Nigel Farage MEP

sin_city · 29-04-2014 02:05PM

alastair wrote: »

Any EU state has that opportunity at any time. No-one is forced to remain a member.

As to the whole 'bongo bongo land' stuff not being representative of UKIP - well if it's articulated by a representative of UKIP, I'm afraid that's precisely what it is. Godfrey Bloom isn't some aberration within the party base - he's reflective of it.

Stay on topic...when has the EU accepted the vote of people when they have rejected a treaty?

Democracy and all that.

whatstherush · 29-04-2014 02:08PM

sin_city wrote: »

Stay on topic...when has the EU accepted the vote of people when they have rejected a treaty?

Democracy and all that.

How pray tell, are they meant to accept or reject it?

alastair · 29-04-2014 02:10PM

sin_city wrote: »

Stay on topic...when has the EU accepted the vote of people when they have rejected a treaty?

Democracy and all that.

It's you who's attempted to change the topic:

Quote:

Originally Posted by comongethappy View Post

Any nation can leave should it choose.

Nice words....What nations have had this opportunity?

Anything about treaty votes in there? Not a bit of it - any EU state has the right to leave the EU whenever they want.
And again - states have applied vetos to EU treaties and achieved opt-outs - ourselves included. There's no treaty in place that wasn't voted for by the citizens of the EU - which is the democratic process you seem to have missed.

sin_city · 29-04-2014 02:23PM

What treaty has the EU respected the will of the people if it went against their wishes?

Just tell me the treaty that did this and hence respected democracy after a referendum.

alastair · 29-04-2014 02:25PM

sin_city wrote: »

What treaty has the EU respected the will of the people if it went against their wishes?

Just tell me the treaty that did this and hence respected democracy after a referendum.

Every treaty that's in effect did so.

oscarBravo · 29-04-2014 02:28PM

sin_city wrote: »

What treaty has the EU respected the will of the people if it went against their wishes?

Just tell me the treaty that did this and hence respected democracy after a referendum.

You're not making any sense. A treaty can't "respect democracy"; a treaty is a piece of paper.

The EU has no say in whether or not its member states hold referendums. I know it's popular in some quarters to believe otherwise, but popular beliefs and the truth are often poles apart.

Jonny7 · 29-04-2014 02:33PM

sin_city wrote: »

Couldn't they just wait a few months for a new election?

Well looks like the people decided to call the election early doesn't it

You think the ethnic Russians choose to stay with the Ukranians?

What constitutes a viable referendum is not it's outcome

sin_city · 29-04-2014 02:38PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not making any sense. A treaty can't "respect democracy"; a treaty is a piece of paper.

The EU has no say in whether or not its member states hold referendums. I know it's popular in some quarters to believe otherwise, but popular beliefs and the truth are often poles apart.

Once again, I ask...what EU treaty which the people voted against had this vote accepted by the EU?

Treaties have been rejected through the form of referedums and other ways.

I am just asking when one was rejected by the people...when did the EU accept this....Please tell me

whatstherush · 29-04-2014 02:43PM

sin_city wrote: »

Once again, I ask...what EU treaty which the people voted against had this vote accepted by the EU?

Treaties have been rejected through the form of referedums and other ways.

I am just asking when one was rejected by the people...when did the EU accept this....Please tell me

And I'm just asking how does the EU accept the result, when the national government holds another referendum, should the EU order the individual national government not to run this second referendum, what EU treaty gives the EU power to do something like that.

sin_city · 29-04-2014 02:45PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

What constitutes a viable referendum is not it's outcome

Where, Kosovo or Crimea?

Observers from Austria and Czech Republic said the Crimea election was all ok...Are you saying that you think more than 50% of the people would have preferred not to be part of Russia?

Do you think Kosovo and Crimea are different?

Why does the EU respect Kosovo and not Crimea?

alastair · 29-04-2014 02:48PM

sin_city wrote: »

Once again, I ask...what EU treaty which the people voted against had this vote accepted by the EU?

Treaties have been rejected through the form of referedums and other ways.

I am just asking when one was rejected by the people...when did the EU accept this....Please tell me

The EU has respected the outcome of every referendum - which is completely unsurprising, insofar as they have no role in them. Every EU treaty in effect was brought into being through a democratic process.

alastair · 29-04-2014 02:55PM

sin_city wrote: »

Do you think Kosovo and Crimea are different?

Crimea was a part of the sovereign state of Ukraine, Kosovo was no longer part of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia following it's civil war.

sin_city wrote: »

Why does the EU respect Kosovo and not Crimea?

Because Crimea was a part of a sovereign state, illegally annexed by another state, while Kosovo was a state who successfully fought a civil war for independence.

oscarBravo · 29-04-2014 03:02PM

sin_city wrote: »

Once again, I ask...what EU treaty which the people voted against had this vote accepted by the EU?

The EU doesn't get to accept or reject any such vote. EU treaties are ratified or not ratified by the member states; in some cases (notably ours) that ratification is dependent on the outcome of a referendum.

If a member state decides through its own constitutional arrangements not to ratify a treaty, the treaty doesn't get ratified. If it subsequently decides to ratify the treaty, it ratifies it. The EU has zero input into this process.

I am just asking when one was rejected by the people...when did the EU accept this....Please tell me

You're still not making sense. The EU doesn't have a role in "accepting" a member state's failure to ratify a treaty.

Let me turn the question around: when has the EU ever forced a member state to be a party to a treaty that that member state hadn't agreed to ratify?

Jonny7 · 29-04-2014 03:06PM

sin_city wrote: »

Observers from Austria and Czech Republic said the Crimea election was all ok

Names please

Just wondering if they were from the 130 odd far-right politicians, holocaust denier types and vehement anti-Western critics carefully selected and flown in by Moscow perchance?

sin_city · 29-04-2014 03:08PM

alastair wrote: »

Crimea was a part of the sovereign state of Ukraine, Kosovo was no longer part of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia following it's civil war.

Because Crimea was a part of a sovereign state, illegally annexed by another state, while Kosovo was a state who successfully fought a civil war for independence.

Are you for real?

There's no difference, that's why Spain does not recognize either of them.

I can't really have a discussion with you if you actually think Kosovo is legitimate and Crimea is not...total nonsense.

ewan whose army · 29-04-2014 03:10PM

sin_city wrote: »

Are you for real?

There's no difference, that's why Spain does not recognize either of them.

I can't really have a discussion with you if you actually think Kosovo is legitimate and Crimea is not...total nonsense.

Actually I go to Serbia alot , and I can't see Serbia joining since the EU is pro-Kosovo, the party that wants to be in the EU is probably going to get voted out.

ewan whose army · 29-04-2014 03:14PM

One thing about UKIP is they seem to get the news a lot in the UK.

In Ireland (since I am a Brit) the EU election seems odd, I mean you don't hear from any of these candidates until now, and you probably won't in the next 5 years. Can people honestly name their MEP in any part of Europe? Nobody really knows anywhere what powers they have or anything.

Also while we are on about it, whats with those signs about Water Tax? What influence would an MEP have over that since water tax isn't something from the EU? Its a tad deceptive.

alastair · 29-04-2014 03:27PM

sin_city wrote: »

Are you for real?

There's no difference, that's why Spain does not recognize either of them.

I can't really have a discussion with you if you actually think Kosovo is legitimate and Crimea is not...total nonsense.

Spain recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. I note that you've ignored the distinctions between Crimea's annexation and Kosovo's independence.

The Corinthian · 29-04-2014 05:45PM

sin_city wrote: »

Once again, I ask...what EU treaty which the people voted against had this vote accepted by the EU?

EU constitution. Rejected in a number of popular referenda in 2005.

While we're on the subject of people voting on treaties, how many examples of this can you find in general? When a nation signs a trade or diplomatic treaty with another, how often does this go to the people?

A ask this because you seem to be under the mistaken belief that EU treaties are somehow magically different to other treaties. Then again you didn't seem to know that Silvio Berlusconi is an economic Libertarian too, just as Farage claims to be.

So if other treaties are adopted behind closed doors without direct democratic input, then it is perhaps not the EU you should be pointing the finger at.

sin_city wrote: »

These men predicated the financial crash of 2008. Farage is in good company. Maybe you know about this…I don’t know how clued in you are.

Actually, what "libertarian economists and politicians" group is Farage part of that magically embue him with the same foresight? Did he predict the financial crash or are you attempting to credit him without merit?

alastair wrote: »

Spain recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. I note that you've ignored the distinctions between Crimea's annexation and Kosovo's independence.

TBH, Spain also recognises Kosovo as part of Serbia. And the entire discussion of the rights and wrongs of any sub-demographic or region to unilaterally declare independence is both complex - all I'd say is that America is paying the price of the Kosovo precedent, not only in Crimea, but also in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

But ultimately, all the EU members could leave if they chose to. If you want to complain that you're not getting a chance to choose, complain to the national governments, not to the EU. So I've no idea why this has been dragged into the debate.

Jonny7 · 29-04-2014 05:50PM

Henwood, the guy who made the Lenny Henry remarks has resigned

SeanW · 30-04-2014 01:44AM

Nodin wrote: »

"a few bad apples" implies the usual miscreant that can be found in any certain number of people - the corrupt, the violent, the stupid. Here we've a consistent train of a very particular kind of "bad apple". Anti-Jewish remarks, racist remarks, homophobic remarks - its a remarkably consistent grouping, it really is.

Bad apples in any group tend to be consistent.

Bad Muslims tend to become terrorist murders and honour killers, bad gypsies tend to be thieves and thugs.

Of course this is not to say that all of these people fit the negative stereotype.

Indeed that's the whole point.

I put it to you that Henwood is to UKIP what Anjem Choudhury is to Islam or these fine upstanding people are to the various travelling/gypsy communities. (Actually that last one might not be so good because I suspect those are more representative). :mad:

Of course, I can state with 99% certainty that you will not like the last two comparisons, while agreeing with the first.

I would also seriously doubt that you will be able to explain this anomoly.

Nodin · 30-04-2014 05:27AM

SeanW wrote: »

Bad apples in any group tend to be consistent.
...............

Bad Muslims tend to become terrorist murders and honour killers, bad gypsies tend to be thieves and thugs.

All of them?

this consistent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27177864
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/ukip-wycherley-mo-farah-racism-row-facebook

SeanW wrote: »

I put it to you that Lenny Henry is to UKIP what Anjem Choudhury is to Islam...............

That doesn't strike you as being problematic?

comongethappy · 30-04-2014 09:06AM

SeanW wrote: »

I put it to you that Lenny Henry is to UKIP what Anjem Choudhury is to Islam or these fine upstanding people are to the various travelling/gypsy communities. (Actually that last one might not be so good because I suspect those are more representative).

Please educate us ignorant folk Sean on why Lenny Henry, a Muslim hate preacher & a gang of thieves are equivalent?

SeanW · 30-04-2014 10:01AM

Apologies to both above, I mistook the names of the people involved. Meant Henwood, the racist, not Henry the comedian.

Silly error aside, I think my point stands.

Nodin · 30-04-2014 01:39PM

SeanW wrote: »

Apologies to both above, I mistook the names of the people involved. Meant Henwood, the racist, not Henry the comedian.

Silly error aside, I think my point stands.

So apart from all the racism and homophobia, theres no pattern of racism and homophobia, and they aren't a party made up of the tory fringes and wingnuts.

SeanW · 30-04-2014 05:04PM

Nodin wrote: »

So apart from all the racism and homophobia, theres no pattern of racism and homophobia, and they aren't a party made up of the tory fringes and wingnuts.

Yes, I believe there are plenty of good people in UKIP who have a legitimate point of view. If I accept that, then I must accept that people like Henwood, Godfrey Bloom and whoever said "gay marriage caused the floods" have done those people a considerable disservice. UKIP should do whatever it can to get people like that out.

Again, to show you how silly your argument is, let me apply your exact argument to a different group and see if you still agree with it.

Nodin's argument wrote:

So apart from all the thuggery, robbery and general scumbaggery among (for example) Roma as demonstrated in many European cities, theres no pattern of thuggery, robbery and general scumbaggery among Roma, and they aren't a group of maladjusted barbarians.

Do you still agree that the words and actions of a minority, can be used to tar the entire whole? Remember you argued that the "bad people" in UKIP were "remarkably consistent." The same is true of other groups. But you wouldn't generalise about certain other groups. Why?

alastair · 30-04-2014 05:18PM

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, I believe there are plenty of good people in UKIP who have a legitimate point of view. If I accept that, then I must accept that people like Henwood, Godfrey Bloom and whoever said "gay marriage caused the floods" have done those people a considerable disservice. UKIP should do whatever it can to get people like that out.

Again, to show you how silly your argument is, let me apply your exact argument to a different group and see if you still agree with it.

Do you still agree that the words and actions of a minority, can be used to tar the entire whole? Remember you argued that the "bad people" in UKIP were "remarkably consistent." The same is true of other groups. But you wouldn't generalise about certain other groups. Why?

I'm struggling to see how Roma are a self-selecting group, with the ability to exclude, or include anyone from the Roma community. UKip can turf Godfrey Bloom out today, if they think he's not representing their beliefs and agenda. He's still a member.

Nodin · 30-04-2014 06:17PM

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, I believe there are plenty of good people in UKIP who have a legitimate point of view. If I accept that, then I must accept that people like Henwood, Godfrey Bloom and whoever said "gay marriage caused the floods" have done those people a considerable disservice. UKIP should do whatever it can to get people like that out.

Doesn't strike you as a tad odd that something as small as a political party can have so many people with the same type of views? It's almost as if they were all drawn together by some common denominator....

McDave · 30-04-2014 06:32PM

SeanW wrote: »

That seems very clear to me, not only an admission that Euro membership caused the collapse of the peripheral economies, by having "demonstrated the deficiencies" but claimed that this is a good thing.

Euro membership has exposed economies to real competitive forces. Most countries have performed OK within the currency zone. You don't have to be no. 1 to benefit. Some countries have had a very bad time. But that is on account of domestic factors, such as lack of regulation and oversight here, lack of government control in Spain, and an out and out failed polity in Greece. The Euro didn't cause our problems, our policies did. The Euro didn't cause Greeks to dodge taxes and not take their state seriously. It was their own culture.

On the merits of Greece joining, it's a political judgement looking to the future. The EU would prefer to be inclusive, and that probably drove the willingness to include Greece in the Euro. The Euro doesn't have to be perfect now. It just has to function overall. It happens to have been tested severely, and regardless even Greece has managed to stay on board.

This bodes well for the future of the Euro, and hopefully for Greece too. If they can rebalance their economy within the next decade, I reckon their population will reckon it was worth it in the end, the alternative would have been continued gloom and corruption bringing Greece closer to the poorer countries of the east, than the OECD-level country it still is, despite all its tribulations.

Lemming · 01-05-2014 12:28AM

I really must scan in the latest UKIP voting pamphlet I got in the post today. It is shocking in how patently false and dishonest its spin is; it provides simple soundbites that look straight forward because they are simple. And they are dishonest because they are simple in their presented details.

Nigel Farage MEP

Comments