Yorkshire multi-millionaire businessman backs UKIP

[altus]

I love it when you pick one sentence out of a reply I posted to somebody else (without including their post) in order to blatantly take it out of context.

 

Why would I look at a 1959 manifesto when I could look at UKIPs policies from say the 2010 general election?

 

You're spreading the lies when you say they have no domestic policies. UKIP are the only party solidly against HS2. They're the only party solidly against wind farms. They support shale gas fracking. They support Grammar schools. They want a flat rate of income tax. I'm not asking your opinion on these, just pointing out your regularly trotted out lie that they don't have anything to say other than on the EU and immigration.

You appear to have missed the word "detailed" from LeMaquis's post. UKIP support grammar schools but they don't have plans for the other kids. They want to increase spending and decrease taxes but haven't explained where the money is going to come from.

[SevenRivers]

You appear to have missed the word "detailed" from LeMaquis's post. UKIP support grammar schools but they don't have plans for the other kids. They want to increase spending and decrease taxes but haven't explained where the money is going to come from.

 

You seem to hold UKIP to different standards than the other parties. No party manifesto is particularly detailed. Lib Dems committed to free University; it wasn't costed and they couldn't deliver it. Miliband will cap energy prices....but none of the others agree with that one....Tories flag ship scheme for education was Free Schools and not a lot else....Labour pushed all sections of the public sector to PFI, now they're all paying through the nose for it.

[LeMaquis]

You're spreading the lies when you say they have no domestic policies. UKIP are the only party solidly against HS2. They're the only party solidly against wind farms. They support shale gas fracking. They support Grammar schools. They want a flat rate of income tax.

 

Easily wound up, aren't we? I am aware of UKIP's policies and that a lot of them are against something - HS2, wind farms, smoking ban, modernity - and that some of the things they're for are from the past such as grammar schools.

 

I don't want to terrify you but I went to a grammar school and look what happened. Grammar schools were only for 25% of kids. The rest went to 2nd class schools. They're elitist and are dominated by the middle class. The only real advantage is that they're great for teaching you how to wind up reactionaries.

 

They were also set up by the 1944 Education Act and so I apologise for saying earlier that UKIP's manifesto is 15 years more modern than it actually is.

[SevenRivers]

I don't want to terrify you but I went to a grammar school and look what happened.

 

I never said Grammar schools were miracle workers.

[erebus]

One might suggest that a fool is easily parted from his money, as its the banks and their backers that pull the political strings. This is the age of corporate rule, not democracy!

[SevenRivers]

Your contention is manifestly that the EU would let the UK exit (straightforward application of Art.50 of the Treaty, no probs) but would not apply the levies which it currently applies to most imports from outside the EU.

 

Please explain to me how and why the EU would not apply to the UK, the current levies which it applies to the US, China, Russia, Norway and all others outside the EU.

 

I'll ignore any reply based on a notional "free trade agreement", because there's no such thing, as already explained to retep in post#99. E.g. the EU has long applied import levies on Norway's exports (seafood, oil).

 

Whilst on about UKIP and EEA poster boy Norway, here's a factual example of what can soon happen once the nationalist-influenced coalition now in charge starts to implement protectionist measures. The politicians do the politicking...meanwhile the Norwegians, I quote, "already pay among the highest food prices in the world".

 

But hey, don't mind me. I'm only scaremongering (just like I and many others were, about the economy, including the property and finance markets, over the 2005-2007 period )

 

The EU were about to enter a free trade agreement with Ukraine....why would the EU offer Ukraine a free trade deal, but not extend such a deal to the UK which is the world's 7th largest economy?

[tzijlstra]

The EU were about to enter a free trade agreement with Ukraine....why would the EU offer Ukraine a free trade deal, but not extend such a deal to the UK which is the world's 7th largest economy?

 

Let's turn that question around, why leave the EU if it means leaving the Ukrainian trade deal on the table, it wouldn't carry over automatically if the UK had a similar deal to the Ukraine with the EU.

 

I feel there is a bit too much focus on potential levies in this discussion. There are many more important factors that would impact on the trade. Take legal reasons alone, currently if you buy a product from another EU country you are protected under EU law, leave the EU and you lose the ability to pursue justice through the EU courts.

 

If you patent something within the EU you patent it for the entire tradezone, meaning your IP is far better protected.

 

The EU regulates infrastructure costs, if you aren't in the EU you lose the regulation regarding cost of sending goods, phoning people etc. etc.

 

The EU provides numerous channels for procurement ensuring that public projects are offered on the EU wide market, rather than just on national markets, leaving the EU means that for example Bombardier in Derby loses the right to use those channels to sell trains to, let's say Poland or Swann Morton to use them to offer to supply healthcare products throughout the EU.

[retep]

The EU were about to enter a free trade agreement with Ukraine....why would the EU offer Ukraine a free trade deal, but not extend such a deal to the UK which is the world's 7th largest economy?

 

"The European Unions Constitutional Obligation to Negotiate with a Member State wishing to withdraw voluntarily from the Union, and to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with the departing Member State"

http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN61.pdf

[LeMaquis]

The EU were about to enter a free trade agreement with Ukraine....why would the EU offer Ukraine a free trade deal, but not extend such a deal to the UK which is the world's 7th largest economy?

 

The EU was trying to get Ukraine to join the EU. The free trade deal was the carrot but the pro-Russia authoritarian tendency in Ukraine put pressure on to delay signing. The deal was only on offer to tempt Ukraine into the EU. If the UK left the EU there is no reason to suggest a similar deal would be on offer as the situation would be the reverse.

[dosxuk]

The EU were about to enter a free trade agreement with Ukraine....why would the EU offer Ukraine a free trade deal, but not extend such a deal to the UK which is the world's 7th largest economy?

 

The EU doesn't have a free trade deal with the world's largest economy, why would they bother with the 7th?