Nigel Farage V Nick Clegg....

[marshy]

But the EU doesn't currently have the power to conscript and, perhaps more importantly, doesn't have its own army. There isn't even a binding agreement for an EU military policy, as demonstrated in differing attitudes to Syria and Libya across the big players in the EU. So unless there's significant change in the current EU make up, your hypothetical example is impossible

 

Doesn't 'currently'. 'Embryonic army'. I said 'ten years time'. It was a hypothetical example to highlight the contradictions inherent in the concept raised by Nibor of 'good' and 'bad' law...which in the example given is a matter of opinion. I won't be alive in 30 years' time, you probably will be. If the totalitarian European superstate is at permanent war with Eastasia as in Orwell's nightmare vision in 1984 don't say you weren't warned.

Small is beautiful.

[chipdawg]

Doesn't 'currently'. 'Embryonic army'. I said 'ten years time'. It was a hypothetical example to highlight the contradictions inherent in the concept raised by Nibor of 'good' and 'bad' law...which in the example given is a matter of opinion. I won't be alive in 30 years' time, you probably will be. If the totalitarian European superstate is at permanent war with Eastasia as in Orwell's nightmare vision in 1984 don't say you weren't warned.

Small is beautiful.

I guess whether I'm alive or not will depend on whether I'm conscripted to fight the Russians in 10 years time! I appreciate you were simply postulating a scenario, I was just trying to demonstrate that a hell of a lot would have to happen (including treaty changes and probable referendums in various EU countries) before an EU military could even be considered. Despite my support of EU membership, if I was asked whether we should stay in the EU if it meant signing up to an EU Military force, I'd probably (reluctantly in the wider picture) vote No

One other thing I do agree with Nibor on is that it doesn't really matter to me at the minute who makes the laws, I feel no more connected to Westminster than I do Brussels. Perhaps if someone or something can make me feel part of the social and political machinations of this country again, I may feel differently about EU legislation

[marshy]

I guess whether I'm alive or not will depend on whether I'm conscripted to fight the Russians in 10 years time! I appreciate you were simply postulating a scenario, I was just trying to demonstrate that a hell of a lot would have to happen (including treaty changes and probable referendums in various EU countries) before an EU military could even be considered. Despite my support of EU membership, if I was asked whether we should stay in the EU if it meant signing up to an EU Military force, I'd probably (reluctantly in the wider picture) vote No

One other thing I do agree with Nibor on is that it doesn't really matter to me at the minute who makes the laws, I feel no more connected to Westminster than I do Brussels. Perhaps if someone or something can make me feel part of the social and political machinations of this country again, I may feel differently about EU legislation

 

Well I think that if the EU moves towards ever closer political union then an EU army is inevitable. It's well worth googling EU Army/Military Force and looking at the support for this that already exists.

 

Alienation eh, a terrible thing. Just make sure you don't go out and do something you might regret.

[marshy]

So you accept my point that it was well before the bank bailout and entirely unconnected.

 

Your man Gideon certainly knows a thing about bad decisions - he takes them constantly - but nothing can perhaps match the bad decision to sell off 100% of Britain's utilities and railways between 1982 and 1996. 

 

Well I can accept the fact that most of it was sold before the bail out  but who knows precisely how much was held back for the bail out. Perhaps it had all been wasted on enlarging the public sector.

 

Osborne, not my 'mate' by the way, I've never voted for them, may be taking some bad decisions but somehow he is still ensuring that UK growth is once again the fastest in the G7, figures published today. As far as I know he has never had the arrogance to claim, unlike Brown, that he has the ability to 'put an end to boom and bust'.

 

The decision to sell off the utilities of course may have been a bad thing, that is your opinion. I would argue that they were an albatross around the country's neck. Held to ransom by militant unions.

 

I'm off to France at the end of the month to see how things are going over there. I will be travelling around by train. Apparently I have to thank the French taxpayer for subsidising my travelling expenses to the tune of 72% of the fare.

[chipdawg]

Well I think that if the EU moves towards ever closer political union then an EU army is inevitable. It's well worth googling EU Army/Military Force and looking at the support for this that already exists.

Alienation eh, a terrible thing. Just make sure you don't go out and do something you might regret.

I did google it and there does indeed seem to be support. But it would require a whole new treaty- probably on a greater scale than Maastricht and the I can't see that happening in the near future

Something I regret?! What, like voting for UKIP? I might be desperate but even a desperate man has his limits!!!

[Red-Robbo]

[Nibor]

'Sandy vaginas'...I had to look that one up. I have to say that I disagree completely and fundamentally with your post.

 

Just to give a hypothetical example. Imagine that the current crisis in the Ukraine blows over but the pro-Russia group in the east keeps up the pressure to such an extent that in ten years time Russia decides to act. By this time the embryonic EU army is much bigger and an EU law is passed ordering EU-wide national conscription to fight the Russian peril (who knows which unelected totalitarian monster might be heading up the EU by this time). Now there are some who would consider this to be 'good law', you might be amongst them. There might be others like myself who owe no allegiance to the EU flag who might think this to be thoroughly 'bad law'. Good and bad in this instance is largely a matter of opinion. Of course if we were a self-governing democracy then 'bad law' can easily be overturned by the next elected government if the electorate so wishes. I simply cannot understand why so many people are prepared to see the ability to make our own law handed over to a foreign power.

 

It's not a hypothetical example though, it's an impossible one.  

 

You have no more control over law made in the UK than you do over law made in the EU so the quality of that law is far more important than the illusion of control.

 

All this guff about allegiance to lines on a map and hyperbole is just typical little Englander nonsense.  

 

Be practical, concern yourself with reality not airy fairy abstracts that don't exist and imaginary situations that can't come to pass.

[Barrs Court Red]

There won't be an EU army as NATO negates the need for one.

[Paddy31]

[Paddy31]

.....you've fallen for the EU political propaganda hook, line and sinker. Here's a short and concise explanation as to the problems in Greece, as Nigel Farage rightly states, it's politicians and banksters versus ordinary people......

 

Propaganda...

 

You do realise you have posted news piece from Russia Today?

 

Hello Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

[Oxford Red]

Farage is exactly the sort of little Englander that I abhor.

[Nibor]

In your mind.

You don't speak for everyone - and if you look at the polls, you are speaking for less and less each week.

 

Each to their own, but shouting "Little Englander", as so many of you Pro-EU chaps do is very, very old.

 

As I have said before - the mere fact that 8 pages, and many threads involve UKIP would seem to show the depth of fear felt by MP's and the people of England who directly, or indirectly have their porky-snouts in the EU trough - show UKIP is doing something right, and the 'establishment' are running scared.

 

It speaks volumes that the most ardent critics of UKIP on here are the ones that seem to have a vested interest in the EU monster.

 

You said absolutely nothing in that post - learning from Farage I see.

 

I'm neither pro nor anti the EU.  I'm anti stupidity.

 

Worrying about which side of an imaginary line the law over which you have no control in either case got made, instead of how good a law it is, is idiocy of the highest order.

 

I pointed out a good, positive law being made by the EU.  I'd suggest there's **** all chance of the UK government having done that since they'd have sided with business and wanted leverage to increase surveillance.

 

You can stick to the rhetoric and fictitious hyperbole, I'll look at the actual results and act accordingly. 

[marshy]

1).It's not a hypothetical example though, it's an impossible one.  

 

2).You have no more control over law made in the UK than you do over law made in the EU so the quality of that law is far more important than the illusion of control.

 

3).All this guff about allegiance to lines on a map and hyperbole is just typical little Englander nonsense.  

 

4).Be practical, concern yourself with reality not airy fairy abstracts that don't exist and imaginary situations that can't come to pass.

 

1).The very nature of a hypothetical argument is that it can be either possible or impossible. The argument exists to make a point, the point being on this occasion that 'good' or 'bad' law is often a matter of opinion depending on who passed it and who benefits from it. You appear to wish to be the sole arbiter of whether a law is good or bad.

 

2).Your statement is quite obviously nonsense. There is a democratic deficit within the EU, even Merkel has acknowledged that point.

 

3). Very John Lennon. 'Little Englander' is the latest line of abuse to be hurled at Farage and UKIP. Personally I think his point of view is the exact opposite as he constantly makes the point that we should be endeavouring to widen our links with trading partners globally. However, people I'm afraid will only hear what they want to hear. The EU appears to be very concerned with lines on the map as they try to expand their sphere of influence. Personally I would support the principle of self-determination and offer any people a referendum where there is an obvious interest. Catalonia and eastern Ukraine are two regions that spring to mind. Unfortunately the EU is too concerned with the current 'lines on the map' as you put it.

 

4). Thank you for your advice. I shall endeavour to ignore it. Refer back to Point 1).

[chipdawg]

And that's a great reason to leave - to ensure it never does.

Outside of war - when was the last time 2, yes 2, democratically elected PM's of countries were removed without dissent by unelected faceless officials from a nameless group.

Any organisation that has the power to install 'their man' at the helm of democratic nations upon a whim, is quite capable of passing such legislation.

RG goes a little over the top sometimes with the Nazi comparison, but really, the sinister undertones are there.

The irony is that this time, the Far-Right is gaining sway to fight AGAINST the EU!

Do you not think that's a touch paranoid? The point is that it couldn't happen without a lot of song and dance, almost certainly a referendum in the current climate (I think all the major parties have at least promised a referendum in the event of a major treaty change) and therefore ample opportunity to debate the pros and cons. I think (and as someone who is 'pro-Europe') that there are better arguments against continued participation in the EU than a European army that couldn't happen under current laws/rules/treaties

[marshy]

[Oxford Red]

Why?

What are your ties to Europe my friend?

I am a citizen of the European Union.

[marshy]

[chipdawg]

I did point out in my post that the Greek government created its sovereign debt crisis through decades of socialist overspending, corruption, and failure to collect taxes. A bail out from the IMF has, in the past, always been accompanied by a demand for devaluation. This of course Greece was unable to do as it doesn't have its own currency but is tied to what is, for Greece, a hugely overvalued and inappropriate currency.

As you are obviously aware if a country can't devalue externally then it has to attempt to devalue internally which it is now doing at huge social cost and the rise of Golden Dawn. It is embarked upon a course of despair and social destruction. I speak having worked out there, having friends out there, and having visited recently.

Devaluation of the currency can't of course solve things on its own but what it does do is to give an economy breathing space to restore its competitive position whilst other reforms are put into place. This is why devaluation is always demanded by the IMF as part of the package. Devaluation certainly worked for the UK when we exited the EMR in '92.

So do I think they should leave the euro? Certainly. The reasons they don't are their own foolish pride and the prospect of free, easy money.

I don't think Greece staying in the Euro is a product of their pride, more the French and German desire to protect the project. At the root of it though, is endemic corruption, incompetence and waste entrenched within Greek society. A more pertinent question in their case might have been why they were admitted in the first place

[Paddy31]

[chipdawg]

I would have said, 2 years ago, that 2 elected PM's couldn't have been removed without a trace.

70 years ago I wouldn't believe that 3,000,000+ people would be gassed to death because they were Jewish.

20 years ago I wouldn't believe planes would be used as human weapons.

Absolute power and fanaticism is capable of anything.

Please don't think I am comparing the EU with Hitler and Terrorism, because I am not. But an EU army - why is that so far-fetched?

Soldiers are soldiers. It's the "Generals" who are the worry - and who, exactly, would the "generals" be, in the EU Armed Forces?

Well they weren't 'removed' in the way you imply, they were voted out by MPs in favour of the terms of a bail out package; one if which was to install an economist in charge. Still, I won't argue that it's a troubling precedent

Careful with that 3,000,000 figure SX225; that classes as Holocaust denial in much of the EU and extradition is at present very easy! Genocide had already long been part of the human condition, but I still find it hard to comprehend what went on during that time

20 years? kamikaze pilots in WW2?

I do take your point in that it's something that has been publicly mentioned, I just think that we're so far away from it that it's a rather hypothetical stick to be beating the EU with at the present time and in the current political climate even the Lib Dems would probably seek a referendum on a constitutional change that significant

[chipdawg]

Careful of what?

I made mention to actual 'gassing' - I have no idea of how many Jewish people were murdered by the Nazi's. I have no idea how many actually met their terrible end in the camps.

If you wish to quip about Jewish slaughter to score a point - you win. I probably should have used another example - but there really isn't one.

Kamikaze ? - have you forgotten the Twin Towers?

I can only assume that:

A) you are taking your trolling to a new depth

B) You have had one too many Merlot

Either way - Goodnight.

I was indeed making a quip and it was probably inappropriate. I was merely pointing out that underestimating the number of people killed in the holocaust is classed as holocaust denial in a number of countries. Inappropriate, but unintentionally so. Apologies

On the kamikaze point, I was pointing out that the use of planes as weapons dates from at least the Second World War

[Nibor]

 

1).The very nature of a hypothetical argument is that it can be either possible or impossible. The argument exists to make a point, the point being on this occasion that 'good' or 'bad' law is often a matter of opinion depending on who passed it and who benefits from it. You appear to wish to be the sole arbiter of whether a law is good or bad.

 

2).Your statement is quite obviously nonsense. There is a democratic deficit within the EU, even Merkel has acknowledged that point.

 

3). Very John Lennon. 'Little Englander' is the latest line of abuse to be hurled at Farage and UKIP. Personally I think his point of view is the exact opposite as he constantly makes the point that we should be endeavouring to widen our links with trading partners globally. However, people I'm afraid will only hear what they want to hear. The EU appears to be very concerned with lines on the map as they try to expand their sphere of influence. Personally I would support the principle of self-determination and offer any people a referendum where there is an obvious interest. Catalonia and eastern Ukraine are two regions that spring to mind. Unfortunately the EU is too concerned with the current 'lines on the map' as you put it.

 

4). Thank you for your advice. I shall endeavour to ignore it. Refer back to Point 1).

 

You're countering a point made by using an actual real thing happening with something that ranges from improbable theory to impossible fantasy, so it doesn't stand up well, that's not surprising is it?

 

Democracy isn't really a concern to me since it's broken at the national level, it's no more broken at the super national level.  

 

There's a lot wrong with the EU, almost as much as there is with the UK government, so why not stick to real things in your counter point?

 

 

I'm looking for a point in this post, but, as in most of yours, it's just about how frickin awesome you are.

 

Yay to be the backward robin.

 

Mr Anderson.

 

I guess resorting to pettiness is a good way of disguising that you have no real argument to make when presented with a concrete good law made by the EU that would never have been made by the UK. 

[marshy]

[marshy]

 

 

 

You're countering a point made by using an actual real thing happening with something that ranges from improbable theory to impossible fantasy, so it doesn't stand up well, that's not surprising is it?

Be practical, concern yourself with reality not airy fairy abstracts that don't exist and imaginary situations that can't come to pass.

 

 

 

 

Coming from someone who tells us that we should '' ignore imaginary lines drawn on a map'' this advice is laughable.

[Paddy31]

''A rose by any other name.....''

 

Ok so it was revalued in a downwards direction and we were fully aware of the consequenses of the action of withdrawal. It was a de facto devaluation ''with respect to a foreign reference currency''...actually lots and lots and lots of them.

I believe the difference is significant. The government (or the Bank of England) didn't set the value of the pound - it was set by the market.

[marshy]

[Paddy31]

I think you must mean at a depreciated rate. Introducing it at a devalued rate, 'with respect to a foreign reference currency', by your definition, would mean Christmas come early for speculators.

Its not my definition. It is the definition used throughout economics. This is taken from the New York Federal Reserve:

• Under a fixed exchange rate system, devaluation and revaluation are official changes in the value of a country's currency relative to other currencies. Under a floating exchange rate system, market forces generate changes in the value of the currency, known as currency depreciation or appreciation.

• In a fixed exchange rate system, both devaluation and revaluation can be conducted by policymakers, usually motivated by market pressures.

• The charter of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) directs policymakers to avoid "manipulating exchange rates...to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members.

So in leaving the Euro, the government would have to set the new initial exchange rate - probably at a lower rate - which would make it a devaluation.

 

To be fair, many people, even up to A-level, use the terms currency depreciation and devaluation synonymously.

[Nibor]

Coming from someone who tells us that we should '' ignore imaginary lines drawn on a map'' this advice is laughable.

 

So now you're misquoting me and ducking the point completely?

 

I said worrying about which side of imaginary lines on a map laws were made was stupid and it was more important that they were good.

 

You said mumble mumble russian war across europe conscription bullshit mumble.

 

Do you have an opinion on the specific article I linked yet?  

[marshy]

So now you're misquoting me and ducking the point completely?

 

I said worrying about which side of imaginary lines on a map laws were made was stupid and it was more important that they were good.

 

You said mumble mumble russian war across europe conscription bullshit mumble.

 

Do you have an opinion on the specific article I linked yet?  

 

The expression 'taste of one's own medicine' springs to mind.

 

I'm sure you understood the point about good and bad law I was trying to make using a hypothetical example but you chose to ignore it and twist it around to further your own point-scoring agenda.

[TRL]

The expression 'taste of one's own medicine' springs to mind.

I'm sure you understood the point about good and bad law I was trying to make using a hypothetical example but you chose to ignore it and twist it around to further your own point-scoring agenda.

Indeed. And I believe he is now misquoting you by putting the word mumble in a lot! Odd line of attack