1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mr Farage

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by steveandthedogs, May 24, 2014.

  1. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    As Humphrey Appleby might well have said...

    "During this discussion, the views of all parties were clearly expressed and clear statements of intent were made, predicated on the existing position of the parties making the statements and with reference to the parties understanding, or otherwise, of the other parties' positions but without prejudice to the views expressed by the parties."

    Or as Bernard Woolley would almost certainly have said...

    "None of them were listening to the others".

  2. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    I was going to let my last response be my final comment as I did not believe I could expand further upon it, however:

    Because it is ONE columnist's MULTIPLE replies, for EVERY reader on the Internet who can see it now and far far in to the future, in MULTIPLE threads - I'm sure I do not have to remind you this is not the first time I have been moved to pass comment about personal statements in response to forum members locked in discussion.

    It is not very often at all that it happens and I stand my my earlier compliments which i'm sure the whole forum can agree with, however when it happens (from anyone as I stated before), I find it very hard to just stand by and watch.

    If having the last word is your character flaw, perhaps this is mine :)

    If reacting to 28 instances in one thread is considered to be thin skinned perhaps I should exfoliate to get rid of a few layers? ;)

    It is up to the reader to make their opinion of the parties in the discussion. By resorting to personal comments you prejudice your own argument rather than weaken that of the other party.

    If you notice, your gentler approach did work for the majority of points originally raised, and in fact the forum member even thanked you for the information. A 90% success rate is pretty good, and for the want of 10% it could have continued, by either expanding the limitations of the subject discussed or alternately quietly dropping the sticking point outright.

    If he was repeating himself over and over again, so were you. :eek: :p ;)
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  3. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Reminds me of a description of a noisy Mother's union meeting "Everyone was talking, but no-one was listening".
  4. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Hi Terry,

    I am astonished at that? What am I trying to defend that is indefensible? Please explain.

  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Oi Oi all!

    Let's stop bashing Roger, or anyone else for that matter. Let's get brains back in gear. Farage would not exist and UKIP would not exist if he/they did not have a reason given to them - a foundation - by the perceived faults of the EU as originally formed and presently figured. That's logical.

    So is there a substantial gap between perception and reality of the EU?

    If that gap is miniscule, then a lot of people across all member nations are very sceptical about the EU, not just in the UK, and they must be right that there must be a case for reform. We have clear evidence for that outside the UK, for example, in countries that have had EU-related Treaty votes or major decisions over the Single Currency in the recent past. (BTW, Roger, this is not an Olybacker 'imagining' something or being deluded, it is actually there in the history books: Denmark, Ireland & Czech Republic spring to my mind.)

    If that perception gap is large, we are agreed {well, I agree anyway with suggestions that the EU is not reported well by our media in the UK} but it stretches credibility a bit(!) to suggest that is the case across all other (26) member nations. It is highly unreasonable to assume that all the people who are EU-sceptical in those countries are ill-informed or are unaware of EU qualities & failings.

    I have & would continue to argue there is good evidence that the machine is bust (from history not personal opinion - we haven't started on the Euro yet!) and it's time to call in the engineers if we want to keep it going. I can add more to that but I want Roger to have time to go beyond the prime objectives of the EU to offer some qualities or benefits of the EU from his viewpoint.

    If, as in Roger's case, you also think the EU is absolutely wonderful and is achieving, if not has actually actually achieved, all its objectives then you have serious questions to answer as I have posed to Roger.

    Cheers all, have good weekends all round.

  6. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Again, to not quite quote Humphrey...

    "It is abundantly clear that, all other measures notwithstanding and without prejudice to ongoing investigations of both an officially sanctioned nature and of a non-governmental nature, subject to the existing standards applied to negotiations of this nature and to additional conditions added to the definitions of the terminology employed to define the objectives of the enquiry, there are multiple possible outcomes, which are themselves subject to the previous considerations of the parties involved, such outcomes being equivalent to one another and being subject to further interpretation by other interested parties."

    ...and, of course, Bernard's translation: "They all think they're right."

  7. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Conversely, I find myself returning to the forum on a more regular basis simply because of Roger's input across all the boards.

    Journalists, columnists and editors are people too. They're perfectly entitled to their opinions as the rest of us are.
  8. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    At the risk of speaking on behalf of Terry, anyone speaking on behalf of UKIP is defending the indefensible.

    The party's rhetoric is based on little Englander mentality and harks back to mythical halcyon days sometime in the 1950s with no bearing on the real world.

    The party relies on the misuse of statistics to play on the predisposition of many to blame the foreigner for the failings of society. The proximate cause for all the issues UKIP blame on the EU is Westminster.

    The party has no manifesto, and policies are ill thought through. Many of the members elected to office have shown themselves to be unfit for public office.

    UKIP's success has been built on the cult of personality that Farage has crafted. He says that he isn't a politician but he most certainly is. He portrays himself as being an anti-establishment alternative to politicians, yet is the public school educated son of a stock broker, just as David Cameron is. His use of EU expenses and allowances has the same stink of 'snout in the trough' mentality as Westminster's MPs, something he says he's totally against. Finally, when you push Farage and you don't have to push very hard, Farage shows his true coloursa racist and a nasty bully.

    Most people who vote UKIP would be better suited voting Green whose policies match up far better to issues raised by the majority of UKIP voters than UKIP's own. The Green party hasn't had the disproportionate media coverage though so, for example, few people know that a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU is Green policy.
  9. BikerMike

    BikerMike Well-Known Member

    Said it in one. :)

    Since time began, in economic downturns, the right has always exploited ignorance and fear by encouraging nationalism and blaming "others". UKIP blaming the EU for our difficulties is exactly the same strategy at play.

    Nationalism is perhaps the most dangerous of all sentiments, Farage knows full well how powerful it is, and is using it to his own ends. He is a cheap, opportunist politician, no more, no less.

    Regards, Mike
  10. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Here's some figure for UKIPpers to ponder:


    Nationalism: Teaches you to take pride in stuff you haven't done and to hate people you've never met.
  11. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

  12. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Anyway, getting back to the original post.....

    Anyone remember what it was about? No?
  13. BikerMike

    BikerMike Well-Known Member

    Doesn't resemble Wallace. Has an excellent grip on reality. Is dangerously manipulative. Should be shot for inciting hatred. Good enough?

    Regards, Mike
  14. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath



    Thanks for an opportunity to observe to the Thread participants as a whole that if you cannot:
    1. See that the EU, as has been and as is presently configured, is not perfect & is far from perfect (as are probably most or all national governments) although it has qualities & virtues,
    2. Objectively view & debate those qualities & virtues as well as the shortcomings,
    3. See that the EU could be & do better (be reformed?),
    4. Cannot advance your arguments without rudeness or name-calling,
    5. Then we are all probably doomed to suffer worse than Farage & UKIP and all that might result, both within & without the UK.

    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
  15. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    The unfortunate cause of the contretemps seems to be that Roger was perfectly right in his war avoidance argument, but the opposing party was not prepared to look up the source material from 1946 (as I did) and see that that was indeed the underlying initial purpose of ECM / EU. If I had not looked it up, I too would have doubted his words.

    But I do like some of the very pithy and absolutely correct assessments of this horrible little latterday Oswald Mosley in the later part of this thread. Married to a Romanian (British for many years and a clinical psychologist) who has been here for 20 years, who has a sister (French teacher), daughter (psychological research project leader with NHS, niece (Lawyer and married into the Churchill family), nephew (Interior designer) and two great nieces who speak better English than many on here, I can vouch for how unpleasant it is all getting for these people. You don't realise what this stuff does until you are on the receiving end of it. At a keep fit class last week people reacted with shock when she told someone who thought she was Portuguese that she was originally Romanian. One neighbour asked her if she came over here to find a husband...as if she'd just got off the boat and didn't even realise the gross insult.

    I go back to the question I asked much earlier: would Farage have been prosecuted if he had said he'd be worried if someone black moved in next door? How can we apply such double standards?
  16. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Look at him when he grins, and his grip on reality is tenuous at best, if he is unable to see that his kind of politics, though populist in the short term, leads to revolution and mass murder. Look at just about any "idealists" and revolutions from the past few hundred years.
  17. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    Interesting figures there... But statistics prickle my Mediation Alert sensor, so let's work out the numbers on that board and see what they actually mean...

    Liechtenstein (area 61 sq miles): population - 36,281 - Migrant percentage 16.5 - real figure 5986.
    Switzerland (area 15,940 sq miles): population - 8,014,000 - Migrant percentage 14.3 - real figure 1,146,002.
    Iceland (area 39,770 sq miles): population - 325,671 - Migrant percentage 5.2 - real figure 16,934.
    Norway (area 148,718 sq miles): population - 5,136,700 - Migrant percentage 5 - real figure 256835.

    Total area of these four countries: 204,489 sq miles - Total population of these four countries: 13,512,652 - Total EU migrant population of these four countries 1,425,757.

    United Kingdom (area 94,060 sq miles): population - 63,705,000 - Migrant percentage 3.7 - real figure 2,357,085.

    Now, personally, I don't think a EU migrant population of 2.3 million out of 63 million is that much, (for the record I have no opinion on this particular matter) however these figures can also be reported in an extremely different way:

    "The UK has almost double the number of EU migrants than non EU countries Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway put together, in an area more than twice as small." A reason to dump the EU?

    Or "The UK has 25 EU Migrants per square mile. Norway, a non EU country, only has 1.72 EU migrants per square mile." Very convincing, but wait!

    But inversely it could be reported: "The UK has 25 EU Migrants per square mile. Switzerland, a non EU country, has 71.8 EU migrants per square mile." Oh, in that case better keep the EU then?

    Now I'm really confused! ;)

    The fact your example includes Liechtenstein, a principality covering only 61 square miles, suggests the numbers quoted are not entirely without an agenda behind them. Also, what neither your figures or mine take into account are the social and geopolitical circumstances of these countries verses any other near non EU countries which may again have drastically different figures.

    Statistics: Teaches you to believe things you have not researched, made by people with agendas you do not know. ;)
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
  18. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    I think we're all capable of that. The question is: how do we behave when we realise that we've done it?
  19. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    No system of government is perfect. The focus on the EU however is misguided. All the issues raised by UKIP et al ostensibly stem from the failings of Westminster but it's easier to blame foreigners than it is our own elite. Westminster has far more influence on our day to day lives than Brussels and Westminster has continually failed this country.

    Don't let the Establishment misdirect you into think the enemy is in Brussels. The enemy is within.
  20. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Figures alone are meaningless. The infogram is just a soundbite but a useful one nonetheless. UKIP's main argument is that the UK is swamped by immigrants from the EU because we have "no control over our borders." The fact that these countries have higher numbers of EU immigrants by percentage despite not being members of the EU shows that the question is far more complex than UKIP's "no control over our borders" misdirection.

    There is no comparative country within Western Europe but not in the EU to use and so the countries listed are smaller than the UK. Percentages is the only way to produce meaningful data in this case. Even treating these as a whole gives a much higher percentage figure (>10%) than the UK.

    The size of geographical landmass is irrelevant. It does not take into account what percentage of the land is actually habitable, what services are available across the land and the quality of housing. Think about comparing the UK with Outer Mongolia and you'll see how a much higher population density does not necessarily indicate worse living conditions or 'less room' for others.

Share This Page