Yorkshire multi-millionaire businessman backs UKIP

[BoroB]

Why would be put to the front of the queue if we wanted to leave the EU? The EU could make it quite clear that if we wanted to leave we'd have to wait decades for a free trade agreement until after other ones had been signed with the USA, India, Brazil, China, et al. In the meantime tariffs would be enforced. They could make us suffer.

 

I find it strange that an organisation you hate so much is one you also feel would go out of its way to be nice to us if we left it against its wishes. That looks a lot like your usual right-wing fantasy world.

 

There's a lot of could's in your post.

 

Could that be because you don't know what would happen if the UK voted to leave the EU?

 

If you do know what would happen if we left the EU could you please post details of the discussions that took place. A link would suffice.

[L00b]

Treaty of Lisbon will do, unless of course you deem it to be useless, in which case why would we be signed up to it.

Have you read it? I guess not

 

The issue is not whether it is useless or not...the issue is that it does not differ at all from the original Treaty we discussed at length and which I quoted earlier, in relation to "free trade agreements" as regards non-EU countries: Lisbon is a mild rewrite of the TEU, is no more a 'constitution' than the TEU was, and Lisbon Articles 5, 8 and 50 are completely unchanged from the TEU and have even kept the same numbering!

 

The consolidated Lisbon is here, and I quote:

Article 5

 

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.

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.

Article 50

 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

 

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Rings any bells? See earlier posts #99 and #183 if not.

[retep]

Have you read it? I guess not

 

The issue is not whether it is useless or not...the issue is that it does not differ at all from the original Treaty we discussed at length and which I quoted earlier, in relation to "free trade agreements" as regards non-EU countries: Lisbon is a mild rewrite of the TEU, is no more a 'constitution' than the TEU was, and Lisbon Articles 5, 8 and 50 are completely unchanged from the TEU and have even kept the same numbering!

 

The consolidated Lisbon is here, and I quote:

 

 

Rings any bells?

 

The clue may be in treaty and shall, ring any bells?

[L00b]

The clue may be in treaty and shall, ring any bells?

Wasting my time with you, tbh.

 

You're either hard of understanding, or in denial.

 

I'll favour you with denial, and leave it at that.

[chalga]

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

 

First time I ever heard of this today,but if it comes off,it seems a bad move that Sykes/UKIP wants to make in taking the UK out of the EU,and then have the UK face negotiating its own trade agreements with the US while the EU would already be well on the way,or even already have, everything sewn up in an agreement with the US.

 

 

 

 

It represents potentially the largest free trade area in history, covering 46% of world GDP (51.3% for all NAFTA, EU and EFTA members),[1] and accounting for large shares of world trade and foreign direct investment.[3] In case of a fully realized agreement until 2015, the European Commission expects 400,000 new jobs, an average a financial relief of 545 Euro for each household every year, as well as annual gains of $160 billion for the EU and $128 billion for the US.[4] However, others dispute these claims and criticise the treaty's secret negotiations and copyright clauses.[5]

[retep]

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

 

First time I ever heard of this today,but if it comes off,it seems a bad move that Sykes/UKIP wants to make in taking the UK out of the EU,and then have the UK face negotiating its own trade agreements with the US while the EU would already be well on the way,or even already have, everything sewn up in an agreement with the US.

 

 

 

 

It represents potentially the largest free trade area in history, covering 46% of world GDP (51.3% for all NAFTA, EU and EFTA members),[1] and accounting for large shares of world trade and foreign direct investment.[3] In case of a fully realized agreement until 2015, the European Commission expects 400,000 new jobs, an average a financial relief of 545 Euro for each household every year, as well as annual gains of $160 billion for the EU and $128 billion for the US.[4] However, others dispute these claims and criticise the treaty's secret negotiations and copyright clauses.[5]

 

 

 

Is it a bad move,

 

"This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy

Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

[chalga]

Is it a bad move,

 

"This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy

Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

 

 

 

Depends if any of these,or things like them are part of UKIP policy.

 

 

Investor-state rules could be used to smash any attempt to save the NHS from corporate control, to re-regulate the banks, to curb the greed of the energy companies, to renationalise the railways, to leave fossil fuels in the ground. These rules shut down democratic alternatives. They outlaw leftwing politics.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Point of information: to leave the EU, the UK need not comply with any treaty "obligations".

A treaty/convention is nothing more than a bi/multi-lateral agreement and wholly unenforceable.

To leave: repeal the 1972 Act. Job done.

[altus]

Point of information: to leave the EU, the UK need not comply with any treaty "obligations".

A treaty/convention is nothing more than a bi/multi-lateral agreement and wholly unenforceable.

To leave: repeal the 1972 Act. Job done.

 

And then sign up to something worse anyway from a much weaker negotiating position - like various countries have to the TPP.

 

And don't bother pretending that excluding ourselves from international trade agreements is going to benefit this country.

[LeMaquis]

Is it a bad move,

 

"This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy

Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

 

retep's suddenly quoting a lefty in the guardian. What irony.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2013 at 07:20 ----------

 

Point of information: to leave the EU, the UK need not comply with any treaty "obligations".

A treaty/convention is nothing more than a bi/multi-lateral agreement and wholly unenforceable.

To leave: repeal the 1972 Act. Job done.

 

And then spend decades clearing up the economic mess.