Thread: What should our Exit and Survival Strategy be from the EU?

Originally Posted by Niall Warry

I believe you make a good point but even with the EU potentially leaving us we should still work out our E&SS to ensure we have everything covered.

As a sort of recent thought to add to my previous post it occurs to me that the Euro was meant to equalise the monetary and economic systems in Europe to aid integration of all the member states. If as I believe this is so it seems obvious that because of the radically different economic ability and conditions occurring throughout the nation states of Europe for example a strong Germany and a weak Spain sharing the same currency value the only way to truly equalise the various levels is to bankrupt them all or very close to it. Then by the juggling of bonds and bail outs all are made equally bust, and in order to progress back to sustainability the fastest route would of course be under one controlling influence, that is one Government on mainland Europe. The more bits of news and information that are added to my poor skull ever more strongly point to the fact that the EURO was from day one designed to fail in order to produce the above result via the exact writhing and fiddling we are seeing now from the Sarkel twins.
I think our get out strategy could be no more complex than our government having the nuts to say enough is enough we have backed you until now and you have produced only failure and chaos, our brass is now stopping in our pockets.

Originally Posted by paralreg

As a sort of recent thought to add to my previous post it occurs to me that the Euro was meant to equalise the monetary and economic systems in Europe to aid integration of all the member states. If as I believe this is so it seems obvious that because of the radically different economic ability and conditions occurring throughout the nation states of Europe for example a strong Germany and a weak Spain sharing the same currency value the only way to truly equalise the various levels is to bankrupt them all or very close to it. Then by the juggling of bonds and bail outs all are made equally bust, and in order to progress back to sustainability the fastest route would of course be under one controlling influence, that is one Government on mainland Europe. The more bits of news and information that are added to my poor skull ever more strongly point to the fact that the EURO was from day one designed to fail in order to produce the above result via the exact writhing and fiddling we are seeing now from the Sarkel twins.
I think our get out strategy could be no more complex than our government having the nuts to say enough is enough we have backed you until now and you have produced only failure and chaos, our brass is now stopping in our pockets.

Exactly but like ANY divorce you have to work out the seperation details - hence we must have an E&SS.

Also an E&SS and benefits analysis of leaving the EU MUST be completed to ensure we win any referendum if it is called.

Originally Posted by prober

Clegg says (unchallenged) that UK has to stay subordinate to EU because 2 million jobs and 40% of our exports ( implying 40% of our income) is bound up with EU and would be lost if we pulled out.

One would have thought that ages ago UKIP would have articulated and quantified on its website a vision for a future of and step by step pathway to a UK outside the EU emerging as a global
outward looking production and bilateral international trading link nation ....to replace the inward looking future of being hampered by a declining high cost EU. An essential part of such public
education would be to identify and realistically quantify the short and long term political and economic costs and and benefits and what would need to be done to ensure that the man in the street is not hit in the pocket and how he would benefit.

In addition, the idea that after (if) UK walks away or renegotiates membership, the EU (despite its problems) is just going to disappear makes UKIP look head in sand ridiculous. To establish its credibility UKIP should have on its website its identification of what a future EU could be like ( an association of free nations in co-operation and negotiated bilateral free trade with no powers over nations) , how it could be structured , how a pathway could come about and what savings would result and what UK's relationship to it would be. UKIP was wedded to election campaignprinciples of "keep it simple just say " NO !" That gets 16% of the vote .

Note that if a referendum on pull out from the EU is held today it would be lost because the "fear factor" would overcome antipathy towards the EU. One would have thought that a prime objective of UKIP would be public education targeted to overcome that fear. Its shop window ( its website) doesnt seem to indicate it is very important.

A party hungry for success would deeply attack the record of big 3 MPS and failure of their parties as cant or wont provide the EU solution in the interests of UK people. UKIP hardly tries except for the odd squeak and MPs can ignore UKIP with impunity. UKIP as a party seems to be an invisible except on displacement activity ( English parliament , MEPs in Pan European party or not, pub campaign) , ... almost an irelevant spectator of events going more or less its way . Despite once having more MEPs than Labour BBC dont invite UKIP on newsnight when economists and EU officials are deliberating EU solutions/problems or the domestic economy is the subject. That fits the concept of a party happy for events to take their course and relieved to disband and support Tories (a la Pearson ) if a referendum is achieved and UK pulls out of the EU. It doesnt fit the concept of a party that has a domestic credibility long term vision.

Where have you been hiding!!!

I agree but as I repeatedly say EUKIP has no vison because they have NEVER had any strategy, tactic or plan.

Originally Posted by prober

Clegg says (unchallenged) that UK has to stay subordinate to EU because 2 million jobs and 40% of our exports ( implying 40% of our income) is bound up with EU and would be lost if we pulled out.....

I think, like a few here prober, there is a feeling that UKIP, in it's present form and "leadership" profile, isn't going anywhere. So whilst I think it should be giving thought to an exit and post-secession strategy, it is - electorally speaking - a pipe dream. Instead of getting their policies right, media message "on song" with the public and MSM, an appealing website (the harshest criticism I hear comes from active members), and then an electoral strategy which doesn't involve blanket coverage in a general election, then they may be rewarded with a seat or two in a general election (maybe not even the next one!)

That disgraceful brainwashing and propaganda like this garbage that Clegg has vomited goes unchallenged by UKIP is a true obscenity of our age. This has been spouted a few times in BBC1 Question Time, until Peter Hitchens tore Sarah Teather a new one confronting her to name a single source that could support this nonsense. She couldn't - of course - and was utterly humiliated. In fact, Civitas have analysed that 3 million jobs in the EU depend on the UK's membership.

But at the moment, as when I left it, the only thing that matters is the Euro elections in 2014, and jockeying for position and backstabbing / throatcutting for those started over a year ago. Believe it or not! Local / county elections can remain uncontested, the only thing that matters is the gravy train club.... I mean.... European parliament elections. Generally speaking.

Originally Posted by Steve Morson

I think, like a few here prober, there is a feeling that UKIP, in it's present form and "leadership" profile, isn't going anywhere. So whilst I think it should be giving thought to an exit and post-secession strategy, it is - electorally speaking - a pipe dream. Instead of getting their policies right, media message "on song" with the public and MSM, an appealing website (the harshest criticism I hear comes from active members), and then an electoral strategy which doesn't involve blanket coverage in a general election, then they may be rewarded with a seat or two in a general election (maybe not even the next one!)

That disgraceful brainwashing and propaganda like this garbage that Clegg has vomited goes unchallenged by UKIP is a true obscenity of our age. This has been spouted a few times in BBC1 Question Time, until Peter Hitchens tore Sarah Teather a new one confronting her to name a single source that could support this nonsense. She couldn't - of course - and was utterly humiliated. In fact, Civitas have analysed that 3 million jobs in the EU depend on the UK's membership.

But at the moment, as when I left it, the only thing that matters is the Euro elections in 2014, and jockeying for position and backstabbing / throatcutting for those started over a year ago. Believe it or not! Local / county elections can remain uncontested, the only thing that matters is the gravy train club.... I mean.... European parliament elections. Generally speaking.

What an accurate analysis from an ex-insider, who like myself, saw first hand what EUKIP is now all about.

It is for these reasons I keep banging on about EUKIP in the possible hope something might just improve but increasingly I have realised that is a pretty forlorn hope.

Originally Posted by Steve Morson

I think, like a few here prober, there is a feeling that UKIP, in it's present form and "leadership" profile, isn't going anywhere. So whilst I think it should be giving thought to an exit and post-secession strategy, it is - electorally speaking - a pipe dream. Instead of getting their policies right, media message "on song" with the public and MSM, an appealing website (the harshest criticism I hear comes from active members), and then an electoral strategy which doesn't involve blanket coverage in a general election, then they may be rewarded with a seat or two in a general election (maybe not even the next one!)

That disgraceful brainwashing and propaganda like this garbage that Clegg has vomited goes unchallenged by UKIP is a true obscenity of our age. This has been spouted a few times in BBC1 Question Time, until Peter Hitchens tore Sarah Teather a new one confronting her to name a single source that could support this nonsense. She couldn't - of course - and was utterly humiliated. In fact, Civitas have analysed that 3 million jobs in the EU depend on the UK's membership.

But at the moment, as when I left it, the only thing that matters is the Euro elections in 2014, and jockeying for position and backstabbing / throatcutting for those started over a year ago. Believe it or not! Local / county elections can remain uncontested, the only thing that matters is the gravy train club.... I mean.... European parliament elections. Generally speaking.

What an accurate analysis from an ex-insider, who like myself, saw first hand what EUKIP is now all about.

The whole sordid (which in this context I mean 'selfish and grasping') EUKIP machine is now about one thing which is the election of MEPs onto the EU gravy train who as a prerequisite must all sycophantically worship at the feet and 'Big up' Nigel Farage.

It is for these reasons I keep banging on about EUKIP in the possible hope something might just improve but increasingly I have realised that this is a pretty forlorn hope.

Even so I still maintain it is essential that those of us who rumbled EUKIP a long time ago owe it to the country to keep pointing out the unpalatable truth about Nigel's EUKIP.

Can I remind you of Post 10 which I made which is what this thread is all about.

EXIT AND SURVIVAL STRATEGY – FIRST PRINCIPLES

1. We need to renegotiate our position over a number of years and not simply leave -Time scale for renegotiation could be say 5 years for the key principles and possibly 10 before our new renegotiated position is fully implemented and operational.
2. Payments to the EU budget would be reduced over say 5 years
3. Taking part in Euro elections along the way of our renegotiation need to be considered with the following types of considerations that the terms and conditions of all existing MEPs are in the main the responsibility the EU and any new MEPs, if applicable, being paid but not pensioned by the EU.
4. Withdrawal from the CAP and CFP and negotiating a free trade agreement would be 3 of the key areas to sort out within the first 5 years.
5. Parallel trade negotiations would need to start from day one with Commonwealth and any other countries we trade with.
6. 10 year plan to resort our own judicial system
7. Border immigration controls could be one of the few areas to take back control of on day one while the negotiations to repatriate, absorb or redefine visa status for EU citizens in this country would take longer.
8. Unwinding the tentacles of our defence that are tied up with the EU would take 5-10 years but the aim would be our own defence force capable of operating on its own to accomplish all the tasks required of it by the Country’s defence responsibilities.
9. Sole UK Foreign policy reinstated over a first few years
10. The repeal of EU bureaucracy in trade, industry, H&S, NHS or education etc etc phased over first 5 years

Originally Posted by Niall Warry

Can I remind you of Post 10 which I made which is what this thread is all about.

EXIT AND SURVIVAL STRATEGY – FIRST PRINCIPLES

1. We need to renegotiate our position over a number of years and not simply leave -Time scale for renegotiation could be say 5 years for the key principles and possibly 10 before our new renegotiated position is fully implemented and operational.
2. Payments to the EU budget would be reduced over say 5 years
3. Taking part in Euro elections along the way of our renegotiation need to be considered with the following types of considerations that the terms and conditions of all existing MEPs are in the main the responsibility the EU and any new MEPs, if applicable, being paid but not pensioned by the EU.
4. Withdrawal from the CAP and CFP and negotiating a free trade agreement would be 3 of the key areas to sort out within the first 5 years.
5. Parallel trade negotiations would need to start from day one with Commonwealth and any other countries we trade with.
6. 10 year plan to resort our own judicial system
7. Border immigration controls could be one of the few areas to take back control of on day one while the negotiations to repatriate, absorb or redefine visa status for EU citizens in this country would take longer.
8. Unwinding the tentacles of our defence that are tied up with the EU would take 5-10 years but the aim would be our own defence force capable of operating on its own to accomplish all the tasks required of it by the Country’s defence responsibilities.
9. Sole UK Foreign policy reinstated over a first few years
10. The repeal of EU bureaucracy in trade, industry, H&S, NHS or education etc etc phased over first 5 years

There is one other factor to take into account (not wishing to be politically judgemental mind), and that is the government has a huge stack of work to do already. They came into power with everything wrong, and the country in imminent danger of rapidly going to the dogs. Osborne first of all needed to put a few things in order sharpish to stop the pound being speculated against. I think the government have been working though the list in terms of important things that can be fixed quickly done first, because there is only so much government time available. They needed to shut the quangos to defeat leftwing politicised institutions before doing controvertial things. So it is all happening in some sort of planned order.

What I would guess is that they will want to get the easier stuff passed first before taking on the EU, and that is why they have kept a bit of a low profile on it. It's not wise to start a major political battle on the first day in office. However it is also not wise to leave it to the last day. I just think the time is right now. They are at their weak point because of the euro-crisis.

I'm pretty certain Cameron is being a bit devious here. He has a habit of treating his enemies with a smiling face while stabbing them in the back (recall the referendum on AV). He says he considers the euro to be an important issue, but that does not mean he loves the euro. Lady Thatcher would hit them head on, but perhaps a slyer approach is the more intelligent because it means your opponents don't have any ammunition to fire at him. It's the intention he has which is of utmost importance here, and I'm pretty certain Cameron is not too keen on the EU. His backbenchers hate it, but judge a man on his actions and not his words. If he manages to wriggle out of paying more cash to the IMF, like the Canadians are refusing currently, then its another brownie point for him and he knows that. Cameron is a political person by nature.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

There is one other factor to take into account (not wishing to be politically judgemental mind), and that is the government has a huge stack of work to do already. They came into power with everything wrong, and the country in imminent danger of rapidly going to the dogs. Osborne first of all needed to put a few things in order sharpish to stop the pound being speculated against. I think the government have been working though the list in terms of important things that can be fixed quickly done first, because there is only so much government time available. They needed to shut the quangos to defeat leftwing politicised institutions before doing controvertial things. So it is all happening in some sort of planned order.

What I would guess is that they will want to get the easier stuff passed first before taking on the EU, and that is why they have kept a bit of a low profile on it. It's not wise to start a major political battle on the first day in office. However it is also not wise to leave it to the last day. I just think the time is right now. They are at their weak point because of the euro-crisis.

I'm pretty certain Cameron is being a bit devious here. He has a habit of treating his enemies with a smiling face while stabbing them in the back (recall the referendum on AV). He says he considers the euro to be an important issue, but that does not mean he loves the euro. Lady Thatcher would hit them head on, but perhaps a slyer approach is the more intelligent because it means your opponents don't have any ammunition to fire at him. It's the intention he has which is of utmost importance here, and I'm pretty certain Cameron is not too keen on the EU. His backbenchers hate it, but judge a man on his actions and not his words. If he manages to wriggle out of paying more cash to the IMF, like the Canadians are refusing currently, then its another brownie point for him and he knows that. Cameron is a political person by nature.

Our Government machine is huge and it would be easy for Ministers to provide the resources to set out our E&SS and of course the benefits of leaving the EU if they really wanted to.