Nigel Farage:Euro Game is up. Who the hell do you think are?


maybe but I don’t think so

the core of UKIP seem to be made up of pissed off tory eurosceptics who are getting support from people disillusioned with what labour and the tory parties have become

UKIP will keep growing until labour and the tories move back to what their core voters expect

for many its just a protest vote, a nice way to kick the smug elite


When the smug elite are weak and corrupt and are not willing to change things can get out of hand


It also doesn’t help that there’s no discernible difference between either party.
When people want change, yet no one offers any, they tend to look elsewhere.


Of course they are the same, the senior civil servants run the show. Shatter should have fired or publicly disciplined Brian Purcell if he did not pass Callinans letter as an example.


And for way too many it’s responding positively to “simple” (simplistic) answers that seem to make instant sense to people who are hurting. - That Pakistani down the road took my job, and is too willing to work much harder than me for shit wages; what ever happened to “Great Britannia”, our once so proud nation, imagine we are now reduced to compromising with those inferior bureaucratic “socialist” Europeans; and so on and so forth…


Everything you said about the UKIP would more readily apply to the EU.


This is much increasing in Ireland too, worryingly. Hi Mossy.


Farage wants to revert to the UK political and legislative systems which existed before the EU. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people can’t separate this view from being isolationist or xenophobic.


Really? What period of history does Farage want to reestablish?

  • recover power over our national life.
  • regain control of our borders and of immigration
  • give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.
  • free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas
  • Inheritance tax brings in under £4bn - less than a third of what we spend on foreign aid
  • Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous.
  • Prevent foreign criminals entering the UK
  • Scrap the European Arrest Warrant
  • Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
  • Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally.
  • The law of the land must apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.

Honestly, if you can’t see the isolationism and xenophobia in that list, we must have different definitions of the terms.


So for example, preventing foreign criminals from entering the UK and cutting foreign aid (that is usually mismanaged and creamed off) is xenophobic and isolationist?


But would they turn up?


Horror. Fear. Foreign criminals.

And those useless mismanaging EU integrationists creaming off our hard-earned taxes.

But I’m not xenophobic or isolationist. No sir, not one little bit.


Not a single one of those is isolationist. Not a single one.
The only one that is possibly xenophobic is the second last one, but then you’d have to argue that planning permission in Ireland is xenophobic, and that knowing your neighbour isn’t a valuable part of a community.

You have it in your head that any Euroskeptic must be a racist and an isolationist. It doesn’t even occur to you that it is better for a country to be ruled by its own elected politicians rather than a few hundred faceless bureaucrats.

Every country has immigration laws which specifically prevent foreign criminals from entering the country. It’s only common sense. It completely baffles the mind how this has suddenly been equated to xenophobia.


There’s no international law (we oppose any other system of law)? There’s no ECHR? There’s no international legal cooperation? Foreign aid to be severely reduced? Cast off the shackles of dependence on foreign oil and gas. Of course it’s isolationist. What do you think isolationism is?

Seriously? Can we agree on a definition of xenophobia as “fear of foreigners”? Why then the need to “regain control of our borders” if not to keep out the hordes? Look at how this one is phrased: “give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers” - do you honestly believe that doesn’t have a subtext of ‘stop them from coming over here and stealing our jobs’?

Please don’t tell me what I have in my head; it’s noisy enough in there already. :laughing:

As you say, it’s completely common sense, and there’s therefore no need to make it a talking point unless your central platform is one of xenophobia.


Preventing foreign criminals from entering the UK is not xenophobic; making “the prevention of foreign criminals entering the UK” a talking point or sound bite is xenophobic. As roc points out, it’s fearmongering; as TheEmigrant points out, everybody has a policy of prevention. It’s the building a political platform on fear that’s xenophobic.

Cutting foreign aid is probably by definition isolationist, yes.
Bear in mind that a good portion of foreign aid is tied to specific goods and services - if these goods and services are no longer being sent to other countries, the isolation of the UK has increased (it is less internationalist, more isolationist).


More overt simplification and aspersion, destroying any meaning or understanding of current realities.

Look around you in Ireland. How are the ruling structures organised? How much power is there to do things is in local communities, how much in local authorities, how much in national authorities, how much in EU authority?

Let’s not bleat that it ALL comes from the EU. Actually, only a very small amount of it does. This much:
“Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”*

This principle is explicitly written into all the treaties and other EU constitutional documents.

It is what we can clearly OBSERVE. - From our banks to the environment, to social and workplace protection, the EU only steps in when it HAS to, in accordance with the above principle.

The EU only acts where action of individual countries *is insufficient. *

With regards Ireland, I would say the insufficiency of our action warrants a hell of a lot more EU action than we have at present.

Only, this is a truth that those who think they would prefer to revert to pre-EU nationalism will willfully avoid. But the bogey-man is nationalism. Not european federalism. Why? Study european history for the answer.

I might as well be talking to the wall.


Why should the UK allow in foreign criminals. Would those same foreign criminals be allowed into Australia, New Zealand, America or Canada?

They sure are. Increasing their own perks and benefits while they rest of us have to tighten up.

I don’t know what you are. Maybe you’re an Anglophobe, maybe you’re not. (Tongue in cheek here.)

Also let me remind you that Britain was only one of three EU countries that had no restrictions on immigrants from new member states.(Ireland and Sweden being the other two.)


Yes, it’s an overt simplification, because democracy is a simple concept. No amount of “current realities” will change the fact that sacrificing legislative control in exchange for membership of external institutions isn’t worth it for some countries.

FWIW I believe Ireland is much better off being a member, but I’m on the fence for the UK.


The UK already cooperates with other countries’ legal systems without being subject to their laws. Farage wants the UK to join a re-created Council of Europe. The amount of foreign aid has nothing to do with isolationism. Removing the dependency on other countries as much as possible is prudent economically and militarily. The unquestioned wisdom among the Europe’s intelligencia is that Europe=good, Euroskeptics=racists. There are racists in every country. Many racists in the UK support UKIP, but that doesn’t mean that UKIP is racist.

All countries have explicit immigration laws that prevent foreigners from coming here and stealing our jobs in protected industries. You could argue that it is xenophobic to include the public sector in the list of protected industries, but I’m not so sure.

Agreed. But I’ve yet to be convinced that UKIP’s central platform is anything but independence from European bureaucrats.


Do you have a source for that? The ‘issues’ I linked to above said “Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights” - but it was the Council of Europe that established the ECHR (in 1953) and all council members sign up to it.
I’m not sure what Farage is expecting from a re-created Council of Europe if the ECHR suddenly becomes optional?

Foreign aid is a tool of diplomacy and influence. It creates links between the donating country and the destination country. Cutting foreign aid cuts those links, reduces influence, and so on. It is a feature of isolationism, or it is symptomatic of a switch toward an isolationist foreign policy.

Perhaps, but it’s the definition of isolationism. I have to ask again, what do you think isolationism is?