Here’s Farage talking about the Council of Europe:
If that’s the definition of isolationism then every country and politician is isolationist. My definition of isolationism would primarily involve economic self-exclusion, but it’s not a term I like to use as I think it’s too vague and undefinable.
Why don’t you give us your definition of isolationism?
This is a useful article on those damned bureaucrats
So when you wrote above “Not a single one of those is isolationist. Not a single one.”
you were stating “not a single one of those is this vague and undefinable thing that I dont have a definition for”? Interesting.
Mossy - i·so·la·tion·ism
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, esp. the political affairs of other countries.
A policy of “free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas” wouldn’t be isolationist under your own definition.
What are the interests of OPEC?
Edit: just to clarify, I don’t think isolationism is necessarily bad - it served the US well during certain periods. It is currently unusual though, and UKIP is clearly isolationist in much of its policy, at least as published in the website linked previously. I haven’t had a chance to watch the Farage video, but if he is arguing for a new Council of Europe, the UKIP policy on the ECHR doesn’t make a lot of sense. It may be too much to expect coherent policy between Farage and the rest - at the end of the day he’s a political chancer and the party is exceptionally amateurish.
Maximising profit. If your definition of “interests” includes economic interests then “remaining apart of the economic interests of OPEC” would mean calling for a boycott of OPEC oil, wouldn’t it?
I fear you are too sanguine. Subsidiarity unfortunately lately seems have become more aspirational than evident, although of course everyone swears it’s fully in effect, because the qualifying criteria are extremely subjective. To a certain extent it’s a red herring, because it sidesteps the key issue, which is often not “at what level should this be regulated” but “should this be regulated at all?”
The major problem with the EU at present is that it’s a bureaucratic behemoth with a democratic deficit at its centre. It issues truly enormous amounts of legislation – I can’t agree with the above that it’s “a very small amount”, although I will admit much of it is of technocratic and of very narrow scope. However go to europa.eu and look for “regulations and directives” yourself, there are thousands every year. The key flaw is that since the the last treaty round the lawmaking process has become extraordinarily convoluted, and the European Parliament has equal (possibly greater) legislative power as the Commission and the Council.
Giving the EP a greater role was supposed to have given the EU greater democratic legitimacy. But alas it’s had the opposite effect. We still don’t have pan-European political parties in any meaningful way, and in most countries the Euro elections are seen as a relatively harmless way to express protest votes against the national powers-that-be, UKIP being the perfect example. And in the best case scenario, MEPs aren’t exactly the cream of the crop. In Ireland, we send forward has-beens or never-weres looking for a sinecure. On the continent, it’s usually someone that fell too far down the party list in the nationals.
But these people have actual real significant political influence! Everything in the EP is guided by “rapporteurs” and “shadow rapporteurs”, which means every party has a hand on the stirring spoon of compromise and no idea, no matter how looney, vanishes entirely, and then it goes into the baffling series of trilogues with the Council and Commission…
Note I’m not saying UKIP are correct. I’m saying that one of the reasons for the rise of UKIP and their cross-border compatriots is that many of the citizens of Europe don’t understand their polity and don’t know how they can influence the directives that affect their lives.
Hell no. On banks? It’s now an open secret the ECB leaned in to enforce the Irish bank bailout in the interests of the eurozone, where they had absolutely no mandate to do so. On workplace protection? If you go to europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm and look at their own example of a directive, it’s the Working Time Directive, which has absolutely no justification other than to prevent competition between member states.
No, it would simply entail “free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas”, i.e. don’t deal with OPEC for oil anymore.
Isolationism and isolationist policies are about severing links with other countries. These links can be cultural, economic, social, legal, diplomatic, and so on. I can’t explain this any more than I have already - the UKIP policies or ‘issues’ that propose to reduce links with other countries (leave the EU, drop out of the ECHR, refuse to recognize any law but UK law, become energy-independent, reduce foreign aid) are isolationist policies in the standard, commonly accepted foreign policy sense of isolationism.
Like I said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with isolationism, but it does seem contrary to general trends in foreign policy of the last 50 to 60 years.
I believe this was already posted on the pin’s UK thread.
But it’s worthwhile reposting here in the context of UKIP support.
Londoners Priced Out of Housing Blame Foreigners
How does that definition apply to the UKIP? And getting involved with the affairs of other countries… is that not neo-conservatism.
See my comment above re UKIP ‘issues’ and isolationism.
Indeed Mr A, and I read a quote somewhere this morning that up to 85% of the more expensive flats in London, bought by foreigners were being left vacant for most of the year.
Classy and consistent as usual:
UKIP embroiled in row over use of actor in poster campaign
It’s important to remember the symbiotic relationship between politics and the media.
Perhaps even more so than politicians, they don’t like losing power and influence.
Is there a prime minister whom Murdoch has *not *met ‘in private’ ?
winston - are any of those stories untrue? Because if they are not, then blaming the media is actually the wrong target.
Also, I believe Farage is running for an MEP seat. If he seriously wants out of the Union, he’s running for the wrong Parliament.
No, you missed my point. You listed a whole pile of anti-UKIP press coverage. If none of it is untrue then the issue is in the UKIP behaviour and not in the press behaviour regardless of whether people are choosing to vote for them or not.
Farage gets owned