Nigel Farage MEP

View

opo wrote: »

And I still dont accept your arguments on the nature of what was voted on in 1975. It was sold as a common market - not a Federal union.

The EU isn't a Federal union today much less in 1975. It would have been rather pointless to vote on a putative Federal union which still doesn't exist 40 years later.

Maybe like Switzerland it might eventually adopt a Federal system of government. It took the Swiss almost 600 years to do so though, so it might be a long wait.... :-)

opo

View wrote: »

The EU isn't a Federal union today much less in 1975. It would have been rather pointless to vote on a putative Federal union which still doesn't exist 40 years later.

Maybe like Switzerland it might eventually adopt a Federal system of government. It took the Swiss almost 600 years to do so though, so it might be a long wait.... :-)

hmmmm, except the EU wasn't even the EU in 1975. That was another 18 years away with the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Maybe the Swiss could learn a thing or two from the EU political elite about speeding things along. A healthy distance from the ballot box being most beneficial and definitely a move away from all those bothersome referendums.

View

opo wrote: »

hmmmm, except the EU wasn't even the EU in 1975. That was another 18 years away with the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.

Neither the then European Communities nor today's European Union and single remaining European Community is a Federal Union, hence the point about the referendum remains valid.

opo wrote: »

Maybe the Swiss could learn a thing or two from the EU political elite about speeding things along. A healthy distance from the ballot box being most beneficial and definitely a move away from all those bothersome referendums.

Switzerland didn't have direct democracy provisions until well after it had moved from using a confederal to a federal system. They probably wouldn't have so much direct democracy had they retained their confederal system.

As for "distance from the ballot box" - it is barely a week since the voters across the EU had their say at the ballot boxes. Is that too "distant" for you? If so, I think most voters would hate to see your definition of "close"...

opo

View wrote: »

Neither the then European Communities nor today's European Union and single remaining European Community is a Federal Union, hence the point about the referendum remains valid.

Really?

Have you ever heard of the EU constitution? Aka the Lisbon Treaty lite? Who predicted that in 75? I am sorry, but trying to say that the EU remained rooted in (EEC) 1975 is absurd.

View wrote: »

Neither Switzerland didn't have direct democracy provisions until well after it had moved from using a confederal to a federal system. They probably wouldn't have so much direct democracy had they retained their confederal system.

I don’t know. I don’t care. It’s off topic anyway, so groovy.

View wrote: »

As for "distance from the ballot box" - it is barely a week since the voters across the EU had their say at the ballot boxes. Is that too "distant" for you? If so, I think most voters would hate to see your definition of "close"...

I know. Only five years till we go again, electing another whopping 11 seats to a house of 751 representing 0.9% of the overall voting weight.

Be still my beating heart.

(NB UKIP won 24 seats.)

ewan whose army

I think the people who voted for UKIP don't seem to understand how the EP works.

I am assuming that they would opposed to a person like Juncker a federalist who wants an EU nation state, so in his idea world there wouldn't be Irish, UK, French citizens just EU citizens (A search brings up mentions of a USE so I guess this is what he is referring to), but since he is the EPP's candidate who still have the biggest vote share.

If more people voted socialist then maybe the socialist group would have more swing. If people were less ignorant of EU politics and didn't vote for the party that isn't in power in their country then it would be far better. I wonder how many people in Ireland can honestly say that Fine Gael is a EPP member, or the Labour is a S&D Member ? (Well maybe more since that Costello women had a load of billboards with S&D's "Youth Guarantee thing" last year .

I wonder if it would better if we moved to a system where we would be voting for the EPP not Fine Gael, say a party can allow its members to stand in an allied EU group like they can, but instead they stand for the EPP not their domestic party. It would mean the elections would work better IMO and it may make people to pay attention to the debate between Kurtz and Juncker (which only made it onto Euronews, a channel that is buried in the depth of my UPC box after all the Irish, UK and US news channels)

Just my opinion on this. I am very much in support of the EU, and if the UK were to have a referendum I actually plan to volunteer for the In campaign but I don't want a Federation and I want the EU to be taken seriously.


I mean the people who voted UKIP, have just tossed a chance a representation in Europe since UKIP never turn up their voting record is shocking even when its stuff that effects their constituents

dlouth15

ewan whose army wrote: »

Just my opinion on this. I am very much in support of the EU, and if the UK were to have a referendum I actually plan to volunteer for the In campaign but I don't want a Federation and I want the EU to be taken seriously.

I mean the people who voted UKIP, have just tossed a chance a representation in Europe since UKIP never turn up their voting record is shocking even when its stuff that effects their constituents

Obviously I can't speak for the people who voted ukip, but I would not be surprised if a large proportion of them wanted to keep some sort of pan-European organization but felt that the EU as it stands was going in a direction it didn't like and that this would be the case regardless of which alliance of parties they voted for in the EU parliament, that they essentially had not control over this process. They may not like particularly the idea of Britain leaving the EU and they may not like everything about ukip but better to have some control over your own country than little or no control over a much larger entity that is, in their view at least, gradually eroding sovereignty.

McDave

jank wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this please? Immigration actually affects the working class population much more than any other class of people hence why most objection to large scale immigration stems from that side. Ironically the people who benefit most are big business and corporations, you know the guys the left hate as immigration drives down wages and increases competition in the labour market.

I have used this case many times as an example but the white-only immigration policy that was introduced in Australia was passed by a left wing labour party under pressure from the trade unions as they wanted to protect their members wages from any large scale immigration from Asia. It was the right leaning liberal party that finally did away with it. Even now, Tony Abbott the right leaning PM of Australia has relaxed rules for sponsorship of would be immigrants and has been critised by this by... yes you guessed it the left. So I presume the left are racists?

This is the key issue that most people miss when talking about immigration. It is not that people hate the Poles or Eastern Europeans in themselves or in isolation, its just some people resent them taking up jobs, hospital beds, welfare payments, school places that they may rightly or wrongly see as their own. There is finite amount of resources in a state so when competition for them increases people lose out and get pissed off. The manifestation of this is a backlash against large scale immigration which at the end may turn out to be racism but it does not start out as that. Its the key point that most people miss.

It's a fair observation that people at the bottom of the prosperity league may feel most threatened by immigrants who reduce their limited job options even further.

It's also fair to say that immigration has reached a level in many countries where it is changing the nature of societies, including the customs that form social glue and help define acceptable behaviour. And that it is not balanced to assume that this change is by definition intrinsically a good thing. In particular, the 2004 accessions have wrought rapid changes which people are still adjusting to.

However, having said that, the overall prosperity and infrastructures that countries like England/UK enjoy are historically largely as a result of colonial acquisitions, and to an extent post-WW2 on cheap energy costs (obtained through colonial behaviour). Colonial relationships changed the nature of the colonising societies, particularly in creating the reality of immigration from the 1950s on. Furthermore, western colonial attitudes have arguably prevented many societies elsewhere from developing unhindered. Some of the immigration from Africa and the near East is a result of societies destabilised at least in part a result of imperial-style behaviour.

The distribution of western prosperity is another matter, but at worst societies like the UK's still deliver on welfare. Perhaps the UK in particular might find more constructive ways to distribute its still considerable wealth. IMO, the answer is not however to be found in the obnoxious and hypocritical chauvinism of the likes of Farage, or the strident posturing of Wilders, or the nastiness of Le Pen. All three would do well to acknowledge the role of colonialism in their overall prosperity, and suggest constructive policies to integrate disadvantaged immigrants. By all means argue for strict limits on extra-EU immigration, and set limits on unacceptable immigrant behaviours. But it's not enough for these people to resort to simple demagoguery, let alone get up on high horses.

McDave

opo wrote: »

The working class is a pretty substantial minority. Substantial enough to win elections for example.

"Families in sink estates" do not equate to the working class.

If there is a problem with the conditions and prospects of "the working class" writ large, it has to be laid squarely at the door of Thatcher & Co., who undid much traditional working class industry, and proceeded to redistribute wealth into smaller groups.

Immigrants are not to blame for the failings of national policies.

sock puppet

The decline in well paid working class type jobs is largely because of two factors: globalisation and automation. Leaving the EU won't reverse either process.

opo

McDave wrote: »

Immigrants are not to blame for the failings of national policies.

Is this news to you?

McDave

opo wrote: »

Is this news to you?

Seems like it might be to you.

Nodin

It really is never-ending.

"Nigel Farage has joined forces in the European parliament with a Swedish party that was founded by white supremacists, including a former member of the Waffen SS. In an apparent change of tack, after he pledged to avoid parties on the far right, the Ukip leader also invited a French MEP who was elected for Marine Le Pen's Front National last month to join his pan-European group in the parliament."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

It really is never-ending.

Neither is your questionable commitment to fact-checking and integrity.

"Nigel Farage has joined forces in the European parliament with a Swedish party that was founded by white supremacists, including a former member of the Waffen SS."

Technically true, but the party was almost totally rebuilt in 1995. For some reason, you didn't mention this.

the Ukip leader also invited a French MEP who was elected for Marine Le Pen's Front National last month to join his pan-European group in the parliament.

That member had been kicked out of the Front Nationale for having policies too friendly to immigrants. You didn't mention that either. I wonder why?

Further, you missed this nugget, one wonders whether accidentally or otherwise:

With millions of subsidies on offer, the European parliament's rules create strong incentives for parties to form groups, even when these parties are not natural bedfellows

UKIPs EFD group includes a group what wants to protect the EU and have a Tobin tax ... funny how you missed that but got in a link with the Waffen SS.

Your own article states this clearly. Either you didn't read it, or you intentionally twisted it to support a slanted view. Which is it?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Neither is your questionable commitment to fact-checking and integrity.

...........

The thing is, when it comes to a man that has problems with Romanians living next door but has no problem with parties with various dubious pasts, I don't think its me who needs to take a look at the facts.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

The thing is, when it comes to a man that has problems with Romanians living next door but has no problem with parties with various dubious pasts, I don't think its me who needs to take a look at the facts.

Fact: you quoted from the Guardian, which is the Left's equivalent of the Daily Mail.
Fact: the article was so skewed it Godwinned itself in the first sentence, the 'journalist' having evidently looked for an excuse to put "Nigel Farage" and "Waffen SS" in the same sentence.
Fact: Where the bias of the article ended, your further skewing of it began - quoting only those bits that fit your world view, and leaving out the parts that totally contradicted it.

It very nicely highlights both the logical and moral insolvency of your position! Far better than I ever could. :P

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Fact: you quoted from the Guardian, which is the Left's equivalent of the Daily Mail.(................) could.

So you're saying the content isn't true then?

Are you suggesting that the Guardian deliberately omit the fact the Sweden Democrats party was founded by the extreme right and had a Waffen SS veteran member?

You don't fault the guardian for not mentioning this, however
http://www.thelocal.se/20121129/44726

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

So you're saying the content isn't true then?

Are you suggesting that the Guardian deliberately omit the fact the Sweden Democrats party was founded by the extreme right and had a Waffen SS veteran member?

It may well be technically true, but a severe obfuscation. The article started with a link between Nigel Farage and Waffen SS. But the link was so tenuous it takes the suspension of disbelief, or a leftist perspective to take it seriously.

Lemme spell it out for you:
Nigel Farage:
Leader of UKIP:
Which in turn is a member of the EFD group:
Which in turn contains left wing groups that want to keep the EU and have a Tobin tax:
Which can be explained by the need for various Euro parties that need to form confederations where they might not necessarily be natural bedfellows:
But the EFD which also includes two members Swedish party, the Sweden Democrats:
The SD was totally overhauled, changed so radically as to be practically a new party, in 1995:
Prior to 1995, it had been founded and run by Nazis, Waffen SS members and presumably neo-Nazis.
The members had signed letters asserting that they had no truck with Naziism or Neo-Naziism.

Ergo, Nigel Farage ... and Nazis, sitting in a tree ... But in order to insinuate this, you have to pretend it's still 1994 and even after that have a long, tenuous and barely credible link.

It's the same with the former National Front member that's now in the EFD group:

1) Representative is elected for the Front Nationale
2) Representative makes statements indicated that she's really a Leftist and thinks we should be nicer to immigrants.
3) Representative is kicked out of the Front Nationale
4) Representative is welcomed into the EFD group after affirming that she doesn't really have anyhing in common with FN.

The facts even in the article are clear, but the insinuation, again is Nigel Farage > UKIP > EFD > Front Nationale, which is false.

Then you repeated both insinuations, but strangely enough left out the facts. I wonder why?

You don't fault the guardian for not mentioning this, however
http://www.thelocal.se/20121129/44726

I'm not sure what's the significance of that, one SD member acted the gob****e. If the SD are anything like UKIP, they'll kick him out, and proper order too.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

It may well be technically true, ...............

....no, its true and that's the start and end of it. Farage is now in the EU parliament grouped with another bunch of dodgy right wingers trying to don the cloak of respectability.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

....no, its true and that's the start and end of it.

(Anecdote from a story that actually happened, though in a different time and place) Suppose a journalist asks ... say a political candidate (without cause) "Were you ever in a mental institution?" Candidate says "No" and then the newspaper, which has a major agenda, runs in very large lettering as its front page headline: "CANDIDATE X DENIES BEING NUTHOUSE INMATE."

That's technically true too, but it's no more enlightening than the headline of your Guardian article. The Guardian, let's remind ourselves, is or has reporters that are, against gay marriage - because marriage is a tool of the patriarchy to enslave and silence women and as such should not be extended to anyone. Nothing insane there.

Farage is now in the EU parliament grouped with another bunch of dodgy right wingers trying to don the cloak of respectability.

Actually no, all that you've proven is that:

1. You are a radical leftist
2. You don't like Nigel Farage or UKIP
3. Probably because you're against the soverignty of democratic nation states. Or you want to have an "open door" immigration policy or something.
4. You complain about the Daily Mail but post articles from it's left wing counterpart, the Guardian.
5. Your skewing of an already skewed Guardian article shows that you have as much of a commitment to intellectual honesty as you do towards democratic rights of people you disagree with, a.k.a. F@#% all.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

(Anecdote (..........)disagree with, a.k.a. F@#% all.

The facts -

Has Farage grouped with the people mentioned? Yes.
Are the facts about them as stated? Yes
Is there a very distinct pattern attached to the "wingnuts" of UKIP? Yes
Has Farage made some very suspect comments himself? Yes.


That's what I've been presenting, and thus far you've shown nothing that would lead one to believe otherwise.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Has Farage grouped with the people mentioned? Yes.

Correct.

Are the facts about them as stated?

No. The details may be correct, but the headline and inferred conclusion are at best half-truths.

Your selective quoting, ignoring the facts that contract your view, adds to the intentional confusion further still.

Is there a very distinct pattern attached to the "wingnuts" of UKIP?

No. UKIP has had problems with "wingnuts" but they've all been removed from the party as soon as they expose themselves as such. And I agree 100% with all such removals.

As to the UKIP alliance in the EFD group, that contains - by the articles own admission - an MEP unsuitable for the FN because she is basically a Leftist and a party, the Italian 5 Star Alliance that wants a Financial Transactions Tax and a contined EU, and two members of the Sweden Democrats that are verifiably unconnected with the Naziism that was suggested, well, it's a bit more complex than you're making it out to be.

Has Farage made some very suspect comments himself?

Common sense I'd call it.

That's what I've been presenting, and thus far you've shown nothing that would lead one to believe otherwise.

All that you presented there was spin and half-truths, which you selectively twisted to present a particular narrative.

McDave

SeanW wrote: »

UKIP has had problems with "wingnuts" but they've all been removed from the party as soon as they expose themselves as such. And I agree 100% with all such removals.

Whatever about the term 'wingnuts', I personally see Farage as being a little off beam. His performance in the EP where he personally attacked Van Rompuy and the country he comes from was demagoguic and pandered to the very worst populism. To my mind, it was the measure of the man, which is not very much. That he leads, and is the most prominent person in UKIP speaks volumes for the nature his party - petty, jingoistic and chauvinistic.

As for policies, the attitude to foreigners may speak to genuine concerns, but the manner in which they are couched is really quite vile. I speak as someone who favours EU migration to seek work, but strict controls from outside the EU. I accept that there have been major stresses from migration from recent accessions. However, I'm also realistic enough to accept that much of the total immigration into many EU countries is a result of prior colonial/imperialist relations, and subsequent intra-EU have acted as tipping points. But I don't see Farage, UKIP, or anyone else for that matter proposing constructive solutions to face up to migration realities, including helping the economies of poorer countries to develop (including within Europe and the EU), and overcoming many of the problems which force people to migrate to western and northern Europe.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Correct.
No. The details may be correct, but the headline and inferred conclusion are at best half-truths..

The facts are correct then.

SeanW wrote: »

Common sense I'd call it.

.

So you think its objectionable if a Romanian person was living on the same street as you? Please explain why.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

The facts are correct then.

Have a careful read of this definintion of half truth, and see which of this applies to the article headline and your skewed summary of it.

So you think its objectionable if a Romanian person was living on the same street as you? Please explain why.

I explained this in another thread.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

............

I explained this in another thread.

Would you care to link to that explanation?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Would you care to link to that explanation?

Glady. If you disagree, please by all means dispute it there.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

The facts -

Has Farage grouped with the people mentioned? Yes.
Are the facts about them as stated? Yes
Is there a very distinct pattern attached to the "wingnuts" of UKIP? Yes
Has Farage made some very suspect comments himself? Yes.


That's what I've been presenting, and thus far you've shown nothing that would lead one to believe otherwise.

What exactly is it that you truly think Farage (et al) is on the verge of ACTUALLY achieving?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Glady. If you disagree, please by all means dispute it there.

Well you made the statement I'm querying here, so no. You think its perfectly ok to stereotype Roma?

Nodin

opo wrote: »

What exactly is it that you truly think Farage (et al) is on the verge of ACTUALLY achieving?

Possibly dragging off just enough votes from both major parties to bring in another coalition government, though I doubt UKIP would be in it. I don't think the party itself is cohesive enough to survive real success of itself.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Well you made the statement I'm querying here,

You brought it up, where it had already been dealt with in another thread.

Maybe you can tell me why you told half-truths/lied by omission, because that's what happens when facts are twisted, out-of-context, presented to mislead.

Because that's exactly what you did with your selective quotes:

Nodin wrote:

"Nigel Farage has joined forces in the European parliament with a Swedish party that was founded by white supremacists, including a former member of the Waffen SS.

This may be true - I don't know enough about the SD to verify - but without the information that this was back in the 1980s and the party changed direction dramatically in 1995, posting that statement on it's own is out of context, and extremely likely to mislead.

the Ukip leader also invited a French MEP who was elected for Marine Le Pen's Front National last month to join his pan-European group in the parliament."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ean-parliament

You didn't mention, and indeed the article did not until further down, that this member had been removed from FN because she was essentially a Leftist, again without that context the statement is misleading. In fact the way that it was presented suggests that it was designed to mislead.

You also ommitted the fact as printed in the Guardian article that the new EFD group contains the Italian 5 Star Movement, which can best be described as Environmental-Left. Does the FSM share the 'shame' of sharing an EU Parliament group with the "Waffen SS" and the "Front Nationale"? Or just UKIP?

Also instructive is the comments section under the article.

Guardian readers wrote:

He looks like a condom filled with week old gruel.
Fascist
Nazi
brown shirt
racist
scum
BNP in suits
vermin

Stay classy, Guardianistas.