Not like the rest at all ?

[Anna]

I personally do not envisage much change anyway, should the UK leave the EU, both ways around. UK law will be pretty much as is, and BMW, Mercedes Audi etc will be aggressively pursuing the UK market and selling us squillions of German cars.

The changes will be more on a going forward basis.

Are you saying that nothing would change because UKIP would apply to join with EEA (like Norway?) But that would mean also belonging to EFTA because in order to be a party to the EEA Agreement it is necessary either to be a member of the EU or of EFTA.

If the UK were to leave the EU, it would be neither. The UK was a member of EFTA from 1960 until 1973 but relinquished its membership in order to join the EU. Thus, if the UK left the EU but wanted to remain a party to the EEA Agreement it would first have to apply to re-join EFTA and then apply to become a party to the EEA Agreement as a member of EFTA.

Upon joining EFTA, the terms and conditions of the UK’s participation in the EEA Agreement would also have to be negotiated and agreed by the contracting parties to the Agreement (including of course the EU). It’s important to bear in mind that the EU attaches great significance to the free movement of persons as one of the pillars of the internal market and thus the EEA Agreement.

Rejoining isn’t as straight forward as some suggest and, even if we did rejoin & were accepted into the EEA, the result would be to have all the same conditions for free trade, including the free movement of people, with one important difference, we would have no say over any changes any more.

Sorry to be longwinded, but my point is: Unless the UK decided to go it totally alone as a small offshore island and negotiating its own trade agreements leaving the EU but belonging to EEA/EFTA would not stop immigration as UKIP say it would, our borders would still be open and UKIP will have totally misled their voters who are concerned about immigration that a vote for them stops immigrants coming here.

[ahinton]

Definitely a point to be considered. No point dealing with the symptoms - what are the specific policies that you are referring to, specifically?

I'm struggling vainly to grasp what it is about UKIP's immigration policies and the sheer narrow-mindedness behind its avowed intent to extricate UK from EU without a referendum (regardless of the effects of that on UK) - a narrow-mindedness that manifests itself in the extent to which UKIP is prepared to ensure that UK reject certain aspects of its relationships with its other European neighbours - that prompts you, especially at this stage (given what several members have contributed here), to ask that question. Are you genuinely unable and/or unwilling to consider the possibility that attitudes publicly expressed by Mr Farage, for example, towards Romanian citizens (who are EU citizens just as much as are French, German, Danish and British ones) may reasonably be seen as inflammatory, offensive, destructive, divisive and inappropriate for the leader of a bona fide political party in UK? Some might even be forgiven for thinking to construe from them that UKIP would like to restrict immigration into England from citizens of a post-independence Scotland; you might consider that a fatuous notion, but what would be the difference in principle between a wish to restrict immigration from Scotland and a wish to do the same from Romania or any other EU nation?

I note that you've yet to provide a considered response either to my example that illustrates that EC's overt choice to decline all involvement in certain decision making powers of EU member states' governments' clearly demonstrates that by no means all EU member states' laws are "made in Brussels" or to Richard Barrett's point which clarifies that severing UK's EU membership will entail neither the wholesale breach of all ties between UK and EU nor the sudden and immediate cesssation of all of UK's responsibilities towards EU; with regard to the latter, there would - among many other factors - be the question of breach of legal contract to be taken into consideration.

[ahinton]

Are you saying that nothing would change because UKIP would apply to join with EEA (like Norway?) But that would mean also belonging to EFTA because in order to be a party to the EEA Agreement it is necessary either to be a member of the EU or of EFTA.

If the UK were to leave the EU, it would be neither. The UK was a member of EFTA from 1960 until 1973 but relinquished its membership in order to join the EU. Thus, if the UK left the EU but wanted to remain a party to the EEA Agreement it would first have to apply to re-join EFTA and then apply to become a party to the EEA Agreement as a member of EFTA.

Upon joining EFTA, the terms and conditions of the UK’s participation in the EEA Agreement would also have to be negotiated and agreed by the contracting parties to the Agreement (including of course the EU). It’s important to bear in mind that the EU attaches great significance to the free movement of persons as one of the pillars of the internal market and thus the EEA Agreement.

Rejoining isn’t as straight forward as some suggest and, even if we did rejoin & were accepted into the EEA, the result would be to have all the same conditions for free trade, including the free movement of people, with one important difference, we would have no say over any changes any more.

Sorry to be longwinded, but my point is: Unless the UK decided to go it totally alone as a small offshore island and negotiating its own trade agreements leaving the EU but belonging to EEA/EFTA would not stop immigration as UKIP say it would, our borders would still be open and UKIP will have totally misled their voters who are concerned about immigration that a vote for them stops immigrants coming here.

Very good points all, which serve, among other things, to illustrate how UKIP would appear, however, unconvincingly, to be wanting to try to have its gâteau and mange it.

The free movement of people throughout Europe - and the sheer red-herring status of UKIP's apparent stance on it - are of particular significance here, given how few restrictions on such movement with Europe pertain in Western non-EU states such as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.

Unless UK - or what's left of it after 18 September this year - would indeed decide, under the UKIP government whose formation following next year's General Election even Mr Farage himself does not anticipate, that UK (or England, Wales and Northern Ireland) "go it alone" totally not only by severing its EU membership but also by declining all future membership relationships with EFTA, EEA, UN, G7, NATO et al, there would be no way that such a (fantasy) government would be able, under international law, to impose the swingeing curtailments to immigration that UKIP and its supporters avow to advocate; someone should really ask Mr Farage if such isolationist policies are the kinds of thing to which a UKIP government would indeed seek to strive regardless of the consequences, even if only to bring about the all too necessary further undermining of his and his party's credibility with the UK electorate.

[Beef Oven!]

Are you saying that nothing would change because UKIP would apply to join with EEA (like Norway?) But that would mean also belonging to EFTA because in order to be a party to the EEA Agreement it is necessary either to be a member of the EU or of EFTA.

Sorry to be longwinded, but my point is: Unless the UK decided to go it totally alone as a small offshore island and negotiating its own trade agreements leaving the EU but belonging to EEA/EFTA would not stop immigration as UKIP say it would, our borders would still be open and UKIP will have totally misled their voters who are concerned about immigration that a vote for them stops immigrants coming here.

I mean that I don't expect any major changes to be made to domestic legislation following leaving the EU.

Don't be thinking that the UK is a small off-shore Island in this context. It is the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet.

[Beef Oven!]

The anti-immigration policieis of UKIP, which are clearly based on xenophobia since there is no economic argument for the kind of restrictions they suggest, are the policies that attract racists, I would have thought that was obvious. If I see that Farage has said he wouldn't like a bunch of Romanians to move in next door that makes me regard him as a nasty piece of work, whereas a racist would see it as something highly encouraging about UKIP.

And by the way I am no fan of the EU myself: it is an undemocratic bosses' club which promotes neoliberal ideology, its austerity measures continue to drive large numbers of people further into poverty while protecting the financial institutions which make themselves richer on the back of a "crisis" they created, its policies have eroded workers' rights and promoted privatisation of public services, and so on. But wild horses wouldn't make me vote for a party like UKIP. It clearly makes its appeal by means of lies, smears and brutal simplifications; and while it may not at this point in time be a fascist organisation, it will in this way certainly attract those who would be attracted to such an organisation if there were one in the UK with any kind of profile, which thankfully at present there isn't.

I think that you are mis-representing the UKIP's policy on immigration. The policy provides for plenty of immigration to take place; for people with skills that are in short supply in the UK, or for people who want to invest or start a business here. Add to that taking responsibility for asylum seekers, allowing people to study here, holiday visas and various temporary visas, you have a sensible policy.

The policy seeks to properly manage the phenomenon of migration. And there is absolutely nothing racist, either directly or indirectly about such a policy.

[MrGongGong]

I mean that I don't expect any major changes to be made to domestic legislation following leaving the EU.

Don't be thinking that the UK is a small off-shore Island in this context. It is the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet.

Which (going by what REAL economists say) won't be the case if the UK left the EU

I've never done it BUT how DO you negotiate a trade deal with EVERY country in the world for EVERY commodity ?
Overnight ?
How many years will it take ?
Will there be anyone doing anything to trade by the time you have finished anyway ?
I guess all the "peoples army" of UKIP will be buying BMWS and Mercs so that's ok

Going back to "skills" and immigration
we have enough British conductors
who's first on the plane home once we leave ?
we might get Sir Simon back though

[teamsaint]

Which (going by what REAL economists say) won't be the case if the UK left the EU

I've never done it BUT how DO you negotiate a trade deal with EVERY country in the world for EVERY commodity ?
Overnight ?
How many years will it take ?
Will there be anyone doing anything to trade by the time you have finished anyway ?
I guess all the "peoples army" of UKIP will be buying BMWS and Mercs so that's ok

Going back to "skills" and immigration
we have enough British conductors
who's first on the plane home once we leave ?
we might get Sir Simon back though

Other countries like Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland and so on cope with negotiating trade agreements whilst not being EU members.

More than 50 per cent of Russian trade is with EU countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relations

[MrGongGong]

Other countries like Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland and so on cope with negotiating trade agreements whilst not being EU members.

More than 50 per cent of Russian trade is with EU countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–...nion_relations

How long did it take them ?
And (maybe more importantly?) don't they have to comply with the "hated" EU regulations without having any say in what they are ?

[Beef Oven!]

Which (going by what REAL economists say) won't be the case if the UK left the EU

I've never done it BUT how DO you negotiate a trade deal with EVERY country in the world for EVERY commodity ?
Overnight ?
How many years will it take ?
Will there be anyone doing anything to trade by the time you have finished anyway ?
I guess all the "peoples army" of UKIP will be buying BMWS and Mercs so that's ok

Going back to "skills" and immigration
we have enough British conductors
who's first on the plane home once we leave ?
we might get Sir Simon back though

God give me strength! Should you not just be observing, rather than posting if you don't understand how international trade is carried out?

[Beef Oven!]

Other countries like Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland and so on cope with negotiating trade agreements whilst not being EU members.

More than 50 per cent of Russian trade is with EU countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–...nion_relations

Half the stuff in Ikea is made in Russia!!!

Gongers thinks 8 forms have to be filled in for each lampshade!

Luckily, we can do one form for each bunch of Jamaican bananas, rather than a form for individual bananas! That's of course if the last lot of EU regulations hasn't put paid to all Caribbean fruit trade.

EU protectionism on EU bananas - unbelievable. I want commonwealth bananas back, and I want them now! You lot can stuff your EU bananas where the sun......

[MrGongGong]

God give me strength! Should you not just be observing, rather than posting if you don't understand how international trade is carried out?

How long do international trade agreements take ?
I know how long it takes me to write a 25 minute orchestral piece
but I suspect that most people have no idea about trade negotiations
(I don't, which is WHY I asked the question in the first place)

And a supplementary question

How many members of UKIP have participated in the negotiations for international trade ? (and I mean REAL trade not Farage's spiv shady deal past)

[Beef Oven!]

How long do international trade agreements take ?
I know how long it takes me to write a 25 minute orchestral piece
but I suspect that most people have no idea about trade negotiations
(I don't, which is WHY I asked the question in the first place)

And a supplementary question

How many members of UKIP have participated in the negotiations for international trade ? (and I mean REAL trade not Farage's spiv shady deal past)

In the most unlikely event of the UKIP forming a government, they might leave it to Sir Humphrey's people!

[MrGongGong]

In the most unlikely event of the UKIP forming a government, they might leave it to Sir Humphrey's people!

Aaah so they have as much experience as I do
that's really inspiring isn't it

[amateur51]

In the most unlikely event of the UKIP forming a government, they might leave it to Sir Humphrey's people!

I bet that's Nige's solution too, which simply is not good enough.

And in the case of coalition talks ...?

[Anna]

Other countries like Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland and so on cope with negotiating trade agreements whilst not being EU members.

Yes, but Norway as an example belongs to the EEA which means free movement of people (i.e. immigrants legal and illegal) and they pay into the EU, have EU regulations and no say in the matter - things that UKIP doesn't want and won't consider according to Beefy's posting in answer to my query re EEA and EFTA.