Wes Tender

A flaw in your argument, but you won't admit it.

Pardon me for pointing out what seems to be the obvious flaw in your argument. It takes no account of the threshold below which one doesn't pay any tax at all. I have no idea at what level UKIP propose to place that threshold, but it is possible that the low paid worker of your example pays either no tax at all, or very little.

Look, it's not me making these proposals. But if I recall correctly (I really can't be that bothered to read it again) the proposer of this tax policy said that it could be costed without any cuts in services. Why don't you write to him and ask him how he proposes to do it, rather than asking me? I have no more expertise in these matters than you do.

I will just quote this part of the UKIP proposals by Godfrey Bloom to demonstrate that the flat rate tax includes Income Tax, NI contribution and corporate tax. Therefore all of your comparisons with the tax rates of other developed countries is totally spurious, unless of course you are going to include their equivalents of NI in their rates too. Do try and read things a bit more carefully and objectively before spouting forth.

Firstly as pointed out before, it is a proposal from an individual, not their party policy. Secondly it suggested that income tax and National Insurance payments be combined. Thirdly it was proposed that the threshold beyond which people started paying tax be set at a level that precluded the poor. And yes, your rent a quote left wing language of robbing the poor to pay the rich is inflamatory and wrong. Define poor.

I'm pretty sure that equally the German workers who are involved in manufacturing those products which we import from them will be very careful about hoping that their Government doesn't slap trade tariffs on our exports to them, encouraging us to reciprocate by slapping trade tariffs on their goods, thus making them less competitive against products from their rivals in the Pacific rim and the USA, etc. We will want to contiue trading with them, and they with us. A compromise arrangement will be found to the mutual benefit of all. This talk about reprisals and retribution, disgruntled voters in the EU not accepting things, is all conjecture. Every country in the EU looks first at their own national interests rather than at the EU as a whole.

You can see this. I can see this. Joensuu encapsulates in into his pithy little phrase beloved of the left, that it is robbing the poor to pay the rich. Fairness doesn't come into it.

Read what I asked a bit more carefully, please. You have responded as you did before and ignored my question. I didn't ask for what our exports were to the whole of Europe. I asked for a comparison between what Germany exported to us against what we exported to them. Again, I ask what evidence do you have that Germany or any other EU country would slap trade embargos on our exports to them, especially if we wished to negotiate a continuation of trade as before but stepped back from the other aspects of the Union?

The irony here is delicious. You accuse me of ducking and diving as your response to my request that you accept that everything you have posted is based purely on conjecture. And your position is illustrated by examples of how competitive pencil sharpeners would be if a trade tariff were to be added to them? LOL. Why should anybody draw any sensible conclusions on the outcome of us leaving the EU or renegotiating a trade only membership from this thread? I'm sure that before we or our European partners decide on anything, they will look at the opinions on this forum as compulsory reading before they accept that the outcome would be disasterous. And they should also bear in mind that any decision taken by the electorate in a referendum is fundamentally flawed to begin with and can be ignored on the basis that the electorate are basically a bit thick and don't have the expertise to make a sensible judgement.

What exactly do you have to support your position? Please have the temerity to accept that your position is entirely based on conjecture, as is everybody elses'.

Let's consider another scenario. Germany slaps a trade import tax on our exports. We retaliate by slapping an equivalent import tax on all of their exports to us. Do Germany export more to us than we do to them? Who do you think has the most to lose? Forget your hypothetical pencil-sharpener situation. If it becomes less profitable to trade with Europe because of trade tariffs on our exports, then we will seek to do business eleswhere. It really is a simple matter of expediancy and I don't think that VW, Mercedes, BMW, Bosch and all of the German manufacturers will be happy with their Governement making their products less competitive in one of their best export markets. What is this penalty you talk about should we leave? Please do tell me which of our current EU partners has indicated that there will be any penalty and what it will comprise? Pie in the Sky.

My position is one of disgust that despite numerous promises by Governments both Labour and Conservative that the British electorate would be offered a say about the changes made since we joined the Common Market, those promises have been broken time and time again. I have not advocated a break away from Europe. Rather a renegotiation of what we are a part of. I voted for us to join a trading partnership in the Heath referendum. Had I known at the time that it would evolve into a political and legal union with the resultant loss of sovereignty of our Parliament, then I would have voted against our membership and I suspect that a majority of voters would have too.

I'm trusting on the political clout that the major European manufacturers and producers have with their respective Governments. I'm making an assumption that the German car manufacturers, the Italian fridge and washing machine manufacturers, the French wine and cheese manufacturers, etc, will still wish to sell their products to us. That trading arrangement can therefore continue on a reciprocal basis. Do you have any evidence that a Common Market trading arrangement cannot continue? Have any of our European partners ruled it out? There might have been some rhetoric attempting to convey the impression that they wouldn't allow us to continue on that basis, but if push came to shove, then I'm fairly confident that any of the major European players wouldn't wish to jeopardise their trading links with us. It is certainly feasible to trade with Europe without being a member of the EU, as several other countries prove.

The proposal is to continue with the trading part, the Common Market and discard the political and legal powers of Brussels, so I don't see that should be a problem. There is no reason why the rules regarding subsidies should not continue to be observed to maintain a level playing field. We are usually the ones to observe these rules meticulously, when everybody else ignores them anyway.

This opinion is breathtaking in its arrogance. Johnny Voter is deemed capable to vote on a manifesto covering a basket of policies, some of which he likes and others he doesn't, but isn't clever enough to make a decision on a single issue in a Referendum. Presumably there will be plenty of so called expert opinions out there before the Referendum vote, but no, Johhny Voter is still not capable of making his mind up and arriving at the right decision, which is of course the only option according for the super-intelligentsia, to stay in. If he votes to leave, then all the pseudo-intellectuals will shrug their shoulders and murmer darkly that you just can't trust the electorate on such complicated issues; after all, look what happened when they last had their referendum on the voting issue. And who should decide on matters like this? Yes, the economists and the Foreign Office bureacrats. The ones who got us into this current recession, in partnership with Civil Servants who love the overwheening bureaucracy of Brussels and who therefore have a vested interest in the gravy train continuing. Any more bright ideas?

What exactly qualifies you to assess what the Germans or French would do if we left the EU? Do you not think that they will want to continue selling their products and manufactured goods to us? We are just as big a market if not more so than they are for us. Or do you think that they will want to continue selling to us, but not expect us to want them to buy our goods in return? We went into the Common Market and that is what we should return to. The British electorate have had no opportunity to vote on the changes brought about since. They certainly didn't vote for the European Parliament or their judiciary to take precedence over ours. The Conservative Party have never come close to pulling the plug, as you put it, because the Party has been divided on the issue and the "wets" have blocked it. But I see that you admit that the issue is a vote winner for the party with the guts to put the issue to the electorate. I'm grateful that UKIP will force the issue once and for all and I believe that when the referendum is held, the majority of voters will wish us to leave. If that happens, then there would be the distinct probability of keeping some sort of trading agreement, in the mutual interests of both us and our current European trading partners. Incidentally, what exactly do we get for our £15-20 billion? As one of the pretty exclusive club of nett contributors, do we actually get more from our membership than all those other members who are nett beneficiaries?

You might think that leaving the EU would be economic suicide, but it is proposed that we keep the trading side of it and dispose of the political and legal implications. So how will that affect the economy? We would naturally also look to trade elsewhere too. Why would it mess up most of our foreign policy? A referendum is promised already, just in the next Parliament. I don't see the problem with bringing it forward to see off UKIP.

Perhaps the Conservatives will wake up and hold the Referendum on Europe before the next General Election, thus lancing the boil that is the growing influence of this party with a single main policy platform.

You're responding to what you think is their fiscal policy, rather than having any really clear idea of what that policy is. I found the link below which clearly states that it is a proposal by one of their spokesmen, but not necessarily UKIP policy. As far as I'm concerned, it makes quite a lot of sense in many ways. But as for your comment that UKIP can turn themselves in whichever direction they think that the wind is blowing, be all things to all men, make up populist rhetoric that doesn't add up, it reminds me of another political party who have been accused of exactly the same thing. Now, who is that? Oh yes. The Lib Dems. They did that when there was no chance of them achieving power and not having to put their policies into action and cost them, but the irony is delicious now that they in bed with the Tories and their supporters are accusing UKIP of the same thing. I'm sure that the electorate are finding it quite refreshing to have another option for placing their tactical protest votes when they are fed up with the traditional three parties, but it will possibly cause the Lib Dems to shrink still further in the next election, and no bad thing either. http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2993-ukip-tax-proposal

It was misleading, as they were singing our song.

Really frustrating to lose to a goal from one of our former players, when he had been kept quiet all match and we had been the better team until shortly before he scored. I'm inclined to believe that had Morgan played, that would have swung the game even more in our favour, so that the three points would have been ours. As it is, with us getting nothing from the match and rival teams winning, it really is starting to get squeaky bum time.

Just because their tax policies are the polar opposite to what the Lib Dems want does not make it wrong. It has already been proven under Thatcher that top income tax rates can be decreased and result in a higher tax revenue, which rather takes the rug from under your feet. Where does the money come to finance tax cuts? Well, I'll hazard a guess that they are probably counting on making some substantial savings by not having to prop up the overwheening bureacracy of Brussels for one and I'm pretty certain that the same could be said for our own governmental bureacracy, targetting benefit cheats, etc. You label their policies on those other matters as being completely wrong, but then they are policies that will probably garner more support amongst the voters than the Lib Dems policies on those same topics, which just goes to show what idiots the electorate are, doesn't it? However, I do agree that their support for smoking in pubs is total lunacy. And why stop at banning hunting with birds. How about ferrets too? Fishing?

It's impressive for it's length, but not so impressive for the quality of some of those players, especially those on the English top division list who appear to be there to bulk it out a bit.

West Ham's academy products are less current than those that have come to the fore from us recently and it looks as if we will have a few more to come in the next year or two. It might be that they have a few rising to the top at the moment, but I haven't heard much in the media about them, whereas there are articles about the next half dozen rising stars here.

I wonder when the sh*t's going to hit the fan about hedgehog and squirrel being passed off as pork in Portsmouth?