Nigel Farage MEP

shanered

What are everybodies views on this guy?
I've been watching his videos on youtube and I do have to say I'm very impressed by him.
I know I might be opening a can of worms here by mentioning him as he quite a character but I'd like to here all views on him and them being discussed.

BRAIN FEEDs

impressive is right. very articulate and i like his views.

AlekSmart

Oh dear....plenty of views on the fellow sure enough .....:)

Strange though,I thought it was the Irish who were supposed to have the gift of the gab.....Our native MEP's appear to have had no great desire to stun them forriners with their powers of oratory...:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64633194

shanered

I was guessing there was going to be some previous disscussion about him! I have to say I like something about him!

bob50

Nigel Farage i admire very much i wish he was in charge here Unlike that yellow bellied kenny who will do anything hes told by Europe:)

meglome

bob50 wrote: »

Nigel Farage i admire very much i wish he was in charge here Unlike that yellow bellied kenny who will do anything hes told by Europe:)

It truly worries me that people here of all places would not see through Farage. Sure he can be entertaining but why not, he says what his supporters want to hear, the truth is irrelevant to him. All that matters is his agenda, getting the UK out of the EU. Anyone who thinks leaving the EU would be in Ireland's interests is very foolish indeed. Kenny on the other hand has to deal with the reality we find ourselves in, between a rock and a hard place.
If he didn't have Muslins to worry about the Irish could be the ones on the receiving end as they have been in the past by people of his ilk.

Predalien

I'm not a huge fan of the man, but he did predict that all of the bail-out countries would need bail-outs well in advance, so he deserves some credit for at least recognising the scale of the problems, which many centrist politicians have neglected to do as they've muddled and dragged out a conclusion to the crisis, and his summary of the failures of the single currency are painfully accurate.

Boskowski

He's one of those Brits living in the past or pandering to those who do.
He will appeal to all those who think the EU is just a vehicle for Germany building the Fourth Reich while finding it totally acceptable if Britain were doing this instead. He is extremely populist and likes himself being perceived as the one who speaks out what the 'common man' thinks.

Think of that what you want but in my opinion the phrase 'what the common man thinks' is usually a metaphor for being pig ignorant. He is a dangerous tool.

McDave

I have no time for Farage. TBH, I don't think he or his party have any role to play in Irish politics. Which is not to say there aren't people here open to being mentally colonised by one of the worst forms of nationalistic English Euroscepticism, and those who promote him.

shanered

I do find your use of words a little dramatic when your refer to people who might agree with Nigel Farage's stance towards the EU as being mentally colonised, I dunno I just find it strange I think as I see what he is at (In a European level anyway from what I've seen) is the complete opposite of colonialisim, as he wants to stop his country becoming part of a federal European state. He argued for Ireland to say no to Lisbon and want countries to have greater control to govern themselves from what I can see.

McDave

shanered wrote: »

I do find your use of words a little dramatic when your refer to people who might agree with Nigel Farage's stance towards the EU as being mentally colonised, I dunno I just find it strange I think as I see what he is at (In a European level anyway from what I've seen) is the complete opposite of colonialisim, as he wants to stop his country becoming part of a federal European state. He argued for Ireland to say no to Lisbon and want countries to have greater control to govern themselves from what I can see.

IMO a federal EU is not on the cards. I don't think there are any realistic fears on this score.

Farage is entitled to make his case to the UK electorate. But AFAIC his direct interventions in Irish politics have to be fundamentally questioned. Remember the UKIP canvassing on Lisbon 2 outside the GPO. And the 'Respect the Ahrish No' stunt in the EP?

Ireland is the only country that I know of which has major readerships of domestic versions of foreign newspapers. It's my view that UK newspapers like the Sunday Times and the Irish Mail stable are quite blatant attempts to colonise Irish minds with blatantly Eurosceptic views.

Farage takes this a step further with his direct appeals to Irish voters on EU matters. And when I see people on Irish boards lionising him, I have to say I'm more than a little bit suspicious. On this score, I don't think the use of the word 'colonise' is even remotely dramatic.

christmas2012

he is viewed as a bit of a nut,but i think hes way better than that conservative shower..

Jorah

Boskowski wrote: »

He's one of those Brits living in the past or pandering to those who do.

Wanting full sovereignty over your own affairs? Get with the times man!

Boskowski wrote: »

He will appeal to all those who think the EU is just a vehicle for Germany building the Fourth Reich while finding it totally acceptable if Britain were doing this instead.

Absolutely. Germany can build their Fourth Reich all they want. The British people do not want to be a part of it however.

Boskowski wrote: »

He is extremely populist

*Popular

Boskowski wrote: »

and likes himself being perceived as the one who speaks out what the 'common man' thinks.

He's not being "perceived" as the one that speaks out what the common man thinks.

He is the one that speaks out what the common thinks.

Boskowski wrote: »

Think of that what you want but in my opinion the phrase 'what the common man thinks' is usually a metaphor for being pig ignorant. He is a dangerous tool.

The common man can barely wrap their heads around their own political system. Let alone the gigantic Babylon-like structure that is the European Union.

What say does the average person have in their own country let alone the bureaucratic nightmare of over 500 million people...

McDave

Jorah wrote: »

Germany can build their Fourth Reich all they want. The British people do not want to be a part of it however.

'Fourth Reich'? Dear, oh, dear.

While you're raising the concerns of the British people you might be a bit more balanced and also raise the concerns of the subjects of an actual empire in history, the British Empire. Peoples who were given no democratic choice in the matter.

As for what the British people democratically want, I doubt many would grudge them their right to stay at arms length from the EU should they so wish. However, the democracies that wish an ever closer union within the EU are entitled to have their preferences respected as well.

bwatson

McDave wrote: »

'Fourth Reich'? Dear, oh, dear.

While you're raising the concerns of the British people you might be a bit more balanced and also raise the concerns of the subjects of an actual empire in history, the British Empire. Peoples who were given no democratic choice in the matter.

What do you mean by this?

Briton 1: I feel we should have a serious discussion about our position within the EU. It is clear a significant percentage of the British population are unhappy with the levels of influence that foreign politicians are having on British affairs.

Briton 2: That is all well and good, however you might want to remember that in the not so distant past we assembled the largest empire in terms of both area and population that humanity has ever seen. We did not afford subjects of the empire any sort of democratic right to determine whether or not a foreign power should have influence over their affairs. It is only right that we now subject ourselves to the same treatment as a form of punishment at the hands of European "neighbours" so as to show how sorry we are for the things we did. Let us continue to be humiliated at the hands of the EU against the will of a great deal of fellow Britons. The other member states - many of them also the constructors of great empires (though not quite as great of course) will love that.

Briton 1: Ok, sure thing. Lets ditch any talk of a referendum. Let us continue to put the will of the British people second to the desires of other Europeans.

Briton 2: Cool bro.

...

That sort of thing? If not, can you please explain any sort of relevance of brining up empire?

Moreover, Britain suffered greatly at the hands of the Third Reich, millions died and the nation was devestated through bombing campaigns. Are you trying to suggest that Brits have no real understanding of what it is like to be faced by an aggressive neighbouring power, simply because we managed to prevail in that conflict?

oscarBravo

bwatson wrote: »

It is only right that we now subject ourselves to the same treatment as a form of punishment at the hands of European "neighbours" so as to show how sorry we are for the things we did.

...because EU membership is exactly the same thing as being a colony of an imperial power. Right.


It would be nice to have a rational conversation with a British euroskeptic, but I'm starting to get the distinct impression that it's physically impossible to do so.

Boskowski

I wouldn't mind if it was about non participation of GB. What I do mind is participation with the sole purpose of making things difficult for everyone else and general bitching about.

The fourth reich line gets tiresome too.

Thankfully the guy doesn't really matter.

McDave

bwatson wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

Briton 1: I feel we should have a serious discussion about our position within the EU. It is clear a significant percentage of the British population are unhappy with the levels of influence that foreign politicians are having on British affairs.

Briton 2: That is all well and good, however you might want to remember that in the not so distant past we assembled the largest empire in terms of both area and population that humanity has ever seen. We did not afford subjects of the empire any sort of democratic right to determine whether or not a foreign power should have influence over their affairs. It is only right that we now subject ourselves to the same treatment as a form of punishment at the hands of European "neighbours" so as to show how sorry we are for the things we did. Let us continue to be humiliated at the hands of the EU against the will of a great deal of fellow Britons. The other member states - many of them also the constructors of great empires (though not quite as great of course) will love that.

Briton 1: Ok, sure thing. Lets ditch any talk of a referendum. Let us continue to put the will of the British people second to the desires of other Europeans.

Briton 2: Cool bro.

...

That sort of thing? If not, can you please explain any sort of relevance of brining up empire?

Moreover, Britain suffered greatly at the hands of the Third Reich, millions died and the nation was devestated through bombing campaigns. Are you trying to suggest that Brits have no real understanding of what it is like to be faced by an aggressive neighbouring power, simply because we managed to prevail in that conflict?

Really bwatson, all you have to do is read the post I was responding to to realise *I* didn't bring up imperialism.

You *do* realise that 'Reich' is the German for empire, don't you? And that 'Fourth Reich' is shorthand for intimating that Germany is 'still basically Nazi', don't you? And that many English people use it because they're so stuck in the past that they just can't let go of their WW2 comfort blanket.

That's the privilege of people who identify with the UK. But when UKIP-types attempt to introduce that kind of claptrap into Irish politics, don't be surprised about blowback.

McDave

oscarBravo wrote: »

...because EU membership is exactly the same thing as being a colony of an imperial power. Right.


It would be nice to have a rational conversation with a British euroskeptic, but I'm starting to get the distinct impression that it's physically impossible to do so.

I'm afraid it's my own experience that rational discussion with British Eurosceptics on Irish boards is rather pointless. Too many of them are simply agents provocateurs.

IMO, you can judge internet proponents of Farage and UKIP in exactly the same way as you can judge UKIP themselves. Their track record on Ireland is rather pathetic. Some Dubliners would have directly witnessed their pathetic 'canvassing' stunt on O'Connell Street during Lisbon 2. Not to mention the truly risible 'Respect the Ahrish No' stunt in the EP where they dressed up leprechaun-style in green T-shirts. Like they give a damn about Ireland. :pac:

bwatson

McDave wrote: »

Really bwatson, all you have to do is read the post I was responding to to realise *I* didn't bring up imperialism.

You *do* realise that 'Reich' is the German for empire, don't you? And that 'Fourth Reich' is shorthand for intimating that Germany is 'still basically Nazi', don't you? And that many English people use it because they're so stuck in the past that they just can't let go of their WW2 comfort blanket.

That's the privilege of people who identify with the UK. But when UKIP-types attempt to introduce that kind of claptrap into Irish politics, don't be surprised about blowback.

Umm, there were, surprisingly, two defined Reichs before the third Reich. So actually to use the word is not actually intimating that the Germans are still Nazis in any way. You realize the word Reich is in no way limited to describing the aspirations of Hitler and the Nazis? You appear very much stuck in your but-remember-what-de-brits-did-to-us-in-de-past comfort blanket.

Secondly, who has tried to "introduce that kind of claptrap into Irish politics" as you referred to it so disdainfully? You have on several occasions reacted with great hostility to people discussing an issue in British politics in a forum specifically created for debating issues of the wider European Union. Your suggestion seems to be that even discussing a political issue that is not categorically and definitevely Irish on an Irish messageboard deserves "blowback". What a backward idiot you are.

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

Moreover, Britain suffered greatly at the hands of the Third Reich, millions died and the nation was devestated through bombing campaigns. Are you trying to suggest that Brits have no real understanding of what it is like to be faced by an aggressive neighbouring power, simply because we managed to prevail in that conflict?

Nope. 450,000. You seem to be confusing Britain with Poland or Russia.

bwatson

Nodin wrote: »

Nope. 450,000. You seem to be confusing Britain with Poland or Russia.

I seem do I?

My mistake was referring specifically to the Third Reich and not German aggression in the 20th century as a whole which in fact did result in well over a million British deaths.

Still, 450,000 is nothing eh? Sure why dont you just nonchalantly palm it of as if the fact that ONLY 450,000 British people were killed in the Second World War makes my point any less valid.

You also seem to have a habit of liking any post that contains any sort of anti-British sentiment, even if the poster is very much in the wrong with their assertions. See your liking of post 18 in which the poster clearly doesnt realize that the concept of a German Reich extends far further back in history than the emergence of the Nazi party and tried to use his factually incorrect point as a stick to beat the ignorant Brits with.

What me get infracted again for having a different viewpoint to others while a few ardent republicans never recieve infractions for xenophobic, sweeping statements based on ill-informed "knowledge" of "how things work" in the UK

Scofflaw

bwatson wrote: »

What me get infracted again for having a different viewpoint to others while a few ardent republicans never recieve infractions for xenophobic, sweeping statements based on ill-informed "knowledge" of "how things work" in the UK

No, but you do get warned or infracted for being rude to other posters, and for commenting on moderation in non-feedback threads. You'll find that both of those points are covered in the Forum Charter.

Please save complaints of political bias amongst the mods for the channels specifically set up for people to accuse us of it.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

I seem do I?

My mistake was referring specifically to the Third Reich and not German aggression in the 20th century as a whole which in fact did result in well over a million British deaths.

Still, 450,000 is nothing eh? Sure why dont you just nonchalantly palm it of as if the fact that ONLY 450,000 British people were killed in the Second World War makes my point any less valid.

"millions" were not killed. If somebody said that none were killed, I'd correct that also.

Its an entirely invalid point.

bwatson wrote: »

See your liking of post 18 in which the poster clearly doesnt realize that the concept of a German Reich extends far further back in history than the emergence of the Nazi party and tried to use his factually incorrect point as a stick to beat the ignorant Brits with..

The fact is that raising the second world war in relation to the EU is an entirely illogical and pointless exercise in xenophobia.

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

"millions" were not killed. If somebody said that none were killed, I'd correct that also.

Its an entirely invalid point.



The fact is that raising the second world war in relation to the EU is an entirely illogical and pointless exercise in xenophobia.

Nor is there anyone anywhere stupid enough to fall for the "there were other Reichs" line. Virtually nobody knows what the first and second Reichs were (Holy Roman Empire and Bismarck's Germany respectively) nor are they commonly referred to by those terms.

"Fourth Reich" is a term that specifically means a successor to Nazi Germany. Please don't try this line in BS any further.

regards,
Scofflaw

bwatson

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nor is there anyone anywhere stupid enough to fall for the "there were other Reichs" line. Virtually nobody knows what the first and second Reichs were (Holy Roman Empire and Bismarck's Germany respectively) nor are they commonly referred to by those terms.

"Fourth Reich" is a term that specifically means a successor to Nazi Germany. Please don't try this line in BS any further.

regards,
Scofflaw

Actually Bismarck's Germany, the rise of Prussia and the revolutions/unifications of Europe in the mid 19th century and beyond are extensively taught and widely understood - they are incredibly important events in the history of our continent which still resonate today.

I very much disagree with your point about the lesser known "Reichs" and find it a someone surprising statement from a moderator. The simple fact is that although many may be ignorant to their existence, there were indeed 2 German Reichs before the emergence of the Nazis which differed substantially in some ways but of course had some similarities.

I think you have it the wrong way round - there are indeed people who are too "stupid" to acknowledge, or fall for as you put it, other Reichs. For that those who are aware of their existence and their relevance are not allowed to bring them into the discussion should they feel it relevant? OK then. Perhaps we should simply never discuss anything, ever? Because there will ALWAYS be some posters who think they know what they are talking about, but actually are incredibly poorly informed on the subject - be it Republicanism, local politics in rural Ireland, or European politics.

I'm not trying to be deliberately stubborn, but the fact is that if lesser know historical examples are brought up, the fact that they are not widely understood doesn't mean in any way they are false, or wrong or anything of the sort.

"Fourth Reich" is only a term that specifically means a successor to Nazi Germany if you don't really know what you are talking about.

McDave

bwatson wrote: »

Umm, there were, surprisingly, two defined Reichs before the third Reich. So actually to use the word is not actually intimating that the Germans are still Nazis in any way. You realize the word Reich is in no way limited to describing the aspirations of Hitler and the Nazis? You appear very much stuck in your but-remember-what-de-brits-did-to-us-in-de-past comfort blanket.

Use your common sense. Most people would have to reach for Wikipedia to discover what the First and Second Reichs were.

Pretty much everyone knows what the Third Reich is. You know. The Reich Hitler et al were involved in.

I think we can all sleep safely in our beds at night in the knowledge that when someone brings up the 'Fourth Reich', they're not invoking the Holy Roman Empire.

McDave

bwatson wrote: »

Secondly, who has tried to "introduce that kind of claptrap into Irish politics" as you referred to it so disdainfully? You have on several occasions reacted with great hostility to people discussing an issue in British politics in a forum specifically created for debating issues of the wider European Union. Your suggestion seems to be that even discussing a political issue that is not categorically and definitevely Irish on an Irish messageboard deserves "blowback". What a backward idiot you are.

I've no problem with the right of people to put their political views across. However, I'm prepared to make my own calls.

While I have every admiration for the way the British stood up against the Germans in WW2 to defend their culture and their way of life, I personally have no time for the petty nationalism and the perpetuation of anti-German prejudice.

Now I wouldn't dream of taking such a strong line on the issue on English soil, or on a British political forum, were I posting on one. But on an Irish board, I'm afraid I'm going to be much more straightforward.

Having gained our independence from the UK, I am personally of the view that Ireland is better off keeping at political arms length from Westminster. IMO it's better by far for us to involve ourselves politically and economically in a much more diversified structure like the EU. I don't think we can meaningfully pursue any kind of autarkic path. I think most Irish people broadly feel this way.

Naturally there is ongoing debate in Ireland about which direction we should take. Cooperation with the EU is the leading one. Parties like Sinn Fein argue for a more independent line. A very small proportion would like to see us have a closer relationship with the UK.

From my own POV, I'm happy to see open discussion. But when I see prejudice and the petty jingoism from British sources attempting to enter the fray here, I'm happy to take them head on. I don't think the style of debate on offer from UKIP and other more reactionary organisations in Britain brings much to the table here, and I'm prepared to call it that way. Whether it's from the likes of Farage, or from the Irish versions of the English press (a particularly sad fact of Irish media life AFAIC).

Scofflaw

bwatson wrote: »

Actually Bismarck's Germany, the rise of Prussia and the revolutions/unifications of Europe in the mid 19th century and beyond are extensively taught and widely understood - they are incredibly important events in the history of our continent which still resonate today.

This is another dishonest sleight of hand - they are widely taught, but they are not widely known as the first and second Reich.

bwatson wrote: »

I very much disagree with your point about the lesser known "Reichs" and find it a someone surprising statement from a moderator. The simple fact is that although many may be ignorant to their existence, there were indeed 2 German Reichs before the emergence of the Nazis which differed substantially in some ways but of course had some similarities.

I think you have it the wrong way round - there are indeed people who are too "stupid" to acknowledge, or fall for as you put it, other Reichs. For that those who are aware of their existence and their relevance are not allowed to bring them into the discussion should they feel it relevant? OK then. Perhaps we should simply never discuss anything, ever? Because there will ALWAYS be some posters who think they know what they are talking about, but actually are incredibly poorly informed on the subject - be it Republicanism, local politics in rural Ireland, or European politics.

I'm not trying to be deliberately stubborn, but the fact is that if lesser know historical examples are brought up, the fact that they are not widely understood doesn't mean in any way they are false, or wrong or anything of the sort.

"Fourth Reich" is only a term that specifically means a successor to Nazi Germany if you don't really know what you are talking about.

Rubbish. And, seriously, stop trying to pull this one, because even a quick Google shows it for the dishonesty it is: https://www.google.ie/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22fourth+reich%22&oq=%22fourth+reich%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l10.1292.4619.0.5979.13.12.0.0.0.0.191.1683.1j11.12.0...0.0...1c.H4MoSIyEvko

There's no need for you to attempt to defend the use of "Fourth Reich" in this dishonest way - it has nothing to do with the validity of your point of view - and I will treat as trolling if it continues, because it is blatantly dishonest, and that is not acceptable on the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

McDave

bwatson wrote: »

"Fourth Reich" is only a term that specifically means a successor to Nazi Germany if you don't really know what you are talking about.

Modern day Germany is a democracy. The EU is a rules-based group of democratic states broadly acting in tandem through political consent.

I don't see how the term 'Fourth Reich' has any relevance to either, other than being inflammatory and insinuating that Germany's involvement in current European affairs is somehow imperialist and coercive in nature.

It's a pity when the term is brought up, as it was earlier in the thread. But on the other hand, I suppose it is a pretty useful signifier of attitude.

The Corinthian

McDave wrote: »

Use your common sense. Most people would have to reach for Wikipedia to discover what the First and Second Reichs were.

Yes, the terms first, second and third Reich were first coined in 1923 in a book from which National Socialism derived much of it's views and later adopted the name to legitimize their own rule.

Prior to this, the terms first, second and third Reich did not exist and where it comes to the first and second never stuck anyway as they are commonly referred to as the Heiliges Römisches Reich and Kaiserreich respectively. Many Germans wouldn't even know what you're talking about if you talked to them about an Erste or Zweite Reich.

Pretty much everyone knows what the Third Reich is. You know. The Reich Hitler et al were involved in.

Of course, because the term (and that for the preceding two Reichs) was adopted by National Socialism and subsequently only the Third Reich stuck.

I think we can all sleep safely in our beds at night in the knowledge that when someone brings up the 'Fourth Reich', they're not invoking the Holy Roman Empire.

Agreed, they're clearly invoking German National Socialism, typically in some attempt at an appeal to emotion, to distract from any actual substance in their arguments.

Nothing like invoking the jingoistic image of the Hun to get some good clean xenophobia going.