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

[doodab]

I don't recall part of UKIP's manifesto being sinking your money into a poorly governed country on patriotic grounds.

Well they can't advise putting it into well governed countries like germany or sweden can they?

[KentPhilip]

After the election I'm taking all my investments out of the UK and sticking them the other side of Bangkok.

Proud patriot you are!

Well OK I should have clarified that I'll only take my money out of the UK if UKIP don't actually WIN the election (i.e. leaving liblabcon in power). Would indeed look a bit bad if I did if they did.

[Zero Liability]

I don't recall part of UKIP's manifesto being sinking your money into a poorly governed country on patriotic grounds.

[petergriffin]

After the election I'm taking all my investments out of the UK and sticking them the other side of Bangkok.

Proud patriot you are!

But then, expecting consistency from the U-kippers is a lost cause.

[KentPhilip]

In 10 years time Euro zone will be fooked. The future is East.

It already is - it's just that many people don't realize it.
After the election I'm taking all my investments out of the UK and sticking them the other side of Bangkok.

[BrilloPad]

So to summarise, the UKIP will cut ties with it's main trading parteners Germany, Benelux and France, and forge stronger ties with less corrupt countries such as China and India.

In 10 years time Euro zone will be fooked. The future is East.

[Mich the Tester]

That is true if you restrict yourself to conducting the trade through the trade agreement. But what is there to prevent individual companies in the member countries from trading with each other outside of the agreement? For example to draw another analogy there are two ways to purchase an app for an android phone - through the "official" android market (aka the trade agreement) or to purchase direct from the website supplying the app. The former is regarded as "safe", but that is not to say that the latter is not also acceptable if the seller has a good brand and is trusted.
Is it not the case that a trade agreement is a facilitator of trade, not a controlling of it?

THIS is a very good point and it's exactly the kind of thing I want to see changed in the EU, and quite a lot of people in Dutch politics want changed too (as well as Germans and others), mostly those who are in favour of EU membership and especially those who run businesses. Being part of one free trade agreement should never exclude a member from trading freely with countries outside that agreement, and I think this is one of the ways in which the EU creates bad blood.

[KentPhilip]

Not at all, I'm pointing out that 100% self determination is impossible if you take part in international agreements on matters like trade and defense

Apologies for the delay in replying to this.

That is a good point, and you might be right.
May I turn the question round and ask "If the UK insists on 100% self determination, what if any international agreements can it take part in?"
The answer to this question may be "none" but I don't think this is the case. I think some common ground can be negotiated, but the point is that the decision as to whether to agree or disagree to each point under discussion should always be taken by the sovereign nation, not the central body (the EU). i.e. we must retain the authority, not delegate it.

However, if you join a trade agreement where you have no influence on the regulations and simply take the view of 'well we'll forget about that trade' where you don't comply, then you actually have less self determination AND less money. In the EEA, the moment you choose to not implement an EU trade regulation over which you've given up influence, you lose the right, in your example, to sell beef to Austria, but that could just as well be to sell cars all over Europe, sell aerospace engines to France, financial services to Germany and Holland, software to every car manufacturer in the EU, diggers to pretty much everyone and many other wonderful things that Britain exports. So you see, outside the EU and inside the EEA or EFTA, Britain will have less self determination as well as less means to influence some of those countries in Europe that have always been and might otherwise always be a bit loony.

That is true if you restrict yourself to conducting the trade through the trade agreement. But what is there to prevent individual companies in the member countries from trading with each other outside of the agreement? For example to draw another analogy there are two ways to purchase an app for an android phone - through the "official" android market (aka the trade agreement) or to purchase direct from the website supplying the app. The former is regarded as "safe", but that is not to say that the latter is not also acceptable if the seller has a good brand and is trusted.
Is it not the case that a trade agreement is a facilitator of trade, not a controlling of it?

[darmstadt]

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. If you're worried about Orwellian nightmares, there's a lot more reason to be scared of the bureaucrats in London than in Brussels.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, now in permanent effect in Haringey...

[Mich the Tester]

I happen to think that the inexorable rise to ever bigger corporations and governments is a very bad thing.

So do I.

To me you are buying into the too big to fail mantra. You are effectively saying that the EU and its institutions are too big and powerful to be undermined by a group of people exercising any democratic right to step away from something.

Clearly I am not; I'm engaging in debate with people who want to exercise that democratic right, just as I want to exercise mine. I agree that the EU institutions have become too big and powerful; I simply disagree with you and KentPhilip on how to change that.

This is sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare. whatever the arguments for and against the UKs withdrawal are I suggest you and your identityless German friend take a long look at history.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. If you're worried about Orwellian nightmares, there's a lot more reason to be scared of the bureaucrats in London than in Brussels.

[petergriffin]

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.

Hello? What do the Filipino nurses have to do with the EU?

Sure, you make a great UKIP candidate.

[DodgyAgent]

KIPPERS, 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.

Pot an kettle.

I have read what you have to say on this subject and I see you have an answer for everything.
I happen to think that the inexorable rise to ever bigger corporations and governments is a very bad thing. To me you are buying into the too big to fail mantra. You are effectively saying that the EU and its institutions are too big and powerful to be undermined by a group of people exercising any democratic right to step away from something.
This is sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare. whatever the arguments for and against the UKs withdrawal are I suggest you and your identityless German friend take a long look at history.

[DodgyAgent]

Not at all, I'm pointing out that 100% self determination is impossible if you take part in international agreements on matters like trade and defense. Now, I take it you would like more self determination than the UK currently has, and I would agree with you there.

However, if you join a trade agreement where you have no influence on the regulations and simply take the view of 'well we'll forget about that trade' where you don't comply, then you actually have less self determination AND less money. In the EEA, the moment you choose to not implement an EU trade regulation over which you've given up influence, you lose the right, in your example, to sell beef to Austria, but that could just as well be to sell cars all over Europe, sell aerospace engines to France, financial services to Germany and Holland, software to every car manufacturer in the EU, diggers to pretty much everyone and many other wonderful things that Britain exports. So you see, outside the EU and inside the EEA or EFTA, Britain will have less self determination as well as less means to influence some of those countries in Europe that have always been and might otherwise always be a bit loony.

That works both ways.

[Zero Liability]

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.

Would you be so kind as to clarify, in practical terms, what the major differences between the big three parties are? I am curious. Also, when have the major parties shown the humility you expect of UKIP? Why should they say "I don't know", when they may have already thought of the issue? I am strongly against the notion of top-down government, yet it is not politicians per se who need to show this humility, but the bureaucrats and regulators beneath them.

Come to think of it, when do the EU's upper echelons show this sort of humility?

If the British want to leave the EU, it should be our prerogative to at least get a referendum on the matter, irrespective of what the supposed economic or other "benefits" touted are.

[darmstadt]

Nonsense. We want 100% to determine to the UK what the UK's policies should be (assuming we are elected). We don't care about the EU - their policies are up to them.

What about NATO, the UN, the WTO, UNICEF, OECD?