Nigel Farage MEP

McDave · 03-12-2013 08:44PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

That's all very well, but the 'received wisdom' of and from the likes of Farage is simple knee-jerk chauvinism, coloured by an utter inability to move on from WW2. It's tiresome and transparent, and simply doesn't translate here, no matter how hard anti-EU UK rightists try.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-12-2013 09:27PM

McDave wrote: »

That's all very well, but the 'received wisdom' of and from the likes of Farage is simple knee-jerk chauvinism, coloured by an utter inability to move on from WW2. It's tiresome and transparent, and simply doesn't translate here, no matter how hard anti-EU UK rightists try.

I'm not sure that it can be dismissed so lightly. The euro currency project is a bit of a fiasco at this stage; if we knew this is where we'd end up, we hardly would have joined it with so little thought and analysis. Would that have been chauvinistic?

Maybe Farage is nothing more than a little Englander, although I'm not making such a criticism as I think it's necessary to acknowledge when someone has spoken more than a little sense. What I would suggest is that its evidence of a failure in mainstream politics if a set of serious and valid concerns are only being advocated by a bunch of loons.

micosoft · 04-12-2013 12:25AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that it can be dismissed so lightly. The euro currency project is a bit of a fiasco at this stage; if we knew this is where we'd end up, we hardly would have joined it with so little thought and analysis. Would that have been chauvinistic?

Maybe Farage is nothing more than a little Englander, although I'm not making such a criticism as I think it's necessary to acknowledge when someone has spoken more than a little sense. What I would suggest is that its evidence of a failure in mainstream politics if a set of serious and valid concerns are only being advocated by a bunch of loons.

By your measure the sterling and dollar "projects" are fiascos as well.... if you haven't noticed we are in the midst of a global recession. If the Euro were the decider then why are the economies of Germany, Denmark, Austria doing much better then the UK or US? Or perhaps, just perhaps, factors other then the Euro are at the heart of the recession. Why are you not calling for the breakup of sterling which does not work for the north of England?

I'm not for a second suggesting that Euro membership did not have some negative effect on periphery countries by over extending their creditworthiness but if the UK was in the Euro it likely would not have suffered these effects and would as likely be in the exact position it is in now - no better or worse - much like Germany or Austria.

micosoft · 04-12-2013 12:36AM

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.

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.

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.

It's ridiculous if only because your analogy's are utter hogwash and hyperbole (comparing the Soviet Union centrally controlled economy to the free market Euro economy) or just plain flat wrong - Switzerland and the rest of EFTA (do look it up) all apply the same market rules as a condition of being part of the EU free trade area. So even Switzerland applies these regulations to gain access to the Euro market.

In order to have Free Trade YOU MUST have common rules. The whole negotiation over the new US - Euro free trade agreement is to allow products certified in Europe be sold in the US without hinderance and vice versa. Of course - perhaps not such an advantage given the UK destroyed it's manufacturing base, but services is a focus.

But we've had this conversation before many many times. Give us an example of a regulation you think should not be there. Just the one out of the tens of thousands of regulations. And do check that it's not a Euromyth before posting.

View · 04-12-2013 01:04AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Switzerland is less effective somehow than the EU because the EU is large and Switzerland small would be equally ridiculous.

Switzerland is a Federation, the EU is not. So you are comparing apples & oranges.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Again, the EU is notoriously slow and cumbersome to make changes, due to its size.

See above. It largely isn't size related. Swiss Federal law doesn't have to be enacted into the cantonal law of each of its cantons to take effect. EU law usually (or frequently) requires that.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Smaller countries can, and do, act with greater speed which can be an advantage.

Yeah, the smaller EU states all turned on a 10-cent piece and headed off potential economic problems thus avoiding the need for bailouts from the Troika. :-)

View · 04-12-2013 01:13AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

That demonstrates a failure of free market forces within the EU.

There was a (roughly) comparable mis-allocation of capital within the US at the time.

Is the Euro supposed to be to blame for that also?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-12-2013 01:49AM

micosoft wrote: »

By your measure the sterling and dollar "projects" are fiascos as well

But they weren't projects in the same sense. The institutions around the dollar just evolved over time. The euro, on the other hand, was a conscious project.

View wrote: »

That demonstrates a failure of free market forces within the EU.

There was a (roughly) comparable mis-allocation of capital within the US at the time.

Is the Euro supposed to be to blame for that also?

I don't think that's the pertinent point. Remember, the point at issue is whether we see the EU as the only feasible approach to a suite of issues that we might broadly term 'globalisation'. The case being made (by others) is that a great big union like the EU can put manners on international capital.

It's hard to see the evidence to support that, in a context where the euro became a mechanism for finanical contagion.

Incidently, in the US case, recall that one of the responses to the Great Depression was the Glass Steagall Act, which placed significant restrictions on the range of business that a single financial institution could undertake. It was repealed in the late 90's, and some point to that repeal as a factor in what subsequently happened there.

Of course, the common theme between the US and EU experience is the extent to which financial services legislation was changed to facilitate industry, rather than to uphold the public interest.

georgesstreet · 04-12-2013 09:14AM

McDave wrote: »

That's all very well, but the 'received wisdom' of and from the likes of Farage is simple knee-jerk chauvinism, coloured by an utter inability to move on from WW2. It's tiresome and transparent, and simply doesn't translate here, no matter how hard anti-EU UK rightists try.

We all have to use our individual judgement as to why Farage and UKIP resonates in the UK, and if you judge its because he is a chauvinist, or stuck in a time warp, then that's your judgement.

The UK is different to Ireland and is generally more outwardly patriotic. People fly flags in their gardens and have a sense of pride in their nation which they are often unashamed to display. It's the same in the USA and other countries, but which is rarely seen in Ireland. To see that as chauvinism might be to misunderstand a cultural difference.

Much of politics is tiresome and transparent, even here, if by "here" you mean Ireland, and that goes for many countries.

But however we judge any politician, what seems true in the UK is that Farage personally, and UKIP, have a level of popularity. Where that may lead nobody knows, but it makes for a more entertaining political discourse.

McDave · 04-12-2013 08:05PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that it can be dismissed so lightly. The euro currency project is a bit of a fiasco at this stage; if we knew this is where we'd end up, we hardly would have joined it with so little thought and analysis. Would that have been chauvinistic?

Maybe Farage is nothing more than a little Englander, although I'm not making such a criticism as I think it's necessary to acknowledge when someone has spoken more than a little sense. What I would suggest is that its evidence of a failure in mainstream politics if a set of serious and valid concerns are only being advocated by a bunch of loons.

Well, you're quick in there to lightly dismiss the Euro as a fiasco.

We haven't 'ended up' anywhere at this early stage. Indeed, I'd argue to the contrary that the Euro has shown very early promise and resilience in the face of the challenges of the international financial crisis.

In fact, bang in the middle of the crisis the Irish electorate gave a resounding endorsement to steps to strengthen the EU. Support here for the EU and the EZ is solid, and a clear rejection of the siren calls of sceptics and doomsters. Politics and economic policy still works in the EU.

McDave · 04-12-2013 08:18PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

We all have to use our individual judgement as to why Farage and UKIP resonates in the UK, and if you judge its because he is a chauvinist, or stuck in a time warp, then that's your judgement.

Well, thanks for that. But I think we can all agree that Farage doesn't resonate in the UK. 'UK'IP is an English phenomenon, with *no* support whatsoever in Scotland. I'd suspect this lack of support is down to the view that UKIP plays to a narrower ethnic base than it claims.

I'd suspect it's more than my judgement that many people in England are deep-seated chauvinists who simply can't get over WW2. It permeates so much of Britain's print and broadcast media. But maybe that's understandable. Like Ireland, Britain is quite an insular place, and it's easy enough to get by without being challenged by neighbours. But if you don't think so, then perhaps that's down to your individual judgement.

McDave · 04-12-2013 08:25PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

But however we judge any politician, what seems true in the UK is that Farage personally, and UKIP, have a level of popularity. Where that may lead nobody knows, but it makes for a more entertaining political discourse.

Entertainment? Well, I suppose there is the adage about politics being showbiz for ugly people. Personally I'd be hoping for more. But not necessarily from Farage.

As far as democracy goes, IMO he's welcome to pander to whom he likes in the UK. But for me he becomes fair game for ridicule when he behaves like a child in the EP, or pops over to Dublin to canvass against EU referenda.

georgesstreet · 04-12-2013 08:37PM

McDave wrote: »

Well, thanks for that. But I think we can all agree that Farage doesn't resonate in the UK. 'UK'IP is an English phenomenon, with *no* support whatsoever in Scotland. I'd suspect this lack of support is down to the view that UKIP plays to a narrower ethnic base than it claims.

I suppose that depends on the definition of resonate. Certainly they are not a mainstream party, although Opinium’s fortnightly poll in the Observer has topline figures of CON 28%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 19%(+3). Meanwhile the weekly YouGov poll in the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 15%. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/)

There is no chance they will have the numbers to form a government, but there is a chance they might hold some sort of balance of power. Certainly, the Tories are concerned that they are eating into their base, and at this stage in the electoral cycle, they seem to be gaining some sort of momentum. 15%-19% seems to demonstrate they have a resonance in the UK, and UKIP’s policy of trying to unseat “Europhile” Tories at the next election may have some surprising outcomes.

McDave wrote: »

I'd suspect it's more than my judgement that many people in England are deep-seated chauvinists who simply can't get over WW2. It permeates so much of Britain's print and broadcast media. But maybe that's understandable. Like Ireland, Britain is quite an insular place, and it's easy enough to get by without being challenged by neighbours. But if you don't think so, then perhaps that's down to your individual judgement.

It may well be that the UK is insular and many can’t get over WW2, but the UK is as the UK is. I distrust my individual judgement as we all have our own bias. It may well be UKIP support declines as the focus of a general election gets closer, we’ll have to wait and see. But it is an interesting time in UK politics, and UKIP’s popularity adds to the overall scene to make it more interesting.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-12-2013 11:29PM

McDave wrote: »

Well, you're quick in there to lightly dismiss the Euro as a fiasco.

Nothing light about the fiasco, and nothing quick in making the assessment.

McDave wrote: »

Indeed, I'd argue to the contrary that the Euro has shown very early promise and resilience in the face of the challenges of the international financial crisis.

It's more that its a very difficult knot to unpick.

McDave wrote: »

In fact, bang in the middle of the crisis the Irish electorate gave a resounding endorsement to steps to strengthen the EU.

But, sure, we want to be told what to do. In particular, we want them to repay all the debt we've accumulated. Bear in mind, it hasn't really sunk in that all the funds we got off the Troika need to be repaid, including the funds to redeem the Anglo promissory notes.

In the circumstances, talk of a 'resounding endorsement' has shades of Comical Ali.

McDave · 05-12-2013 09:41PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

I suppose that depends on the definition of resonate. Certainly they are not a mainstream party, although Opinium’s fortnightly poll in the Observer has topline figures of CON 28%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 19%(+3). Meanwhile the weekly YouGov poll in the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 15%. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/)

There is no chance they will have the numbers to form a government, but there is a chance they might hold some sort of balance of power. Certainly, the Tories are concerned that they are eating into their base, and at this stage in the electoral cycle, they seem to be gaining some sort of momentum. 15%-19% seems to demonstrate they have a resonance in the UK, and UKIP’s policy of trying to unseat “Europhile” Tories at the next election may have some surprising outcomes.

What I said was UKIP doesn't resonate in the *UK*. By not having any support in Scotland, UKIP is a misnomer. It's really an English phenomenon. And I would certainly agree the party resonates much more there.

McDave · 05-12-2013 09:55PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

It may well be that the UK is insular and many can’t get over WW2, but the UK is as the UK is. I distrust my individual judgement as we all have our own bias. It may well be UKIP support declines as the focus of a general election gets closer, we’ll have to wait and see. But it is an interesting time in UK politics, and UKIP’s popularity adds to the overall scene to make it more interesting.

For me UKIP is interesting in the sense Screaming Lord Sutch was. Of course UKIP is far more organised, but my net point is UKIP isn't *IMO* bringing anything particularly constructive to the table.

My general view of Britain is largely positive, in most aspects of human endeavour. It's my view though that the UK has let itself down politically since WW2, by effectively contracting out its leadership role, however diminished, to the US. By passing on continental Europe, it's my view that the UK has missed a very significant opportunity which it could have been instrumental in. And which could have helped it retrieve much of its lost international momentum.

IMO it has foregone this option because it never expected the EU to take off, and it has inherent misgivings about/fears of France and particularly Germany. It's my view that the EU will go from strength to strength, and the UK's role will continue to diminish. Naturally I can't prove that. But by staying on the margins, the UK is taking unnecessary risks, when it might be better off keeping its hand in.

I suppose that's the main reason why I have no respect for UKIP. IMO British Euroscepticism is adequately served by the Tories and much of Britain's press. UKIP is an unnecessary step too far in that direction, and to me is more like evidence of a political pathology, than an interesting development.

McDave · 05-12-2013 09:58PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, we want to be told what to do. In particular, we want them to repay all the debt we've accumulated. Bear in mind, it hasn't really sunk in that all the funds we got off the Troika need to be repaid, including the funds to redeem the Anglo promissory notes.

'We', 'They'?

Can you be a bit more specific please?

McDave · 05-12-2013 10:09PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In the circumstances, talk of a 'resounding endorsement' has shades of Comical Ali.

A 2 to 1 vote on a high turnout on the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, and a 60% Yes to the Fiscal Compact Treaty in 2012 were resoundingdemocratic endorsements on EU integration and the EZ by the Irish electorate *after* the 2008 fiasco had occurred.

Now, if *you* equate these striking democratic consents with Saddam's regime, perhaps it's you who's not taking matters seriously, in particular the expressed wishes of the Irish people.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-12-2013 10:21PM

McDave wrote: »

'We', 'They'?

Can you be a bit more specific please?

No, because the meaning is plain. If I feel like making things unnecessarily difficult, I'll paint my hallway through the letterbox.

McDave wrote: »

A 2 to 1 vote on a high turnout on the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, and a 60% Yes to the Fiscal Compact Treaty in 2012 <...> by the Irish electorate *after* the 2008 fiasco had occurred.

I'm not disputing these facts. I'm simply seeing your interpretation of them as naive.

In particular, the issue of the debt burden accumulated by the Irish State since 2008 needs to feature somewhere in your thinking. I can't help thinking that, if the Troika are willing to lend us billions of euro, they must feel that billions of euro won't be worth very much in a few years time.

oscarBravo · 06-12-2013 01:17AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't help thinking that, if the Troika are willing to lend us billions of euro, they must feel that billions of euro won't be worth very much in a few years time.

...or that we'll repay our debts, like we've been repaying our debts since we first started borrowing money to run the country.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 10:13AM

McDave wrote: »

For me UKIP is interesting in the sense Screaming Lord Sutch was. Of course UKIP is far more organised, but my net point is UKIP isn't *IMO* bringing anything particularly constructive to the table.

While the Monster Raving Looney Party was fun, to liken UKIP, a party with national support and with 15%-19% in the polls nationally, to the Monster Raving Looney Party, does seem to expose your own bias.

McDave wrote: »

I suppose that's the main reason why I have no respect for UKIP. IMO British Euroscepticism is adequately served by the Tories and much of Britain's press. UKIP is an unnecessary step too far in that direction, and to me is more like evidence of a political pathology, than an interesting development.

Again, your judgment that there is no need for UKIP seems not to be shared with the 15%-19% who the polls tell us support UKIP.

It’s curious you say it’s not interesting, yet here you are discussing it

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-12-2013 10:43AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or that we'll repay our debts, like we've been repaying our debts since we first started borrowing money to run the country.

You're sort of missing the implication of us being part of a single currency area. In fairness to you, it's not as if there was much discussion of those implications before we joined.

And, of course, it's similarly explicable that you're ignoring the real world context - that we ended up in a programme precisely because of profound doubts about the capacity to repay debt.

gallag · 06-12-2013 01:25PM

UKIP is already making a massive difference in UK politics, nearly every decision made by the PM is influenced by the rise of UKIP popularity.

Lemming · 06-12-2013 01:43PM

gallag wrote: »

UKIP is already making a massive difference in UK politics, nearly every decision made by the PM is influenced by the rise of UKIP popularity.

No, it's just Cameron's inability to control his own party that has him looking over his shoulder constantly. That's why he's trying to pander to UKIP-lite types. UKIP are, despite their apparent gains, a narrow-focus-narrow-appeal party (as much as it may be ignored, they pander strongly to supporters of the various 'nationalist' parties), with little in the way of any real credible policy beyond making soundbites about the EU and immigrants being the devil in disguise.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 01:47PM

Lemming wrote: »

No, it's just Cameron's inability to control his own party that has him looking over his shoulder constantly.

Surely it should be "yes" and not "no" as you seem to be agreeing with the other poster that UKIP has made Cameron look over his shoulder. The two of you seem to be in agreement.

Lemming · 06-12-2013 04:01PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Surely it should be "yes" and not "no" as you seem to be agreeing with the other poster that UKIP has made Cameron look over his shoulder. The two of you seem to be in agreement.

No (and to clarify, that'd be "no"); I meant what I wrote.

Have a think about what I wrote some more.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 04:56PM

Lemming wrote: »

No (and to clarify, that'd be "no"); I meant what I wrote.

Have a think about what I wrote some more.

I don't need to "have a think" as you patronisingly suggest. I can read what you wrote. I know you said "no" but what you wrote agrees with the other poster, that UKIP has influenced how Cameron thinks and acts.

oscarBravo · 06-12-2013 05:40PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You're sort of missing the implication of us being part of a single currency area.

I don't know what this means.

And, of course, it's similarly explicable that you're ignoring the real world context - that we ended up in a programme precisely because of profound doubts about the capacity to repay debt.

...and we're exiting the program because those doubts have been alleviated.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 06:05PM

I don't know what the Irish national Debt has to do with Nigel Farage ( the subject of this thread), but the facts are;

Irish National Debt stands at €174 Bn and is increasing.

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

The Interest in that at a notional 5% per annum would be €8.7 Bn per annum.

The Irish National Debt is not being paid off, and increased by another whopping €18½ Bn in 2012.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/national-debt-rises-by-18-5bn-in-2012-1.1468277

Anyone who does not have "doubts" about Irelands ability to even keep up the interest payments must be applauded, but to think Ireland can ever stop increasing the debts, and actually start to pay them off, you'd have to be raving mad.

oscarBravo · 06-12-2013 06:26PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Anyone who does not have "doubts" about Irelands ability to even keep up the interest payments must be applauded, but to think Ireland can ever stop increasing the debts, and actually start to pay them off, you'd have to be raving mad.

Are you under the impression that Ireland is somehow unusual in increasing its national debt?

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 06:48PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you under the impression that Ireland is somehow unusual in increasing its national debt?

Two things:

I don't understand why this is in a thread about Nigel Farage

2. It's not really going to be much consolation to irish Taxpayers to know that some other countries also increase their national debts. The sheer enormity of the Irish National debt is such that anyone who thinks, because the troika have left, that Ireland is even approaching financial stability must be mad.

Total tax receipts have fallen from in excess of €47 billion in 2007 to €32.5 billion in 2009, and nearly €10 billion is needed just to pay the interest on the debts.

Seeing you are obviously a fan of the rhetorical question, here's one for you: Do you think its usual that nearly 30% of the total tax raised by a government is used just to pay the interest on the outstanding debts?

Nigel Farage MEP

Comments