EU corruption "equivalent to the bloc's annual budget"

[KentPhilip]

UKIP will have an answer for this; they have an answer for everything. I never hear them say 'you know, that's a good question, we need to work something out for that'. That's a reason for me to distrust them; they're too convinced of themselves, a bit like hardline socialists can always give you a manufactured answer about how some problem like the rain dripping into Zeity's workplace is a symbol of the international class struggle.

UKIPPERS, take note; if you want me to take you seriously, start to admit doubt and allow space for alternative ideas instead of this binary in-or-out ideal that reminds me of George W Bush's idea of 'with us or against us' (like maybe joining forces with others to reform the EU, joining the EEA, renegotiating etc). And stop yapping on about the three main parties all being the same; they aren't. Some of their members and some of their MPs agree on some things; that isn't communism, as one of their MEPs recently claimed, it's just that some ideas might seem so eminently sensible that left, right and middle are able to agree on them.

Grow up; take it seriously, accept that you aren't always right, accept that consensus does not equal conspiracy, accept that there are infinite possibilities outside of the simple 'in or out' equation and I might just be able to take you seriously.

What makes you think that UKIP has not already thought through their policies. Indeed many of us (though perhaps not me as much) have a great deal of life experience, including political and business experience, that every bit rivals that of politicians and activists of the other parties. Indeed many of us have come from the other parties. Why would we "admit doubt" about our view on things when we no longer have any serious doubts about those views? Would Cameron, Clegg, or Milliband admit doubt about things - certainly not because they believe in what they are saying (well sometimes).

The other parties are not quite all the same, but there is much less difference between them than there was, say, 40 years ago.

I am sure that things are not perfect in UKIP, and minor changes would be beneficial. So if you believe in our core principles but think some things are wrong then come and join us, and help shape the party. Our core members make the party, and you can be one of them.

[doodab]

The other parties are not quite all the same, but there is much less difference between them than there was, say, 40 years ago.

There is a lot more data and scientific evidence around stuff like healthcare & education now than there was 40 years ago, so the debate is better informed. There is less room for flights of fancy that are proven not to work.

Also, if you have three people taking on board evidence and public opinion and they are mostly reaching the same conclusions, that's probably a good sign that those conclusions are valid. That's why ultra safety critical systems use a 2 from 3 majority voting system with software designed by independent teams. If all three subsystems agree, it's probably the right answer.

[doodab]

What makes you think that UKIP has not already thought through their policies.

The fact they don't seem to be very well thought through?

[Mich the Tester]

What makes you think that UKIP has not already thought through their policies. Indeed many of us (though perhaps not me as much) have a great deal of life experience, including political and business experience, that every bit rivals that of politicians and activists of the other parties. Indeed many of us have come from the other parties. Why would we "admit doubt" about our view on things when we no longer have any serious doubts about those views? Would Cameron, Clegg, or Milliband admit doubt about things - certainly not because they believe in what they are saying (well sometimes).

The other parties are not quite all the same, but there is much less difference between them than there was, say, 40 years ago.

I am sure that things are not perfect in UKIP, and minor changes would be beneficial. So if you believe in our core principles but think some things are wrong then come and join us, and help shape the party. Our core members make the party, and you can be one of them.

I wasn't asking about the other parties, I was asking about UKIP. But anyway, can you really say you have no serious doubt about what will happen if Britain leaves the EU? Are you really so sure that the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians and so on will say 'sure, here's a free trade deal', even though quite a few of their citizens might suddenly lose their right to work in the UK, and the Italians see the EU funding for their naval border controls (that try to stem the tide of migrants into Europe while saving lives) diminished because the UK doesn't want to contribute? You think the Greeks, whose borders with Asia are now funded by the EU (a lot of British taxpayers money) will say 'oh fine, leave us in the lurch but we'll sign a free trade deal because we love you anyway'? 'Are you really sure that all those 'highly skilled' British emigrants will be allowed to stay in other EU countries, despite the fact that those countries are run by people who are certainly no more rational than the 'liblabcons'? Do you really not have any serious doubts?

Come on, admit it; you don't actually have much clue what will happen, and neither do I; that, for me, is a reason to let the status quo remain in place while we allow and negotiate the emergence of something that might be better instead of taking this radical step of walking out in a huff (one thing that guarantees in most continental cultures that you won't be taken seriously) where really nobody knows how it will work out. Are you really sure there are no other ways to achieve a position of free trade in Europe or to reform and shrink the EU to something more palatable? It's just 'leave and then make trade agreements' is it?


I am not necessarily very pro-EU, but I am certainly, at the moment, in the current conditions, opposed to leaving it because I think there are many ways to achieve something better, but you know what? I don't know. I also have a fair amount of life experience and business experience and I deal with people from all over Europe every day, including some who are, like me (a little bit in my case), involved in European political parties, and all this experience has taught me one thing above all else; I have doubts about everything. I don't know. I have very little certainty about what's right for Europe, NL or the UK, because we are talking about very complex issues that involve internal and foreign politics, geo-politics, (spatial) demographics, economics, history, social affairs, military matters, cultural and inter-cultural matters and I don't know as much about some subjects as about others, and anyone who claims to have a simple answer is unlikely to convince me.

Demonstrate that you understand how complex and uncertain the step you propose to take really is.

[KentPhilip]

I wasn't asking about the other parties, I was asking about UKIP. But anyway, can you really say you have no serious doubt about what will happen if Britain leaves the EU? Are you really so sure that the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians and so on will say 'sure, here's a free trade deal', even though quite a few of their citizens might suddenly lose their right to work in the UK, and the Italians see the EU funding for their naval border controls (that try to stem the tide of migrants into Europe while saving lives) diminished because the UK doesn't want to contribute? You think the Greeks, whose borders with Asia are now funded by the EU (a lot of British taxpayers money) will say 'oh fine, leave us in the lurch but we'll sign a free trade deal because we love you anyway'? 'Are you really sure that all those 'highly skilled' British emigrants will be allowed to stay in other EU countries, despite the fact that those countries are run by people who are certainly no more rational than the 'liblabcons'? Do you really not have any serious doubts?

Come on, admit it; you don't actually have much clue what will happen, and neither do I; that, for me, is a reason to let the status quo remain in place while we allow and negotiate the emergence of something that might be better instead of taking this radical step of walking out in a huff (one thing that guarantees in most continental cultures that you won't be taken seriously) where really nobody knows how it will work out. Are you really sure there are no other ways to achieve a position of free trade in Europe or to reform and shrink the EU to something more palatable? It's just 'leave and then make trade agreements' is it?


I am not necessarily very pro-EU, but I am certainly, at the moment, in the current conditions, opposed to leaving it because I think there are many ways to achieve something better, but you know what? I don't know. I also have a fair amount of life experience and business experience and I deal with people from all over Europe every day, including some who are, like me (a little bit in my case), involved in European political parties, and all this experience has taught me one thing above all else; I have doubts about everything. I don't know. I have very little certainty about what's right for Europe, NL or the UK, because we are talking about very complex issues that involve internal and foreign politics, geo-politics, (spatial) demographics, economics, history, social affairs, military matters, cultural and inter-cultural matters and I don't know as much about some subjects as about others, and anyone who claims to have a simple answer is unlikely to convince me.

Demonstrate that you understand how complex and uncertain the step you propose to take really is.

You say that you "don't know", but the reality is that we do know. We know that until very recently in world history the UK was a sovereign nation, and did very nicely thank you trading with other nations but running its own political affairs.
Has anything fundamentally changed in the world of technology or trade or social culture to prevent this from being the case in the future? Of course not.

Whether other nations want to have free trade agreements with us is entirely up to them. Our suggestion that they do so it not based upon the fact that they love us, but rather from the economic benefits that free trade delivers to both parties. Yes there may be (in fact probably will be) some in Brussels who will try to put up trade tariffs against us, but this policy will in the longer term be harmful to the countries that implement them.

There is no reason why other European countries should not continue to hire "highly skilled" UK workers as they do at present. The key is that the tax on the earnings of those workers must be enough to pay for the state services supplied to them. i.e. the receiving country must be able to benefit from their presence.

Britain has to stand up for itself. The EU represents a dilution of the governance of this country, and as such is completely unacceptable. We need to talk to european nations, help each other at times of difficulty, and support our needy at home. But at core we need each country and culture to be responsible for running itself. Negotiation of our membership of the EU must be to strip it back to what it was originally envisaged to be - a trading bloc.

[Mich the Tester]

Has anything fundamentally changed in the world of technology or trade or social culture to prevent this from being the case in the future?

Yes, other European countries have grouped together in the biggest multi state free trade agreement in history. African countries, Asian and Latin American countries are doing similar things and in future you'll be negotiating with people who represent multiples of 500 million instead of multiples of 5 million.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes there may be (in fact probably will be) some in Brussels who will try to put up trade tariffs against us, but this policy will in the longer term be harmful to the countries that implement them.

But in the short term it might do so much damage to the UK that recovery would be a very long term matter.

[Mich the Tester]

There is no reason why other European countries should not continue to hire "highly skilled" UK workers as they do at present. The key is that the tax on the earnings of those workers must be enough to pay for the state services supplied to them. i.e. the receiving country must be able to benefit from their presence.

Again you are assuming rationality on the part of other European leaders and politicians. I can tell you from experience and from history that you shouldn't do that. Plus, the taxes on the workers from the EU do seem, according to the research, 'to pay for the state services supplied to them'.

Britain has to stand up for itself.

It does, quite well in many cases.

The EU represents a dilution of the governance of this country, and as such is completely unacceptable. We need to talk to european nations, help each other at times of difficulty, and support our needy at home.

We do. Plus, if the EU dilutes the governance of Britain, it also dilutes the governance of some countries with a less honourable democratic long term reputation like Spain, Germany (more recently a good reputation), Portugal, Greece, Italy and a number of Eastern European countries; quite nice to know Britain has a way to exert serious pressure on them.

But at core we need each country and culture to be responsible for running itself.

Well to a large extent I agree, with some major qualifications because history teaches us they aren't all capable of doing that.

Negotiation of our membership of the EU must be to strip it back to what it was originally envisaged to be - a trading bloc.

Yes, I agree, now why do you think that you can achieve that by doing the one thing that I know from extensive experience in Europe that they won't take seriously, i.e. walking out?

[KentPhilip]

But in the short term it might do so much damage to the UK that recovery would be a very long term matter.

The EU currently harms the UK's interests. By getting out you reduce that harm. Yes there will be some sectors that may suffer recruitment problems as a result of, for example, a reduction in the number of Filipino nurses. Well this will cause rates of pay for nurses to rise to compensate (market economics). And once they get high enough the return on investment from the government's perspective will justify allowing some to come in.

Remember though that UKIP will reduce immigration - there are no plans to send them all home straight away. So this whole process can be carefully managed to reduce the impact of the changes.

[Mich the Tester]

The EU currently harms the UK's interests. By getting out you reduce that harm. Yes there will be some sectors that may suffer recruitment problems as a result of, for example, a reduction in the number of Filipino nurses. Well this will cause rates of pay for nurses to rise to compensate (market economics). And once they get high enough the return on investment from the government's perspective will justify allowing some to come in.

Remember though that UKIP will reduce immigration - there are no plans to send them all home straight away. So this whole process can be carefully managed to reduce the impact of the changes.

Does it only harm the UK's interests? Does it not do good for the UK's interests in some other ways? Is it not a balance of interests that you feel is in the wrong direction?

Again, binary thinking; the world isn't binary.

Please, go and put some more thought into all this because it's becoming less and less convincing every time you claim that it's all so simple.