Nigel Farage MEP

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Never mentioned crimes, just that seem to have blatant disregard to our democracy such as was the respect given to our referenda. I would come close to calling the whole banking fiasco a crime although.
As to losing the plot, I think anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot in my opinion.

I'm afraid you did, old boy.

It seems you have a blind spot for what you actually write.

Not to mention a penchant for hyperbole.

For instance, who actually said the "whole EU European ideology and system is working fine" and "Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU"? Setting up and knocking down your own straw men, eh?

shanered

Right, I can see your trying to rubbish everything I'm saying.
Firstly, It really didn't require three posts.
Secondly, please don't refer to me as "old boy".
Thirdly, what crime did I mention?
Fortly, in relation to the straw man I presented which, nobody has to mention these things, I brought them up as my opinion.
What are you talking about?
Penchant for hyberbole, nice way of putting it though. If you believe what I think what the EU has done and is continuing to do is exaggerated, that's fine, that's your opinion.
And hey, leave my blind spot alone!:mad:

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Thirdly, what crime did I mention?

I've already gone to the trouble of quoting from your posts on the matter. It's really up to you to explain what you actually mean...

... which may transpire to be quite difficult when you actually denied point blank even using the word.

Your first three words from post 172 above - "Never mentioned crimes", having made this statement a mere eight posts earlier - "Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials."

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Penchant for hyberbole, nice way of putting it though. If you believe what I think what the EU has done and is continuing to do is exaggerated, that's fine, that's your opinion.

What makes you think I "believe" in any particular state of affairs? I think it would be fairer to use less loaded terms like "point of view", "conviction" or "judgement", which is how I would tend to characterise my own perspectives on the moveable feast in a rapidly changing world that is the EU.


* * *


As for exaggeration and hyperbole on your part, I'm afraid the cap fits when one lists some of your statements on your thread, e.g.:

From post 137:

The last few treaties have been double voted in because the Paymasters and the puppets didn't like our democratic vote.

From post 142:

where we are now being Europes lapdog

From post 164:

EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes

From post 172:

anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot

From post 174:

the EU as an institute trys to push on us and when we say no, it doesn't mean anything until they get their way

* * *


Not to mention straight-up inaccuracies like:

From post 70:

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

- Come on! There is no EU "state".

From post 97:

We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms

- "Slighty" over budget? Are you serious?


* * *


The above-quoted language is IMO either intemperate or inaccurate. Others might say provocative. However, I really don't think it's much of an effort to engage in constructive discussion.

shanered

McDave wrote: »

I've already gone to the trouble of quoting from your posts on the matter. It's really up to you to explain what you actually mean...

... which may transpire to be quite difficult when you actually denied point blank even using the word.

Your first three words from post 172 above - "Never mentioned crimes", having made this statement a mere eight posts earlier - "Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials."

I think this is important as I never said any crimes have been commited, but look that in the future they may be.

Sorry for saying believe, you may have a point that point of view etc would have been better.

And as for all the hyperbole statements that you mention, re-reading them I must say that I believe that they are correct.
Your right using language as I do draws large conculsions, but they are conclusion which I have arrived at. Which is my opinion of what happened.

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.
Look I'd like to hear some of your opinions, maybe then we could have a constructive conversation rather then this , what seems to be de-constructive one.

The Corinthian

shanered wrote: »

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.

With respects, he has been engaging in constructive conversation; part of constructive conversation is not to simply accept the opinions of others as true, simply because they believe them to be true and to date he's pointed out where you've contradicted yourself, made unsubstantiated claims or come out with clearly false ones.

An inability, on your part, to acknowledge that you've done any of this, despite it have been very clearly demonstrated is infinitely more indicative of someone who cannot engage in constructive conversation, TBH.

shanered

The Corinthian wrote: »

With respects, he has been engaging in constructive conversation; part of constructive conversation is not to simply accept the opinions of others as true, simply because they believe them to be true and to date he's pointed out where you've contradicted yourself, made unsubstantiated claims or come out with clearly false ones.

An inability, on your part, to acknowledge that you've done any of this, despite it have been very clearly demonstrated is infinitely more indicative of someone who cannot engage in constructive conversation, TBH.

See bold part of your statement.

I agree with this.

Also is the reason why I disagree with the second bold part.

Which clearly false statements have I made?
Which unsubstantiated claims have I made?

I feel I have answered any statements put forward to me, and am willing to elaborate on them more if needed.

The Corinthian

TBH, McDave already did so above - at which point you chose no ignore the criticisms on the basis that he was not being 'constructive'. But let me briefly point out just one example of each:

shanered wrote: »

Which clearly false statements have I made?

This one, for example:

shanered wrote: »

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

To begin with there is no 'EU State'. Secondly, there is no 'head of the EU'; there are four presidents - of the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament, of which Van Rompuy is the first. So, you came out with a false statement.

That you may be unaware that there is no actual 'EU president' is forgiveable, but that you believe the EU to be a State, of any kind, shows a frightening lack of knowledge on the subject, which naturally leads me to question other areas you "believe that they are correct".

Which unsubstantiated claims have I made?

Well there was this:

shanered wrote: »

Ireland's debt is more or less created with the banking debt we encountered, to claim that we are anywhere in the region of 80-90 billion in debt because of the our expenditure to income ratio is purely madness.
We are broke because we bailed out the banks.
We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms, but the debt that we have been laden with is because of the banks.
To say that our problem is because of your so called gap between expenditure and income is to a certain extent true but clearly distorts the fact that the majority of Ireland debt at the moment is because we are bailing out the banks.

This was pretty much debunked and decimated by Scofflaw's response, after which you dropped off the thread for a while.

I feel I have answered any statements put forward to me, and am willing to elaborate on them more if needed.

Well you chose not to respond to McDave, instead feigning indignation as your reason for not doing so and simply stating that you still believed what you said to be correct - even though there are numerous examples of where this has not been the case.

On top of which there does appear to be a trend, principally on the eurosceptic side of this discussion, to resort to hyperbole (McDave cited numerous examples by you, although honesty, you're actually not the worst). Such rhetorical devices may work well when speaking to the converted or the illiterate, but I'd like to think not here.

So if you wish to discuss constructive discussion, it would be a good idea to remember that constructive discussion involves rational and factual debate and not soapboxes, before you accuse other posters of not adhering to it.

shanered

Right, I conceed that Von Rumphoy is not head of the EU,
but the EU acts as a state, this I will uphold. I really don't think it shows a frightening lack of knowledge on the subject.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100053681/the-eu-wants-to-be-treated-as-a-state-by-the-united-nations/

As I do realise that it may not offically be recongised as a state it certainly acts like one. Which in my mind makes it a state.

I never ment to make a claim that McDave was not engaging in constructive conversation, only responding to his accusation that I was not engaging in it.

Right, I'll admit that I got things a little wrong on the exact economic figures, although there are varying different sources for information.

http://www.debtireland.org/download/pdf/audit_of_irish_debt6.pdf

I've been trying to break this down.

Direct Government Debt Billion €
Long Term Debt Securities Government 89.9
Short Term Debt Securities Government 1.9
Total 91.8
Covered debts of Irish banks
ELG Scheme 111
Deposit Guarantee Scheme 74.1
Promissory Notes 30.9
Nama Bonds 28.7
ELA, net of Promissory Notes 34.6
Total 279.3
Scale of Irish national debt at 31 March, 2011 371.1

Seems like we have ended up in in nearly 279 billion debt from this whole banking fiasco and it seems like the EU central bank had a part to play with the credit that was brought to the country.
We were bankrupted in a classic style with the EU central bank and the useless politicians that were in charge with absolute disasters of desicions made with the backing of the EU and EU central banks.
Look sorry if I'm "soapboxing" and taking opinions "only illiterate" or "coverted" would listen to.
Look anyways, can we please all start again, I feel there is a small bit of animosity creeping into here.

McDave

shanered wrote: »

I think this is important as I never said any crimes have been commited, but look that in the future they may be.

Sorry for saying believe, you may have a point that point of view etc would have been better.

And as for all the hyperbole statements that you mention, re-reading them I must say that I believe that they are correct.
Your right using language as I do draws large conculsions, but they are conclusion which I have arrived at. Which is my opinion of what happened.

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.
Look I'd like to hear some of your opinions, maybe then we could have a constructive conversation rather then this , what seems to be de-constructive one.

I'll take you up on your invitation in a few posts after this one. But if you'll indulge me a little bit, I'll give you a bit of background on my general POV.

I'm broadly in favour of the concept of an ever closer union, one of the founding principles/orientations of the EEC/EC/EU. However, I'm still in favour of member states retaining essential aspects of sovereignty, and am not in favour of an EU state proper, operating in the typical competences exercised by a state. I think the 2010 German constitutional court case on the Lisbon treaty is very instructive in this regard.

I want Ireland to remain a State performing essential cultural, educational, security and other competences in its own right. I support Ireland ceding/pooling competencies/powers to the EU where these get a better international return for the EU and for Ireland. I broadly support EU developments to date, and can foresee future developments I'd also support.

I'm not hostile to views that challenge the EU. To me, Crotty did Ireland a service with his challenge, although in retrospect the Supreme Court decision was poorly developed and passed up a good opportunity to define in some detail sovereignty from an Irish perspective.

Although I'd support some of the policies of Labour and the Greens, I don't share either of their traditional hostilities to the EU, although these have moderated in recent years. I don't share the more strident objections of SF or socialists like Joe Higgins or RBB.

I have absolutely no time for the anti-EU narratives of the British, which pervades most parties. I think the Tories are quite dishonest in their approach since Thatcher's parochial and divisive policies. I've no time whatsoever for UKIP and their negative populist posturing.

As to more contemporary developments in Ireland, I thought Libertas might produce a coherent opposition to the EU, keeping the pro-EU camp here honest. However, IMO Ganley is an anti-EU tactician and he has utterly failed, despite being highly articulate, to develop a constructive alternative vision.

When it comes to the EU, my view is that its proponents are finding it increasingly difficult to find a narrative they can sell to voters EU-wide. Despite that I think many voters basically understand what the EU is trying to achieve, although the EU is enduring a very bumpy ride these days.

And although there's a huge goal to shoot at, it's my view that anti-EU advocates are finding it difficult themselves to articulate a constructive alternative vision to the EU other than a return to pure national sovereignty, which I think most Europeans accept simply won't fly anymore. So the anti-EU side has to make do with tactics which exploit the downside of recent developments. It's the best they can do. And once the EU gets back on track, the anti narrative will be exposed for the essential negativity at its core.

I'd like to make one final comment about Ireland. The political stances of many on the left and SF aside, I really despise so much of the Euroscepticism on display in this country, emanating as it does from revolting organs like the UK Oirish press in this country. Seriously, what other country in the world has local versions of foreign newspapers masquerading as local products, and peddling colonial-style interests. I speak of the Sunday Times and the Oirish Mail stable in particular. Both papers have for years been insinuating a snide anti-EU, anti-German narrative. Talk about colonising minds!

So that's my general tuppence/two cents worth. I'll get back to you on some of the themes you've raised shortly.

McDave

The last few treaties have been double voted in because the Paymasters and the puppets didn't like our democratic vote.

I actually voted against the first Nice Treaty referendum. I did it specifically to give that gobdaw McCreevy and FF's non-campaign a bloody nose. I think a lot of others felt similarly. As for Lisbon I, a similar sentiment was at play. But when the second campaign really got its act together, the electorate voted in much greater numbers and delivered a resounding Yes.

I don't think it has anything to do with 'Paymasters' and 'puppets'. First of all, the EU is not in a position to force any outcome. And the Irish electorate is capable of voting in its own interests, no matter how narrow or conceptual.

I simply don't buy into the view that there is some Bilderberg guiding hand which enables the 'elites' to have their evil ways with voting fodder. The second votes here have IMO been closer to the French presidential voting system where voters are given the chance to blow off steam in the first round, and giving their definitive response in the run-off.

McDave

where we are now being Europes lapdog

First off: define 'Europe'. We are the lapdog of exactly what?

IMO, there are core drivers in Europe. Principally the major political cultures of Germany and France. I wouldn't underrate the influence of the Italians and the UK, but the Franco-German alliance is critical. Many other countries coalesce around the core and secondary influences. Most of those countries understand the EU is necessary to project their interests in the global environment. Whether they prosecute those interests through the EU as it is today, or another more focussed model down the road is not decisive for them. They'll pursue those interests regardless. Ireland can go along for the ride if it likes. But if it opts out, the others won't fundamentally care. So IMO, those countries are not especially interested in treating countries like Ireland as lapdogs.

We're constructively in, giving something to the project, or hanging in there in case, or we're out. That's the long and the short of it, I think.

McDave

EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes

The EU can only act within its 'constitutional' treaty-based mandate. It's entitled to legislate within those strict parameters, once the *member states* consent through the Council to given proposals from the EU institutions. Any additional competence/power must be granted to it by the member states. Powers have been accreting slowly since the inception of the EEC. And always with a clear objective in mind.

The 'vast' amounts of countries are those which have decided to join the EU, now standing at 28 since the accession of Croatia. They have consented to cooperation based on the rule of law. A core have joined the Eurozone with stricter macroeconomic, and now financial, implications. The 'control' is limited and defined by law, as the participants have consented to. There is no particular steamrolling taking place - or would you care to specify some examples?

McDave

anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot

What specific ideology is that?

As for the system, I'd say there's pretty much a consensus even at EU level that the system is compromised, slow-moving and frustrating. The EU has a system after a fashion, but is [deliberately?] clumsy compared to national systems. It works fine up to a point.

As for Ireland, I don't know anyone who thinks we're perfectly fine on any level, whether that be in running our own affairs or in our relationship with the EU. I'd suggest our problems with the EU are largely as a result of our own grotesque national incompetence in the course of 14 years of FF-led 'government'. There is no 'perfectly fine' course to pursue in the EU other than to work tirelessly for the best conditions we can get on our debts, including substantial relief on the ex-'promissory note' debt.

McDave

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

There's simply no reasonable discussion to be had on this point. The EU is not a state as understood by any meaningful definition. It may exhibit some state features like having a bureaucracy as in the Commission, a parliament and a founding document. But in these features it is in some ways no more than a souped-up version of an international organisation like the UN, which has an assembly, budget, a bureaucracy and loads of laws. But no reasonable person would ever dream of suggesting the UN is a state.

McDave

I'm happy to discuss the merits or demerits of any of the above points!

micosoft

What I find so curious about the British Euroskeptic approach is the animosity shown towards the European Union yet the forceful support for the Union of Great Britain. Indeed, one can safely say the states within the EU have more say in the running of the EU then Wales, Scotland or NI have in the running of the United Kingdom. You can clearly show that most of the states in the UK have vastly diverse economies with the South West being a prosperous finance hub centred around an international city yet Wales and Scotland have deeply differing economies that arguably have suffered under Westminister's focus on the Southwest.

In essence, every argument Farage (or any other Euroskeptic that comes to mind) makes about the EU could equally be said about the United Kingdom.

- Faceless Bureaucrats - Check, starting with the Secretary for X
- Corruption - Check (moat cleaning anyone)
- Single Currency - Check, does not suit vast parts of the union
- Tax - Check - To hear Ulster Unionists ask for lower tax in NI says it call
- Legal system - No UK Constitution, laws set by first past the post parliament dominated by English parties

And so on.

So the question for the UK/English Euroskeptics is - Are you OK with unions providing that white* English people from the south east run them? Is that the difference between the EU and the UK that horrifies you so much?
If not are you going to support the Scottish referendum and go up to Edinburgh and campaign for a Yes vote. If not why not?

* I am serious - almost universally the Euroskeptic is anti immigration, indeed it is one of the planks of their platform.

McDave

There's a fallacy at the heart of a UKIP party which is despised in Scotland. UKIP is a total misnomer. EIP would be more appropriate.

micosoft

McDave wrote: »

There's a fallacy at the heart of a UKIP party which is despised in Scotland. UKIP is a total misnomer. EIP would be more appropriate.

Why then are they so pro union when it comes to the UK Union. Either they have a contradiction at the heart of their ideology or they are simply out and out English supremacists. Given Occams razor.....

McDave

micosoft wrote: »

Why then are they so pro union when it comes to the UK Union. Either they have a contradiction at the heart of their ideology or they are simply out and out English supremacists. Given Occams razor.....

It's basically an English nationalist party.

Nothing wrong with nationalism in itself, IMO. But I feel 'UK'IP has overreached itself intellectually, and its narrow message has limited its appeal. To broaden its appeal it would have to moderate in the direction of the Tory Party, in which case it would lose its raison d'être. Otherwise it's stuck to the right of the Tories attempting to drag them further to the right. A role which IMO doesn't have a great future.

micosoft

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-godfrey-bloom-sluts-ukip

Looks like that overreach has occured with their annual conference reduced to farce!

Swan Curry

micosoft wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-godfrey-bloom-sluts-ukip

Looks like that overreach has occured with their annual conference reduced to farce!

Wow,he actually went for "Bringing up legitimate racial issues?You're the real racist!"

McDave

micosoft wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-godfrey-bloom-sluts-ukip

Looks like that overreach has occured with their annual conference reduced to farce!

For me the most telling part of that article was this quote:

The Ukip leader said Godfrey Bloom had gone "beyond the pale" and accused the MEP of "destroying" the party's autumn conference. Ukip has to been seen as civilised and grown-up, Farage said.

It's obvious Farage accepts his party has problems in this regard. The difficulty for UKIP though is the more it tries to broaden its appeal the closer it get to the Tories. And the further it gets from the chauvinist 'iconoclasts' which give it it's, ahem, 'specialist' appeal.

micosoft

Great headline... I think your analysis is spot on McDave. When your USP is ultra right wing racism you can't just tone it down and expect that group of supporters to tone down too....

VeryOwl

micosoft wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-godfrey-bloom-sluts-ukip

...as the party puts across its message that the British public "want our country back".

From whom? Where did it go?

I hate those useless sound-bites.

micosoft

VeryOwl wrote: »

From whom? Where did it go?

I hate those useless sound-bites.

The Normans of course. Taking our jobs yada yada!

Scofflaw

micosoft wrote: »

Great headline... I think your analysis is spot on McDave. When your USP is ultra right wing racism you can't just tone it down and expect that group of supporters to tone down too....

It's also true that any party whose USP is not being part of mainstream politics has rather a bit of difficulty becoming a mainstream political party.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

micosoft wrote: »

Great headline... I think your analysis is spot on McDave. When your USP is ultra right wing racism you can't just tone it down and expect that group of supporters to tone down too....

Farage can afford to be a smart alec. He'll never get into power with 'UK'IP.

I don't deny the man has personal talents. But if it were ever to get to the point where the UK were considering an exit, Farage and others would very quickly come up against the vested interests who would leave them in no doubt that the UK needs to be in the EU.

You'd see Farage's cough soften quite quickly as reality dawned on his fairweather supporters, who would desert him in droves for a more radical, but equally ineffectual petty nationalist alternative.

McDave

micosoft wrote: »

The Normans of course. Taking our jobs yada yada!

The Romans took away a lot of farming jobs. And stole their women.

Fukuoka Eagle

I voted for UKIP at the last EU election and I'll be voting for them at the next one. I'll be voting for them at the 2015 General Election if there is a candidate in my constituency. In actual fact, I'm seriously thinking about becoming a member of UKIP. UKIP is becoming so popular because it's the only truly patrotic British political party today; the only party that truly cares for GREAT Britain and her people and the only party which is actually listening to the concerns of the British people.