small and medium sized enterprises.

What are the factual bases for these soundbites?

SMEs employ the vast majority of workers in the UK. It has recently been calculated that the cost of EU regulation is some 5% of GBP equivalent to some £75billion per annum.

What are the factual bases for these soundbites?

On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. The UK is the 26 other states of the EU biggest single customer. And actually has a trade deficit of £50 billion per year.

What are the factual bases for these soundbites?

Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries – which it does.

Now that, I can confirm to you right now, is complete and utter bollotox. Read the Treaty, the latest consolidated version is here.

 

Here's Article 3(4):

4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Lofty ideals indeed. Where is the "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries"?

 

Here's Article 8:

1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.

 

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

Where is the "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries"?

 

Have a look at Article 50, governing exit from the EU. It's bigger than 8 (though not much more)...but here's a preview anyway: there's nothing about any "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries" either.

Besides, discriminating against exports would be illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation."

LOL. Bless

[boyfriday]

I think he knows more about working men than a lot on this forum do.

 

I guess that's why he fled Cudworth to the shire glades of North Yorkshire so he didn't have to associate with them.