More UKIP bother

[Verbal]

Whats your problem with debating rationally? You start off well and then always default to making lame comments when somebody puts a sound counterpoint to your argument.

 

Was there a referendum when we joined the Commonwealth? the WTO? the Berlin Convention (which decided tax policy globally). NATO?

 

What are you looking for, Tim? Some rational, consistent sense? If so, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

On the one hand, this guy wants plebiscites on issues otherwise there's no legitimacy (actually plebiscites are more the tool of '99-percent-in-favour' dictatorships than liberal democracies); on the other hand, we're all sheeple controlled by a hypnotising 'MSM' (mainstream media) which manipulates these plebiscites.

 

If you want more sense, you're better off asking your cat.

[pap]

If you want more sense, you're better off asking your cat.

 

Good suggestion, and in lieu of any slang pussy, chatting with an actual cat would be a superb use of Tim's time.

[Verbal]

Good suggestion, and in lieu of any slang pussy, chatting with an actual cat would be a superb use of Tim's time.

 

So how exactly do you get a reliable plebiscite from people (the British electorate) you yourself describe as 'morons'?

[pap]

So how exactly do you get a reliable plebiscite from people (the British electorate) you yourself describe as 'morons'?

 

Define "reliable".

[Verbal]

Define "reliable".

 

It's not hard to figure out, is it? If, as you say, the British electorate (you excepted, of course) are, I quote, 'morons', how can they be trusted with any plebiscite decision at all?

 

Won't the moronic sheeple do whatever the MSM tells them to do?

[pap]

It's not hard to figure out, is it? If, as you say, the British electorate (you excepted, of course) are, I quote, 'morons', how can they be trusted with any plebiscite decision at all?

 

Won't the moronic sheeple do whatever the MSM tells them to do?

 

Actually, it is. "Reliable" is hugely subjective. Are you asking whether the votes will be reliably counted? That you'll get the right result?

 

Come back when you've got a fiver and a real question.

[buctootim]

What are you looking for, Tim? Some rational, consistent sense? If so, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

On the one hand, this guy wants plebiscites on issues otherwise there's no legitimacy (actually plebiscites are more the tool of '99-percent-in-favour' dictatorships than liberal democracies); on the other hand, we're all sheeple controlled by a hypnotising 'MSM' (mainstream media) which manipulates these plebiscites.

 

If you want more sense, you're better off asking your cat.

 

I guess thats it. I always assume there is some rational basis for people's thoughts even if I disagree with the conclusion. In Pap's case its never evident no matter how much you try to tease it out.

[pap]

I guess thats it. I always assume there is some rational basis for people's thoughts even if I disagree with the conclusion. In Pap's case its never evident no matter how much you try to tease it out.

 

I suggest you read the thread then. I've qualified my opinions here. You saying I haven't doesn't make it true.

[solentstars]

Why is it childish?

 

Do you think Greece and Spain felt the warm glow of democracy when the unelected executive of the EU decided to enforce austerity on them?

 

 

 

No it isn't. It's posters like yourself and KRG, that I normally have a great deal of time for, wilfully ignoring the fact that as well as visiting Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, Ted Heath signed this country's sovereignty away.

no he did not give our sovereignty away he joined a club which pooled power and we would have done in in 1961 under macmillen if we had not been rejected by de gaul.

By the end of January 1960, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Selwyn Lloyd, told the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe that Britain had made a mistake in not joining the ECSC. She belonged to Europe, as well as to the Commonwealth and the Atlantic alliance.

 

Getting the full support of United States from the American President Kennedy, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan spoke in the House of Commons on 31 July 1961 and signalled the decision to apply to EEC to make Britain a member of it. The first application to the three European Communities was submitted on 9 August 1961. i believe that all the leaders of the main party s are putting the national interest first despite the ec being used has the whipping boy for everything under the sun.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I think the difference between our positions is merely that I'm going to the trouble of qualifying mine.

 

You are arguing that membership of the EU does not affect the sovereignty of its members. It is a position that is undone by the three treaties I've mentioned, the amount of EU-originated law that we pass via the undemocratic mechanism of statutory instrument and events elsewhere in the Union, such as the installation of technocratic governments in the likes of Greece and Italy that have no democratic mandate.

 

I think those are all strong points that support my claim that the EU erodes sovereignty.

 

What's behind your disagreement?

 

Sorry had to dash off to a couple of meetings. Don't have a great deal of time to reply now.

 

In my opinion, the reach of the treaties is over stated. If one looks at the treaties it is possible to surmise that all sovereignty has been signed away, but in practice this really isn't the case. There is much debate and disagreement over the % of laws that are passed that come from the EU, and even the ones passed in the EU are pretty mundane anyway. How many hideously offend you?

 

It's a poor analogy I know, but it reminds me of the recent hysteria over the Facebook Messenger app. There videos being spread round of some guy (who I'm pretty surprised wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat_ talking about how because the app asked for access to your camera & microphone they were going to watch and record you for advertising purposes. Of course, they might just be able to do this (I highly doubt they'd actually get away with this anyway, even if it was in the t&c's) - but obviously they weren't.

 

This could go back and forth forever. You have a disposition for paranoia/cynicism and snark to anyone that disagrees with you. I dispute the reach to which these treaties effect things, and the numbers are greatly disputed. I'm not going to get into a slanging much with you.

[pap]

Sorry had to dash off to a couple of meetings. Don't have a great deal of time to reply now.

 

In my opinion, the reach of the treaties is over stated. If one looks at the treaties it is possible to surmise that all sovereignty has been signed away, but in practice this really isn't the case. There is much debate and disagreement over the % of laws that are passed that come from the EU, and even the ones passed in the EU are pretty mundane anyway. How many hideously offend you?

 

It's a poor analogy I know, but it reminds me of the recent hysteria over the Facebook Messenger app. There videos being spread round of some guy (who I'm pretty surprised wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat_ talking about how because the app asked for access to your camera & microphone they were going to watch and record you for advertising purposes. Of course, they might just be able to do this (I highly doubt they'd actually get away with this anyway, even if it was in the t&c's) - but obviously they weren't.

 

This could go back and forth forever. You have a disposition for paranoia/cynicism and snark to anyone that disagrees with you. I dispute the reach to which these treaties effect things, and the numbers are greatly disputed. I'm not going to get into a slanging much with you.

 

This is a pretty unfair post, I reckon. I snark at the few posters that continually launch ad hominem attacks. I questioned the basis for your disagreement, and you're right, it will go around forever because we still don't have one. My opinion, shared by many that actually believe in democracy, is that the people should be the true sovereigns. This is why we vote, or at least, why we have the illusion of choice in elections. So if people are the true sovereigns, why are they denied the ability to direct EU policy or countermand EU directives? I know one could argue that we can always vote ourselves out, but in practice the electorate is never consulted.

 

The Facebook messenger stuff is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the EU has changed our status as a sovereign nation, as is your closing comment. All I'll say is that if you want to debate in the Lounge, people will expect you to qualify what you're saying. The "I disagree"/deflection combo is not as powerful as sir may surmise when its backed with nowt.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

This is a pretty unfair post, I reckon. I snark at the few posters that continually launch ad hominem attacks. I questioned the basis for your disagreement, and you're right, it will go around forever because we still don't have one. My opinion, shared by many that actually believe in democracy, is that the people should be the true sovereigns. This is why we vote, or at least, why we have the illusion of choice in elections. So if people are the true sovereigns, why are they denied the ability to direct EU policy or countermand EU directives? I know one could argue that we can always vote ourselves out, but in practice the electorate is never consulted.

 

The Facebook messenger stuff is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the EU has changed our status as a sovereign nation, as is your closing comment. All I'll say is that if you want to debate in the Lounge, people will expect you to qualify what you're saying. The "I disagree"/deflection combo is not as powerful as sir may surmise when its backed with nowt.

 

I apologise if you think it's unfair Pap. I try to be fair as possible, and have apologised to you and several others before.

 

I tried to qualify my stance. I can hardly deny that those treaties were signed. Of course they were. However, simply saying we signed them therefore we are no longer sovereign doesn't ring true to me. Those treaties were effectively us joining the EU and it's previous incarnations.

 

The assertion that this is equal to us no longer being sovereign doesn't ring true to me as I don't see the evidence of it. I dispute the extent to which passed laws are ceded to the EU. I'm not at all alone on this figure vary wildly depending on who provides them, I've seen figures from 15-84%.

[Wade Garrett]

So it's like a democracy where people aren't allowed to vote?

 

Fair enough then.

 

Exactly how I see it.

[pap]

I apologise if you think it's unfair Pap. I try to be fair as possible, and have apologised to you and several others before.

 

I tried to qualify my stance. I can hardly deny that those treaties were signed. Of course they were. However, simply saying we signed them therefore we are no longer sovereign doesn't ring true to me. Those treaties were effectively us joining the EU and it's previous incarnations.

 

The assertion that this is equal to us no longer being sovereign doesn't ring true to me as I don't see the evidence of it. I dispute the extent to which passed laws are ceded to the EU. I'm not at all alone on this figure vary wildly depending on who provides them, I've seen figures from 15-84%.

 

Numerous posters on this thread have weighed in with their impressions of the EU. The arguments against all have the issue of sovereignty at the base. Freedom of movement, law made by an unelected body abroad and having a border with Russia. The cast-iron guarantees for future referendum used to rest on the issue of sovereignty. "We'll have a referendum if further powers are ceded to Europe" used to be the mantra. I don't think it's reasonable to discount the issue of sovereignty. The government acknowledges it; why else make further powers the trigger point? Politicians campaign on it too - EU scepticism and in/out referendums were all the rage when the Tories and Lib Dems lacked power. UKIP are hitting the sovereignty thing outright, and they're not wrong to do so.

 

Personally, I could live with a federal Europe if the people wanted it and if it was democratic the whole way through. Multi-racial federation of countries working together to avoid further war and achieve mutual prosperity? What's not to like, if people want it? A democratically accountable Federal Europe could be an example to the entire world, but the EU is not that. The executive is unelected and the electorate are denied any say in whether they continue to be members or not. As for the avoidance of war, check out the news coming from Ukraine and Russia. Gorbachev thinks we're on the brink of a new Cold War.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11218459/Mikhail-Gorbachev-warns-the-world-is-on-the-brink-of-a-new-Cold-War.html

http://rt.com/news/203475-gorbachev-speech-berlin-wall/

 

I don't think he's wrong. We've created an empire on Russia's doorstep, audaciously doing stuff like plopping missile defence systems & military bases in former satellite states, even having the balls to go after Ukraine after absorbing the Baltic States, formerly part of the USSR itself. It's not usually good news when two large military blocs start eyeing each other suspiciously, and I'm not convinced that these are things that the average British voter would be interested in paying for. One has to wonder whether the new "how your cash is spent" tax system will ever have a drill-down option, and whether it'll have an EU sub-category for "needless escalation".

 

Unlikely, given the accounts have never been signed off

[Sour Mash]

Signing away this country's sovereignty is opinion, not fact.

How is that not fact?

[pap]

Farage's grasp of history doesn't augur well for the future.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/11/farage-ukip-armistice-hitler-german-surrender-first-world-war

 

Apparently, WW2 would never have happened if we'd pushed the Germans into unconditional surrender (which effectively happened anyway with Versailles).

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Farage's grasp of history doesn't augur well for the future.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/11/farage-ukip-armistice-hitler-german-surrender-first-world-war

 

Apparently, WW2 would never have happened if we'd pushed the Germans into unconditional surrender (which effectively happened anyway with Versailles).

 

Well colour me surprised.

[CB Fry]

Farage's grasp of history doesn't augur well for the future.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/11/farage-ukip-armistice-hitler-german-surrender-first-world-war

 

Apparently, WW2 would never have happened if we'd pushed the Germans into unconditional surrender (which effectively happened anyway with Versailles).

Could be an excellent question in a GCSE History exam. Discuss.

[hypochondriac]

Could be an excellent question in a GCSE History exam. Discuss.

 

I can see his point but it would probably have happened anyway. I don't think Hitler's rise to power hinged solely on an ex German war commander giving him credibility. Yes the hyper inflation didn't help but imo it was more about an embarrassed German public wanting some national pride again after being beaten (sort of like the Russian public now.)

[pap]

Could be an excellent question in a GCSE History exam. Discuss.

 

I can see his point but it would probably have happened anyway. I don't think Hitler's rise to power hinged solely on an ex German war commander giving him credibility. Yes the hyper inflation didn't help but imo it was more about an embarrassed German public wanting some national pride again after being beaten (sort of like the Russian public now.)

 

Unconditional surrender was achieved anyway. The blockade of German ports continued eight months after the armistice.

 

Restrictions on food imports continued until after Versailles was signed. Farage reckons that not going for unconditional surrender in 1918 would have prevented the Second World War, when all it really would have done is bring forward the Versailles timetable.

 

The only valid point Farage has is about Hitler's claims about Germany never losing the war on the battlefield. He would not have had that, but all other things being the same (Versailles diktat, French belligerence and demand for vengeance, forced de-militarisation, 660Bn of reparations), Hitler would still have been able to trade on the injustice of the diktat of Versailles, and would still have built his army.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Farage's grasp of history doesn't augur well for the future.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/11/farage-ukip-armistice-hitler-german-surrender-first-world-war

 

Apparently, WW2 would never have happened if we'd pushed the Germans into unconditional surrender (which effectively happened anyway with Versailles).

 

Its a legitimate historical debate .

 

John Pershing and later on Roosevelt both put forward the same argument.

[pap]

Its a legitimate historical debate .

 

John Pershing and later on Roosevelt both put forward the same argument.

 

As I said earlier, the only validity in Nigel's point is the one about never being defeated on the battlefield.

 

Pershing's points rested on the idea that if German High Command were requesting an armistice, that was a sign of weakness and should be pursued. Both men died before 1950, after the end of a long and bloody war, once again involving the Germans.

 

The historians that followed have the right of it. Nige never read any AJP Taylor?

[buctootim]

Its impossible to know what would have followed if even things had been different - ala butterfly wings beating and Marty McFly with his mum. Its a mistake though to assume that just because WW2 happened then doing something different - more killing in WW1 - would have prevented it.

 

I subscribe to the mainstream view that what WW1 actually taught us was that the humiliation of Germany and onerous reparations created the conditions for WW2. Those mistakes weren't repeated after WW2 and to my knowledge we havent yet had a WW3 nearly 70 years later.

[pap]

Its impossible to know what would have followed if even things had been different - ala butterfly wings beating and Marty McFly with his mum. Its a mistake though to assume that just because WW2 happened then doing something different - more killing in WW1 - would have prevented it.

 

I subscribe to the mainstream view that what WW1 actually taught us was that the humiliation of Germany and onerous reparations created the conditions for WW2. Those mistakes weren't repeated after WW2 and to my knowledge we havent yet had a WW3 nearly 70 years later.

 

We'd be in agreement on this.

 

Like you say, no-one knows for sure - but the outcome that Farage said would have been preferable, unconditional surrender, was achieved anyway - just with a starvation blockade. There's also absolutely no guarantee that we wouldn't have just ended up wasting more lives needlessly and every indication that the stalemate would have kept dragging on.

 

The armistice itself didn't turn the Germans against the world; their subsequent treatment at Versailles did. That was largely because of French anger. Most other powers had no interest in holding it up by the late '20s, and most recognised that the treaty was extremely unfair to the average German. By then, events were already in motion.

[Sour Mash]

I subscribe to the mainstream view that what WW1 actually taught us was that the humiliation of Germany and onerous reparations created the conditions for WW2. Those mistakes weren't repeated after WW2 and to my knowledge we havent yet had a WW3 nearly 70 years later.

Change "Germany" for "Japan" and "onerous reparations" for "Atom Bomb" and not that much was learnt in terms of trying to obliterate the enemy.

 

There would most likely have been a WW3 in the 20th Century if it wasn't for the the stalemate between the USSR and the West, regardless of the conditions for the close out of WW2.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

We'd be in agreement on this.

 

Like you say, no-one knows for sure - but the outcome that Farage said would have been preferable, unconditional surrender, was achieved anyway - just with a starvation blockade. There's also absolutely no guarantee that we wouldn't have just ended up wasting more lives needlessly and every indication that the stalemate would have kept dragging on.

 

The armistice itself didn't turn the Germans against the world; their subsequent treatment at Versailles did. That was largely because of French anger. Most other powers had no interest in holding it up by the late '20s, and most recognised that the treaty was extremely unfair to the average German. By then, events were already in motion.

 

I'd agree with you and Tim too.

 

** Pointless semi related tangent **. I read a book that was loosely based on this idea (Making History) which kind of rifted on the idea of going back and changing things to prevent WWII, and the effect it had. Was quite interesting.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My point wasn't whether I agreed or disagreed with Nigel, just that it is a legitimate debating point. The original post on here struck me as implying " what a moron Farage is, he's so ignorant over this ". It's a valid opinion , not some sort of crackpot 9/11 , Boston marathon type pony.

[pap]

My point wasn't whether I agreed or disagreed with Nigel, just that it is a legitimate debating point. The original post on here struck me as implying " what a moron Farage is, he's so ignorant over this ". It's a valid opinion , not some sort of crackpot 9/11 , Boston marathon type pony.

Time offers perspective. AJP Taylor's works were infamous when released, largely on account of the fact that they cast the Allied powers, particularly France, as agitators in the build up to WW2.

[pap]

Bang to f**king rights, Nige.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-caught-camera-admitting-4617184

 

UKIP's leader would rather we sought independence from state funded health and go for a US style insurance-backed setup. It's an interesting area of debate, but a definite vote loser.

[hypochondriac]

Bang to f**king rights, Nige.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-caught-camera-admitting-4617184

 

UKIP's leader would rather we sought independence from state funded health and go for a US style insurance-backed setup. It's an interesting area of debate, but a definite vote loser.

 

He is never going to be in power so who cares if he has a few mad ideas that will never be implemented? That isn't why people vote for him.

Edited 13 November, 2014 by hypochondriac

[pap]

He is never going to be in power so who cares if he has a few mad ideas that will never be implemented? That isn't why people vote for him.

 

He could end up in the position to form a coalition with the Tories. They are doing their level best to farm the NHS out to private industry anyway. Match made in heaven.

[Batman]

Bang to f**king rights, Nige.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-caught-camera-admitting-4617184

 

UKIP's leader would rather we sought independence from state funded health and go for a US style insurance-backed setup. It's an interesting area of debate, but a definite vote loser.

 

And yet, I bet more and more people vote for him./them

 

We had Blair murder millions in Iraq. Yet he swept everyone aside to win another election. Guess people did not care too much about the Iraq war. He can still wander around to act the statesman

 

People in this country are generally selfish and self obsessed. As long as bankers are seen to pay more money, the rich generally pay more and we can all have more £££ in our back pockets. No one cares

Edited 13 November, 2014 by Batman

[bridge too far]

And yet, I bet more and more people vote for him./them

 

We had Blair murder millions in Iraq. Yet he swept everyone aside to win another election. Guess people did not care too much about the Iraq war. He can still wander around to act the statesman

 

People in this country are generally selfish and self obsessed. As long as bankers are seen to pay more money, the rich generally pay more and we can all have more £££ in our back pockets. No one cares

 

Sorry - can't get this smaller but Batman here's the problem

 

[hypochondriac]

He could end up in the position to form a coalition with the Tories. They are doing their level best to farm the NHS out to private industry anyway. Match made in heaven.

 

In which case their more mad ideas will be moderated, rather like both parties in coalition this time.

[bridge too far]

He's even said he'll form a coalition with Labour!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11226666/Ukip-could-prop-up-Labour-coalition-in-return-for-referendum-on-Europe.html

 

I would hope that Ed would tell him to do one