Nigel Farage MEP

oscarBravo · 13-11-2013 05:42PM

Fukuoka Eagle wrote: »

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.

Content-free, slogan-rich. Must try harder.

Scofflaw · 13-11-2013 06:56PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Content-free, slogan-rich. Must try harder.

To put that at slightly greater length - the claim that:

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.

tells us nothing at all about UKIP. One can substitute whatever one's preferred party (and/or country) is and make exactly the same claim:

The Tory Party 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.

Labour 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.

and

Fine Gael is becoming so popular because it's the only truly patrotic Irish political party today; the only party that truly cares for IRELAND and her people and the only party which is actually listening to the concerns of the Irish people.

You will, no doubt, disagree vehemently with the variants of your statement above, but someone who doesn't like UKIP would have the same feelings about your original version. The claim only really boils down to "I like UKIP".

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 23-11-2013 02:01PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

tells us nothing at all about UKIP. One can substitute whatever one's preferred party (and/or country) is and make exactly the same claim:

Why do you need a stranger to tell "us" about UKIP? Ironically, your post also tells "us" nothing about UKIP

Anyone who would dismiss UKIP as just another fringe party may well be correct, and only time will tell if UKIP can keep up the big mo.

Scofflaw · 25-11-2013 02:01AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Why do you need a stranger to tell "us" about UKIP? Ironically, your post also tells "us" nothing about UKIP

Anyone who would dismiss UKIP as just another fringe party may well be correct, and only time will tell if UKIP can keep up the big mo.

Well, perhaps I wasn't clear enough there. My post isn't about UKIP, it's about the claim I quoted, which, as I said, tells us nothing about UKIP because you could perfectly well substitute any other party's name into the claim.

If I ask "why do you like UKIP" and someone replies "I'm a patriotic person, I like UKIP", that's obviously not really a meaningful response - and that's what this:

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.

boils down to. It tells you what the person thinks of themselves, and that they like UKIP, and that's all.

Although possibly that's revealing in itself, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 25-11-2013 11:19AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

If I ask "why do you like UKIP" and someone replies "I'm a patriotic person, I like UKIP", that's obviously not really a meaningful response

The response lets me guess the likely IQ of the individual who responds in that way though, and that's useful information.

UKIP is a symptom, and not the problem.

Scofflaw · 25-11-2013 08:11PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

The response lets me guess the likely IQ of the individual who responds in that way though, and that's useful information.

UKIP is a symptom, and not the problem.

That's true enough, but a symptom of what? General disillusionment with politics? Opposition to immigration? Euroscepticism? A reaction to hard times? A reaction to modern times?

Presumably a bit of all of these, in different proportions depending on the individual. Personally, I'd say the resulting mix is fairly heavy on the 'opposition to immigration', which is a pretty standard reaction to hard times, involves the EU (c.23% of immigration to the UK is from the EU, but it's a handy target because much of the 77% left over brings in questions of colour/race), and all of that tends to breed disillusionment with mainstream politics because mainstream politicians know that immigration is at least as much of a solution as a problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 26-11-2013 11:55AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's true enough, but a symptom of what? General disillusionment with politics? Opposition to immigration? Euroscepticism? A reaction to hard times? A reaction to modern times?

Presumably a bit of all of these, in different proportions depending on the individual. Personally, I'd say the resulting mix is fairly heavy on the 'opposition to immigration', which is a pretty standard reaction to hard times, involves the EU (c.23% of immigration to the UK is from the EU, but it's a handy target because much of the 77% left over brings in questions of colour/race), and all of that tends to breed disillusionment with mainstream politics because mainstream politicians know that immigration is at least as much of a solution as a problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd agree, although it can be encapsulated by a disillusionment with politics (a common theme of many democracies in 2013 and a worrying situation) coupled with a genuine dilemma between the London/Brussels issue.

ewan whose army · 26-11-2013 01:30PM

Fukuoka Eagle wrote: »

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.

UKIP's Popularity, as a gay English/Scottish person I am horrified by UKIP, they are old school Thatcherite Tories, their popularity is weaning since they took up Far-Right wingers!

shanered · 28-11-2013 05:21PM

I understand that this thread may be slowly becoming more about the UKIP which is understandable, but as par the name of the thread, it is about a single politician Nigel Farage.
A new thread should probably be started to debate what people think about the UKIP which I'm sure there would be many interesting views.
I think feel free about talking about the UKIP but in the context of Nigels direct quotations and actions if possible.

But here is a link it a debate between Gay Mitchell and Nigel Farage.
To be honest, I have to say again, I feel like Nigel is dead right in this debate, but I suppose that that says a good bit about my political leaning as regards the EU as an institution and Ireland's boom and bust.

Anyway, here's the link:

Its worth a watch, and I feel Nigel does well to point out Gay's notion that Ireland is sovereign at the moment.
What's your views on this debate?

georgesstreet · 28-11-2013 07:36PM

shanered wrote: »

I understand that this thread may be slowly becoming more about the UKIP which is understandable, but as par the name of the thread, it is about a single politician Nigel Farage.
A new thread should probably be started to debate what people think about the UKIP which I'm sure there would be many interesting views.
I think feel free about talking about the UKIP but in the context of Nigels direct quotations and actions if possible.

But here is a link it a debate between Gay Mitchell and Nigel Farage.
To be honest, I have to say again, I feel like Nigel is dead right in this debate, but I suppose that that says a good bit about my political leaning as regards the EU as an institution and Ireland's boom and bust.

Anyway, here's the link:

Its worth a watch, and I feel Nigel does well to point out Gay's notion that Ireland is sovereign at the moment.
What's your views on this debate?

Its interesting. As usual Gay Mitchell is mostly rhetorical waffle. The interesting point to me is that Farage points out that there is a chasm between the irish political class and the irish people, and he also mentions that the political class no longer care what the people think. I don't think thats especially irish, but it strikes me as partly true, and it is a concern for the future.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2013 01:43AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Its interesting. As usual Gay Mitchell is mostly rhetorical waffle. The interesting point to me is that Farage points out that there is a chasm between the irish political class and the irish people, and he also mentions that the political class no longer care what the people think. I don't think thats especially irish, but it strikes me as partly true, and it is a concern for the future.

I have a concern that there's a general slide back towards oligarchy - the sort of parliamentary oligarchy that Britain had back in the day. But Farage wouldn't strike me as the answer any more than Moseley was.

I'm not sure, either, that the root of the problem can usefully be described as "the political class no longer care what the people think" as if that were something that just happens of its own accord. What we have done, I think, is accept the substitution of material quality of life for pretty much everything else at the national level, which makes national politicians first and foremost managers of economies. And economies are about doing business, and doing business is about relationships.

A century ago, those relationships would have been with heavy industry and mercantile trade, which tended to be nationally based, or internationally based within nationally controlled markets. There was something of a balance of power and interests. These days, the relationships are largely with multinationals and banks, who are famously uncaring about national issues or wishes, and whose power relations with national politicians are ambivalent at best. And as long as those relationships put money into people's pockets, they're tolerated - the flip side, though, is that when the financial industry explodes, they get the helping hand, which is less popular.

If we were to close down the multinational businesses and banks, and national economies were to become more national than global, nationalism might make sense. But in a world where capital, knowledge, people, and business are increasingly internationalised, I'm not sure that an attempt to return to pre-war methods of national politics is going to be anything but a farcical failure - overlaid with a heavy PR focus on the little things left over from globalisation.

As far as I can see, nationalism in an era of globalisation just plays into the hands of the globalised players. The UK - or, rather, perhaps, London - reckons it can go it alone. And perhaps it can, but it's a model of the "United Kingdom" which reduces the rest of the country to a hinterland to the London city-state, and much of London to a globalised service industry for the Square Mile.

In purely material terms, that may work, but it's not much of a 'vision for Britain' - which may strike people as a rather woolly concern, but it has practical implications in terms of the division between the elite money-generating centre and the money-absorbing periphery. Without industry to sustain a lower middle class, the periphery moves backwards socially towards an older social model, except that now the lower orders are urbanised and dependent. The need for bread and circuses grows, as does the gap between the governed and their governors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 09:13AM

I certainly agree with much of what you say. What is evident from the clip is that Gay Mitchell comes over as a standard politician, talking standard politico-speak in a way which comes across as coached and trained. Most people can now recognise that when they see it. Perhaps what some find refreshing with Farage is that he is the opposite of that, which makes him seem genuine, human and not one of the politicians who tries to “sell” the governments policies to the people, but tries to represent the people to the government.

The idea of the UK going “it” alone is a fallacy. Norway and Switzerland don’t go “it” alone. (Many in the UK will remember the dire warnings of what would happen the UK should sterling go “it” alone when it proposed not to join the Euro.)

I suspect if the UK does decide to further opt out of the EU does not mean the UK will be “alone” in any meaningful sense, and will continue to buy and sell, just as it does now, its goods and services at home and abroad.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2013 10:06AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

I certainly agree with much of what you say. What is evident from the clip is that Gay Mitchell comes over as a standard politician, talking standard politico-speak in a way which comes across as coached and trained. Most people can now recognise that when they see it. Perhaps what some find refreshing with Farage is that he is the opposite of that, which makes him seem genuine, human and not one of the politicians who tries to “sell” the governments policies to the people, but tries to represent the people to the government.

He does seem that way, but that's largely because he's not in government.

The idea of the UK going “it” alone is a fallacy. Norway and Switzerland don’t go “it” alone. (Many in the UK will remember the dire warnings of what would happen the UK should sterling go “it” alone when it proposed not to join the Euro.)

I suspect if the UK does decide to further opt out of the EU does not mean the UK will be “alone” in any meaningful sense, and will continue to buy and sell, just as it does now, its goods and services at home and abroad.

I'm sure it will. The idea of the UK "going it alone" is, as you say, a fallacy, because UK governments have recognised, and continue to recognise, that it's not really a better option for the UK. The tradeoff in the euro was too much for the City, but EU membership is not, and it's very important to UK business outside the City.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 10:23AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

He does seem that way, but that's largely because he's not in government.

Of course, he is much more free to say what he thinks but also the way he says it seems so refreshing to many, and distinguishes him from all those clones who talk in the over coached and trained manner of so many politicians, and which I suspect most people now recognise.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure it will. The idea of the UK "going it alone" is, as you say, a fallacy, because UK governments have recognised, and continue to recognise, that it's not really a better option for the UK. The tradeoff in the euro was too much for the City, but EU membership is not, and it's very important to UK business outside the City.

The UK will do whatever it decides to do, and that remains to be seen.

The phrase "going it alone" was used in the context of the UK exiting the EU, and should the UK exit the EU it is a fallacy to consider they will be any more "alone" than anyone else not in the EU. In any case, it seems a meaningless concept that a country is "alone".

No doubt the people of the UK, when voting will take many views into account, including those of various business leaders.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2013 11:17AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Of course, he is much more free to say what he thinks but also the way he says it seems so refreshing to many, and distinguishes him from all those clones who talk in the over coached and trained manner of so many politicians, and which I suspect most people now recognise.

Sure - my point is that it wouldn't hold up in government.

georgesstreet wrote: »

The UK will do whatever it decides to do, and that remains to be seen.

The phrase "going it alone" was used in the context of the UK exiting the EU, and should the UK exit the EU it is a fallacy to consider they will be any more "alone" than anyone else not in the EU. In any case, it seems a meaningless concept that a country is "alone".

No doubt the people of the UK, when voting will take many views into account, including those of various business leaders.

The UK will be in a worse position with respect to a globalised world outside the EU than inside it, something visibly recognised by both business and political circles in the UK. Whether that's recognised by the UK public is obviously another matter. "Going it alone" is a pretty meaningless phrase at the best of times in the context of any country that's not North Korea, and it shouldn't become a straw man description of one of the options.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 12:16PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - my point is that it wouldn't hold up in government.

Perhaps one of the flaws in modern democracy, I think mentioned earlier, is an almost universal expectation that politicians behave differently once elected. It's a cynical view all too often proved right, alas.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK will be in a worse position with respect to a globalised world outside the EU than inside it, something visibly recognised by both business and political circles in the UK. Whether that's recognised by the UK public is obviously another matter. "Going it alone" is a pretty meaningless phrase at the best of times in the context of any country that's not North Korea, and it shouldn't become a straw man description of one of the options.

Those who argued for the UK to join the Euro made exactly the same claims, many of whom were also in political and business circles in the UK. Being in a business or political circle is not to have a monopoly on the truth, or to have psychic powers about the future. They may well be right, and possibly are.

We are all already in a globalised world, and being in the EU doesn't change that fact. Many in the UK don't agree with you that it's better to be in the EU, and judge that it's better to be away from it and free to continue to trade with the EU, and continue to trade with the rest of the world, from outside the EU.

The thought might be horrific for eurocrats that not everyone sees it they way they do, but the UK will survive, either inside the EU or not.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2013 03:35PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Perhaps one of the flaws in modern democracy, I think mentioned earlier, is an almost universal expectation that politicians behave differently once elected. It's a cynical view all too often proved right, alas.

The cynical form of that view is not generally correct, since it believes that politicians are being honest when campaigning against government, and dishonest once they get in. In fact, politicians are more likely to be dishonest in opposition, since there is nothing compelling them to act in any particular way other than that likely to gain maximum votes.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Those who argued for the UK to join the Euro made exactly the same claims, many of whom were also in political and business circles in the UK. Being in a business or political circle is not to have a monopoly on the truth, or to have psychic powers about the future. They may well be right, and possibly are.

We are all already in a globalised world, and being in the EU doesn't change that fact. Many in the UK don't agree with you that it's better to be in the EU, and judge that it's better to be away from it and free to continue to trade with the EU, and continue to trade with the rest of the world, from outside the EU.

The thought might be horrific for eurocrats that not everyone sees it they way they do, but the UK will survive, either inside the EU or not.

The bravado is unnecessary, as is the attempt to reduce the question to some kind of existential dilemma. Nobody thinks the UK will suddenly collapse without the EU's supportive embrace - "better off" is a relative measure. Nor is "free to trade" something that lies on one side or other of the debate - EU membership changes the terms of trade and the amount of clout, but the UK is free to trade either way. As to whether the UK would have been better off in the euro, I can see you regard the case as definitively settled despite never being tested.

amused,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 29-11-2013 04:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The cynical form of that view is not generally correct, since it believes that politicians are being honest when campaigning against government, and dishonest once they get in. In fact, politicians are more likely to be dishonest in opposition, since there is nothing compelling them to act in any particular way other than that likely to gain maximum votes.

It is the perception and expectation that politicians are mostly cynical and dishonest which is the issue, and not the actuality, which is one of the flaws as mentioned. “A pox on all their houses” is not an unusual thing to hear these days.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The bravado is unnecessary, as is the attempt to reduce the question to some kind of existential dilemma. Nobody thinks the UK will suddenly collapse without the EU's supportive embrace - "better off" is a relative measure. Nor is "free to trade" something that lies on one side or other of the debate - EU membership changes the terms of trade and the amount of clout, but the UK is free to trade either way. As to whether the UK would have been better off in the euro, I can see you regard the case as definitively settled despite never being tested.

Nothing is actually necessary, as to discuss here is voluntary. Better off is indeed a comparative and relative term, and many in the UK might agree with you, while many others might disagree. The idea of the referendum is to put numbers on that.

EU membership or not should have little effect on the way trade is conducted, and “clout” is one of those imponderables which seems to have little real relevance. “Influence” and “clout” are unlikely to sway many UK voters, who intend to vote either yes or no, to change their minds.

Likewise, its unlikely many in the UK have not made up their minds on whether or not it would have been good for the UK to have joined the Euro, on the basis that it was never actually tested. I imagine most have made up their minds on that issue, and are not putting off making up their minds until it is, in some way, tested.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2013 04:50PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

It is the perception and expectation that politicians are mostly cynical and dishonest which is the issue, and not the actuality, which is one of the flaws as mentioned. “A pox on all their houses” is not an unusual thing to hear these days.

That seems to be partly a result of a general political consensus on the shape of modern societies and economies. While pragmatically that's no bad thing - the swings and roundabouts of policy change between Labour and Tory governments in the Seventies and Eighties made actual progress unlikely - it leaves quite a large group of voters out, because they prefer more extreme positions. The majority, who the consensus serves pretty well, on the other hand, don't find it inspiring - consensus politics rarely are.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Nothing is actually necessary, as to discuss here is voluntary. Better off is indeed a comparative and relative term, and many in the UK might agree with you, while many others might disagree. The idea of the referendum is to put numbers on that.

Gosh. Who knew?

georgesstreet wrote: »

EU membership or not should have little effect on the way trade is conducted, and “clout” is one of those imponderables which seems to have little real relevance. “Influence” and “clout” are unlikely to sway many UK voters, who intend to vote either yes or no, to change their minds.

"Market clout" isn't a nebulous concept, but a very straightforward one. The EU's trade bargaining clout is based on access to a single market of 500m people worth €14.7tn - the UK's bargaining position as a single entity is based on access to a single market of 65m worth €1.8tn.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Likewise, its unlikely many in the UK have not made up their minds on whether or not it would have been good for the UK to have joined the Euro, on the basis that it was never actually tested. I imagine most have made up their minds on that issue, and are not putting off making up their minds until it is, in some way, tested.

Sure, but so what? Public sentiment on whether the UK would have been better off in the euro is not actually something that tells you whether it would have been or not. As a general rule, what people think is true tells you about how people think, not about truth.

For example, half the UK public doesn't believe in evolution, and only a quarter of the UK public definitely agree with it - are they right, would you say? And if they're not right, what does that tell you about the likelihood of they're being right about any other complex topic?

You may be confusing the public's ability to be right with their right to be wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 02-12-2013 03:04PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems to be partly a result of a general political consensus on the shape of modern societies and economies. While pragmatically that's no bad thing - the swings and roundabouts of policy change between Labour and Tory governments in the Seventies and Eighties made actual progress unlikely - it leaves quite a large group of voters out, because they prefer more extreme positions. The majority, who the consensus serves pretty well, on the other hand, don't find it inspiring - consensus politics rarely are.

It’s interesting to assume that because voters are not given a real choice that a majority agree with or are happy with the outcome. Ironically, that seems to be what many in the UK find unattractive about the EU, that there is a perception of no choice, and is one reason why Nigel Farage has struck a chord in the UK.

I would disagree that the majority, for example, in Ireland were served well or even pretty well by recent governments, or the Greeks and so on. How you can claim that the majorities were served well seems curious, and seems to suggest an academic rather than a practical approach.

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Market clout" isn't a nebulous concept, but a very straightforward one. The EU's trade bargaining clout is based on access to a single market of 500m people worth €14.7tn - the UK's bargaining position as a single entity is based on access to a single market of 65m worth €1.8tn.

I have looked up the term “market Clout” in a number of dictionaries and cant find it, alas. Again, it suggests an academic rather than a practical viewpoint. I can’t imagine the Saudi’s, for example, base a decision on which arms to buy from which countries based on “market clout”. While the concept itself may well not be nebulous, in practice it seems to have negligible effect on inter-country trade. The Chinese don’t buy coal from South Africa because they like the South African “market clout”, nor do the UK and France buy gas from Russia because of “market clout”. I’ve simply never heard of trade being conducted due to “market clout”, which is not to say it doesn’t exist, but it seems to have little significance or influence when it comes to two parties trading together.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, but so what? Public sentiment on whether the UK would have been better off in the euro is not actually something that tells you whether it would have been or not. As a general rule, what people think is true tells you about how people think, not about truth.

It can’t be truth as the UK never joined the Euro. Certainly it seems to be the position that many believe the UK would be worse off had they joined the Euro. That’s a reasonably widespread view in the UK, and one which Nigel Farage uses as an example quite often.

Scofflaw wrote: »

For example, half the UK public doesn't believe in evolution, and only a quarter of the UK public definitely agree with it - are they right, would you say? And if they're not right, what does that tell you about the likelihood of they're being right about any other complex topic?

Which highlights where we differ. If you are saying they may disagree with what I hold to be right, that’s one question. However, it is they themselves who have to decide if they are right or not, and they will base how they vote, for example, not on what you or I may think, but on what they hold to be right.

Just because you may judge someone is not “right” about your chosen topic, evolution, does not mean they are unable to be “right” about other complex topics. You have said above that

Scofflaw wrote: »

As a general rule, what people think is true tells you about how people think, not about truth.

And that you appear to think if others do not agree with you they are not thinking in the “right” way or ways, seems as good an example as any of your general rule.

oscarBravo · 02-12-2013 04:38PM

Ye gods, here we go again with the ridiculous attitude that nothing is objectively true or false, and that beliefs are equivalent to facts.

Scofflaw · 02-12-2013 05:38PM

georgesstreet wrote:

And that you appear to think if others do not agree with you they are not thinking in the “right” way or ways, seems as good an example as any of your general rule.

I don't mind what conclusions people reach, as long as the process of reaching them involves more than just deciding what appeals to them. As oB says, it appears you believe that operating entirely without facts is as valid as operating with them, and certainly you don't seem willing or able to back up your own opinions with facts, but rather with a combination of arm-waving and reference to the opinions of others.

The point about evolution is that it is a scientifically proven theory, that one can therefore be right or wrong about. Half the UK public are quite simply wrong about it. Using the UK public's opinion as some kind of benchmark for the correctness of your own opinions, which seems to be the only benchmark you actually use, is therefore visibly extremely shaky.

And, of course, you're not actually consistent about your willingness to let public opinion dictate what is and isn't correct:

georgesstreet wrote:

It’s interesting to assume that because voters are not given a real choice that a majority agree with or are happy with the outcome. Ironically, that seems to be what many in the UK find unattractive about the EU, that there is a perception of no choice, and is one reason why Nigel Farage has struck a chord in the UK.

I would disagree that the majority, for example, in Ireland were served well or even pretty well by recent governments, or the Greeks and so on. How you can claim that the majorities were served well seems curious, and seems to suggest an academic rather than a practical approach.

Suddenly here you're using an external benchmark - the governments in question were voted in by the Irish people, so they reflected what the Irish public wanted (as can't really be doubted by anyone who was here at the time). So by your usual rules they were the best governments, but you abandon that because your opinion here differs from the majority.

I have looked up the term “market Clout” in a number of dictionaries and cant find it, alas. Again, it suggests an academic rather than a practical viewpoint. I can’t imagine the Saudi’s, for example, base a decision on which arms to buy from which countries based on “market clout”. While the concept itself may well not be nebulous, in practice it seems to have negligible effect on inter-country trade. The Chinese don’t buy coal from South Africa because they like the South African “market clout”, nor do the UK and France buy gas from Russia because of “market clout”. I’ve simply never heard of trade being conducted due to “market clout”, which is not to say it doesn’t exist, but it seems to have little significance or influence when it comes to two parties trading together.

I see...so because you can't find that expression in a dictionary, you reckon you can simply deny reality. The reason for the EU negotiating as a bloc rather than separately, or Russia trying to form a Customs Union, can be waved away as an inconvenient abstraction. This is sophistry, and very poor sophistry at that, because the denial of reality is both transparent and obviously agenda-serving.

So, while this is all splendid slippery stuff, and undeniably interesting as an exercise in arguing with a sophist, it's also a complete waste of time, because you're perfectly happy to adopt inconsistent positions and deny reality if that's what it takes to keep the dream alive. As such, neither logic nor facts can be brought to bear on your position - they're "academic", apparently, while those who disagree with you are clearly merely attempting to repress your truth.

It's better suited to the CT forum, to be honest.

amused,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-12-2013 06:08PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

<...>I'm not sure, either, that the root of the problem can usefully be described as "the political class no longer care what the people think" as if that were something that just happens of its own accord. <...>If we were to close down the multinational businesses and banks, and national economies were to become more national than global, nationalism might make sense. But in a world where capital, knowledge, people, and business are increasingly internationalised, I'm not sure that an attempt to return to pre-war methods of national politics is going to be anything but a farcical failure <...>As far as I can see, nationalism in an era of globalisation just plays into the hands of the globalised players. <...>

I think you've usefully set out the kind of issues that get thrown up in this discussion. However, I think it is necessary to consider if 'globalisation' actually represents something practical and sustainable. It tends to be put up as a "there is no alternative" agenda. There's no particular evidence that regional authorities, such as EU, are actually more effective at securing whatever we might feel is the public interest. In fact, its harder and harder to identify what constitutes the public interest when you move up to that scale - and arguments, such as the ones you set out, tend to read like "What's good for General Motors is good for everyone".

To take a concrete case, consider how Australia is currently facing a WTO case over its public health legislation, requiring cigarettes to be sold in plain packets. Is that really the kind of thing that we envisage the WTO should be a forum for, to maximise global benefits from trade?

I don't think the concerns that cause people to look to reconstitute national control can be dismissed as loony tunes stuff. On the other hand, it can't be assumed that the best course of action must be to stick with an ossified EU which struggles to deal with its decline. Consider, for a moment, the output of the Lisbon Agenda. Let's recall, the objective of the Lisbon Agenda was to turn the EU into "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. That's three years ago.

How do you think it went for them?

Scofflaw · 02-12-2013 06:36PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you've usefully set out the kind of issues that get thrown up in this discussion. However, I think it is necessary to consider if 'globalisation' actually represents something practical and sustainable. It tends to be put up as a "there is no alternative" agenda. There's no particular evidence that regional authorities, such as EU, are actually more effective at securing whatever we might feel is the public interest. In fact, its harder and harder to identify what constitutes the public interest when you move up to that scale - and arguments, such as the ones you set out, tend to read like "What's good for General Motors is good for everyone".

To take a concrete case, consider how Australia is currently facing a WTO case over its public health legislation, requiring cigarettes to be sold in plain packets. Is that really the kind of thing that we envisage the WTO should be a forum for, to maximise global benefits from trade?

I don't think the concerns that cause people to look to reconstitute national control can be dismissed as loony tunes stuff. On the other hand, it can't be assumed that the best course of action must be to stick with an ossified EU which struggles to deal with its decline. Consider, for a moment, the output of the Lisbon Agenda. Let's recall, the objective of the Lisbon Agenda was to turn the EU into "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. That's three years ago.

How do you think it went for them?

I'm not sure you're addressing any argument I've made. My own position would go something like this:

1. I don't regard globalisation as something that's avoidable (short of a technological collapse), assuming that by globalisation we mean the multi-nationalisation of business and trade.

2. I don't regard it as something necessarily desirable. At best it offers a possible improvement in material wealth, and even that not necessarily for everyone.

3. I therefore regard it as something that requires management in order to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives.

4. I don't regard nationally based regulatory units as adequate to the task, simply because they are nationally based and competing with each other. There will always be an impetus for national regulators to provide a softer regime in order to attract globalised business, and the outcome of that should be fairly obvious.

5. I don't regard trade-specific bodies like the WTO as adequate to the task, because their focus is entirely on "removing barriers to trade".

As far as I can see, the UK's "independence movement" really bases its hopes on point 4, and on being the jurisdiction that stays out of the management agreement in order to offer a softer regime. That is, of course, a very traditional British position, but it used to go hand in hand with conditions for British workers that were only ameliorated by the profits of empire - whether it is sustainable without an empire is uncertain, and the role model of the US is of no help in determining that, since the US still has the required imperial inflow.

Nor does the proposed return to more swashbuckling days mean the UK will be free of a wide variety of international bodies, although perhaps those entanglements can be reduced to just the ones like the WTO which don't interfere with the UK's social system...although that too is not necessarily a positive outcome.

If the UK frees itself from the European idea that you could and should manage globalisation for social purposes (and the EU's stance on this has been weakened internally by British opposition), I would expect to see the UK slowly remake itself in the image of globalisation, with all that that implies. I don't see that as a good outcome for the UK.

That probably doesn't address the question you've asked me, but then I didn't think the question you asked me was based on my position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-12-2013 09:36PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

4. I don't regard nationally based regulatory units as adequate to the task, simply because they are nationally based and competing with each other. There will always be an impetus for national regulators to provide a softer regime in order to attract globalised business, and the outcome of that should be fairly obvious.

I think this is really the nub of it. All I'm really saying is that I don't think it can be assumed that a regional authority (such as EU) will necessarily be a stronger regulator than a national regime. When matters are decided in a regional body, more changes than just the size of the jurisdiction to which the regime applies. The body itself becomes less cohesive.

Now, I don't think either of us expects that there's some perfect solution out there. I expect both of us see that set of things that might be called globalisation as simply stuff that happens, regardless of whether its good or bad. So the question is only around what imperfect solution might best protect us from some stuff that's just going to happen.

When you consider the EU in that light, that issue around the democratic deficit must come up. The EU's legislative programme is closely followed by pan-European industry bodies. However, the European Parliament, while notionally the body that should be performing scrutiny from the perspective of the public interest, is quite distant from any real popular engagement. Does anyone (apart from those pan-European industry bodies) really follow what the European Parliament gets up to?

Scofflaw · 03-12-2013 12:44AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think this is really the nub of it. All I'm really saying is that I don't think it can be assumed that a regional authority (such as EU) will necessarily be a stronger regulator than a national regime. When matters are decided in a regional body, more changes than just the size of the jurisdiction to which the regime applies. The body itself becomes less cohesive.

Now, I don't think either of us expects that there's some perfect solution out there. I expect both of us see that set of things that might be called globalisation as simply stuff that happens, regardless of whether its good or bad. So the question is only around what imperfect solution might best protect us from some stuff that's just going to happen.

Sure, neither is a perfect solution, because you can't both have your cake and eat it - you can't both be big enough to put manners on transnational corporations, and be able to take advantage of manners put on them elsewhere to offer them a soft regime. It's one or the other.

As to the lack of cohesiveness in a multinational body such as the EU - obviously that's a problem, and one that results in softer, more lower-common-denominator solutions than an equivalent national body - but the lost cohesiveness results from the same play of national interests that, unrestricted, allows the transnational corporations to play countries off each other to get their preferred deal.

When you consider the EU in that light, that issue around the democratic deficit must come up. The EU's legislative programme is closely followed by pan-European industry bodies. However, the European Parliament, while notionally the body that should be performing scrutiny from the perspective of the public interest, is quite distant from any real popular engagement. Does anyone (apart from those pan-European industry bodies) really follow what the European Parliament gets up to?

Yes, fortunately - pan-European NGOs and other civil society, non-profit bodies. The man in the street doesn't, certainly, but that's not because the Parliament doesn't want him to - they would very much like him to! And when people do get in touch, as they did over ACTA (and are currently doing over e-cigarettes), the results can be surprisingly effective, particularly if one is used to the almost complete resistance of Irish governments to public outcry.

Next year we'll have the rather sorry spectacle of people paying a lot of attention to the election of county councillors with very little power, while largely ignoring the election of MEPs with rather a lot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet · 03-12-2013 08:59AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't mind what conclusions people reach, as long as the process of reaching them involves more than just deciding what appeals to them. As oB says, it appears you believe that operating entirely without facts is as valid as operating with them, and certainly you don't seem willing or able to back up your own opinions with facts, but rather with a combination of arm-waving and reference to the opinions of others.

We disagree, as I think others have the right to be stupid if that’s what they choose, and I don’t think it’s up to me to decide what is the right process for others to use to think.

Whether I believe operating without facts is valid or not makes no difference to how others will think. It may well appear to you that I think operating without facts is valid, but whether you think that or not has no bearing on why some follow Farage, or why some vote for UKIP.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The point about evolution is that it is a scientifically proven theory, that one can therefore be right or wrong about. Half the UK public are quite simply wrong about it. Using the UK public's opinion as some kind of benchmark for the correctness of your own opinions, which seems to be the only benchmark you actually use, is therefore visibly extremely shaky.

I think those billions who believe in god are “wrong” too. I also agree that using public opinion as a benchmark for ones own opinions seems foolhardy. Again, it “seems” to you that is something I do. Your post is full of accusations about things I “seem” to do.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And, of course, you're not actually consistent about your willingness to let public opinion dictate what is and isn't correct:

Another accusation. I am entirely consistent in my views about whether public opinion is correct or not, and my views are that it may be or it may not be. Certainly it is my view that public opinion is unlikely to be always correct or always incorrect. Public opinion is what it is.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Suddenly here you're using an external benchmark - the governments in question were voted in by the Irish people, so they reflected what the Irish public wanted (as can't really be doubted by anyone who was here at the time). So by your usual rules they were the best governments, but you abandon that because your opinion here differs from the majority.

I am afraid you are simply incorrect. The context was that you claimed

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems to be partly a result of a general political consensus on the shape of modern societies and economies. While pragmatically that's no bad thing - the swings and roundabouts of policy change between Labour and Tory governments in the Seventies and Eighties made actual progress unlikely - it leaves quite a large group of voters out, because they prefer more extreme positions. The majority, who the consensus serves pretty well, on the other hand, don't find it inspiring - consensus politics rarely are.

I used no benchmark at all. My reply was in the context that you claimed that consensus politics serves countries pretty well, and I gave examples of countries where that was at least open to doubt. Why you claim I think they were “the best” governments is a mystery, as no where do I say or even imply that. It seems your form of debate relys on simply making up things about your interlocutor.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I see...so because you can't find that expression in a dictionary, you reckon you can simply deny reality. The reason for the EU negotiating as a bloc rather than separately, or Russia trying to form a Customs Union, can be waved away as an inconvenient abstraction. This is sophistry, and very poor sophistry at that, because the denial of reality is both transparent and obviously agenda-serving.
/QUOTE]

Why do you think it can be waves away as a convenient abstraction, seems another mystery. You seem to think that big is good and small is bad, which is a view. It’s not one that the subject of this thread might agree with you on, or anyone who is likely to vote for UKIP, I am guessing.
Then you follow up with yet more accusations.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, while this is all splendid slippery stuff, and undeniably interesting as an exercise in arguing with a sophist, it's also a complete waste of time, because you're perfectly happy to adopt inconsistent positions and deny reality if that's what it takes to keep the dream alive. As such, neither logic nor facts can be brought to bear on your position - they're "academic", apparently, while those who disagree with you are clearly merely attempting to repress your truth.

And again more accusations. You hurl the term “inconsistent positions” as if you are they judge and jury on what my position is, and then the judge and jury on whether or not that is right or wrong. You are simply incorrect.

As I said earlier many voters make up their minds for reasons other than what you or I may think is right, or wrong.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ye gods, here we go again with the ridiculous attitude that nothing is objectively true or false, and that beliefs are equivalent to facts.

It’s ironic you invoke “ye gods” as literally billions of humans do just that through, for example, their belief in various gods and religions, for which there is considerable evidence they are simply wrong. Not all humans make decisions which are objectively true or false.

It may well be that for many following Farage & UKIP, and other political parties, the same is true in that they follow for reasons which are more complicated than for reasons which you or I might judge are objectively true or false.

georgesstreet · 03-12-2013 09:08AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think this is really the nub of it. All I'm really saying is that I don't think it can be assumed that a regional authority (such as EU) will necessarily be a stronger regulator than a national regime. When matters are decided in a regional body, more changes than just the size of the jurisdiction to which the regime applies. The body itself becomes less cohesive.

Indeed there are many examples where regulation in the EU was poorer due to its large size. To claim that the Soviet Union was more effective in any way due to its large size than Russia or Georgia is today would be ridiculous, or that Switzerland is less effective somehow than the EU because the EU is large and Switzerland small would be equally ridiculous.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, I don't think either of us expects that there's some perfect solution out there. I expect both of us see that set of things that might be called globalisation as simply stuff that happens, regardless of whether its good or bad. So the question is only around what imperfect solution might best protect us from some stuff that's just going to happen.

Again, the EU is notoriously slow and cumbersome to make changes, due to its size. I don’t think that is always a negative, but it does have an impact. Smaller countries can, and do, act with greater speed which can be an advantage.

This is a feature Farage often holds up as an example particularly when talking about the slow and cumbersome way the EU was said to be working in response to the financial crises.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When you consider the EU in that light, that issue around the democratic deficit must come up. The EU's legislative programme is closely followed by pan-European industry bodies. However, the European Parliament, while notionally the body that should be performing scrutiny from the perspective of the public interest, is quite distant from any real popular engagement. Does anyone (apart from those pan-European industry bodies) really follow what the European Parliament gets up to?

Again this is an argument which is used often by Farage and UKIP, and one which seems to have some resonance amongst the UK electorate.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-12-2013 12:56PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, neither is a perfect solution, because you can't both have your cake and eat it - you can't both be big enough to put manners on transnational corporations, and be able to take advantage of manners put on them elsewhere to offer them a soft regime. It's one or the other.

I'm not sure that it can be boiled down as simply as that; just as I'm not convinced that EU decision-making bodies do face an adequate proxy for the public interest in the form of non-profit NGOs.

Just to demonstrate the complexity, consider how the outcome of the adoption of the euro was pretty much the opposite of what theory would suggest. A single currency, coupled with the common EU regulatory legislation adopted to facilitate the Single Market reform of 1992 and the freedom to move capital within the EU, should have seen capital from all around Europe flowing to wherever it might find the most productive use.

Instead, the opposite seems to have happened. Capital flowed into hopelessly unproductive uses, in the countries least able to generate a return.

All facilitated by an EU legislative framework, which was mean to ensure that all financial services regulators applied the same set of rules to the firms they regulated, and which included measures to ensure that all financial groups operating across borders had a clearly idenified consolidating regulator who would make sure the group, as a whole, was financially sound - again, according to a common set of requirements set out in EU legislation.

I think this demonstrates that the lack of cohesion in EU decision-making, and the relative influence of industry bodies vs the public interest in those legislative processes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-12-2013 01:00PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Indeed there are many examples where regulation in the EU was poorer due to its large size. To claim that the Soviet Union was more effective in any way due to its large size than Russia or Georgia is today would be ridiculous, or that Switzerland is less effective somehow than the EU because the EU is large and Switzerland small would be equally ridiculous.

I think those are good examples, that illustrate the point. We really need to challenge a lot of the received wisdom about the EU. It certainly isn't the only way of doing things. It's only of value if, like in Ireland, we choose to run the political system with an autopilot set to a course given to us by some external authority.

Nigel Farage MEP

Comments