"We face the prospect of mass civil unrest, even revolution"

[Chippiewill]

Thought he was about to get beaten up by some germans with this one:

We shouldn't be celebrating the 9th of May, we should be celebrating the 8th of May, Victory in Europe Day. We should celebrate the last time the Germans tried to smash the continent and they foundered and at least half the continent got its democracy back.

What we are celebrating on the 9th of May is another attempt through different means, to smash democracy across Europe.

He's also got a longer version of the speech here:


It's interesting that they're celebrating the success of the EU considering how terribly it's doing at the present.

[GommeInc]

He's such a great public speaker It makes you want everyone to see sense and vote UKIP just to have the hopes of him standing in the Prime Minister's place, because at least he shows passion for what he does and has some sense of direction.

I like how no one cares about the EU. There's no allegiance or patriotism behind it, it's just an empty shell of an organisation with no direction, other than to leech money off unique and amazing nations. Farage does speak some sense, by highlighting a possible revolution against the EU. Loads of countries seem to be showing signs of going against the EU and its organisations. The French seem to be slowly changing direction and have never properly accepted it, if the number of times they've gone against the ECHR is anything to go by. They're worse than the UK.

Also, you have to love language: EUROPA ****ELT is a great name Anyone wanting to know, it means "Europe Stumbling", or stagger, or wobble... any of those words.

[Ajthedragon]

In order for UKIP to go forward I think Nigel should stand by occasionally and put someone else in the spotlight. It gives the impression to the electorate he's a one man team, which in our parliamentary democracy won't work.

I haven't listened to the speech but I'm sure its hilarious and brilliant as usual.

It will be interesting to see how the new Greek/ French governments position themselves towards the EU and the effects that the conflicting views of prosperity versus tax rises dictated by the Germans (previously with the support of France) causes.

[Chippiewill]

I haven't listened to the speech but I'm sure its hilarious and brilliant as usual.

In the second one he noted that they'd removed the EU flag out of fear that he'd shred it up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A great deal of people on the right (and even the left, Tony Benn a notable example) including Nigel Farage and UKIP argued many years ago what a disaster the Euro would be and the European Union project in general. They warned, that historical examples of forcing peoples together without a mandate such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the post-WW1 partition of Germanic lands and the Soviet Union often lead to disasterous consquences for all - the European Union will not be exempt from this. When you take away sovereignty, ruin an economy and remove democracy - people turn to National Socialism or Communism, as shown by Greece.

I would simply like to ask those who advocated joining the Euro many years ago on this forum (and they know who they are) is do they take it back when they called me along with others (and UKIP) xenophobes, old fashioned little englanders? because it is now their stupidity that is going to lead to xenophobia and hatred.

[jasey]

I would simply like to ask those who advocated joining the Euro many years ago on this forum (and they know who they are) is do they take it back when they called me along with others (and UKIP) xenophobes, old fashioned little englanders? because it is now their stupidity that is going to lead to xenophobia and hatred.

It is oh so incredibly petty for you to say something like that! People are allowed to have beliefs contrasting with your own and, clearly, the Euro seemed like a great idea to plenty of people 'many years ago' as you stated. Even now, I see people mentioning France. If the French citizens hated the Euro and the community in general so passionately, neither Hollande nor Sarkozy would have had a chance at being elected. There were candidates available as more vicious opponents to the institution.

Not every idea is going to work. You are quick to point out certain examples in history akin to the European Community like Czechoslovakia that did not work. For goodness sakes, though, you live in the United Kingdom! How can you not understand that sometimes merging cultures and nations under one identity can work out with minimal problems. Granted, there are still nationalistic movements in Scotland and Wales rooted from when they were once independent nations but it wasn't without the creation of the modern day United Kingdom that a city like Glasgow became the financial centre in Europe that it is. Hawaii used to be a sovereign monarchy and I know you know that. Hawaii is doing pretty well in America. Take the note that there is a stronger movement for sovereignty in Vermont than there is in these islands that once had their own royal family. I could go on, really, but I know you are capable of searching out the history, mergers and annexations of former independent entities.

It is a logical fallacy, as you know, to only cite arguments that support your cause. I know I have said this on previous boards, but I am not taking either side on the argument about the Euro. I believe the majority of people involved had great intentions. I don't deny that there were bad apples in the mix over the course of time that probably contributed to what the community is going through now but it is just blatantly biased to act like this was a guaranteed failure from the start or even that it is a failure already. Support your UKIP all that you want and understand that rational people respect your political views. You don't need to take that out on people you don't agree with.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is oh so incredibly petty for you to say something like that! People are allowed to have beliefs contrasting with your own and, clearly, the Euro seemed like a great idea to plenty of people 'many years ago' as you stated. Even now, I see people mentioning France. If the French citizens hated the Euro and the community in general so passionately, neither Hollande nor Sarkozy would have had a chance at being elected. There were candidates available as more vicious opponents to the institution.

Petty? surely the ones who were petty and continue to be petty are those who advocated the Euro and derided those who warned exactly what would happen as 'little englanders' or 'xenophobes' - pathetic and petty insults designed not to counter the argument but slur the opposition. I am afraid, as recently revealed files showed even amongst those who supported the Euro, that it was structurally flawed from day one.

We warned, you didn't listen - instead choosing to believe public relations slurry from the European Commission. As the famous phrase goes, and so on your head be it.

Not every idea is going to work. You are quick to point out certain examples in history akin to the European Community like Czechoslovakia that did not work.

Indeed, so why carry them out? and why continue on with them without a mandate from the public?

For goodness sakes, though, you live in the United Kingdom! How can you not understand that sometimes merging cultures and nations under one identity can work out with minimal problems. Granted, there are still nationalistic movements in Scotland and Wales rooted from when they were once independent nations but it wasn't without the creation of the modern day United Kingdom that a city like Glasgow became the financial centre in Europe that it is. Hawaii used to be a sovereign monarchy and I know you know that. Hawaii is doing pretty well in America. Take the note that there is a stronger movement for sovereignty in Vermont than there is in these islands that once had their own royal family. I could go on, really, but I know you are capable of searching out the history, mergers and annexations of former independent entities.

I do not think you read what I wrote, are you being purposely ignorant or just unable to understand what I am saying? I say again; countries which intend on being democratic cannot be formed without the consent of the people or it leads to the examples I provided (and yes, the United Kingdom is a key example of both success and failure). The European Union has not explained to the peoples of Europe what its end aim is precisely because it knows that the proposal for a United Europe would be rejected. The project has gone ahead based on lies and totally ignoring public opinion on these matters - it is a recipe for disaster and disorder as was Yugoslavia, the Latin Monetary Union and the Soviet Union.

If you continue down the road of ignoring national democracy, of forcing, through stealth, peoples together then you are storing up for a disaster of epic proportion in the future.

It is a logical fallacy, as you know, to only cite arguments that support your cause. I know I have said this on previous boards, but I am not taking either side on the argument about the Euro. I believe the majority of people involved had great intentions.

I have provided all of the facts, you have provided none apart from verbal slurry. If you want me to, I can provide you with numerous quotes from the European Commission and French/German/Italian officals who show just what an anti-democratic and downright dangerous project this is. If you also wish, I can provide a detailed history of the EEC/EU along with the numerous referendums it has avoided and had retaken to force the peoples of Europe to come up with 'the right answer'.

But no, instead of researching this - you simply say "they had good intentions" ah, well thats me convinced!

I don't deny that there were bad apples in the mix over the course of time that probably contributed to what the community is going through now but it is just blatantly biased to act like this was a guaranteed failure from the start or even that it is a failure already. Support your UKIP all that you want and understand that rational people respect your political views. You don't need to take that out on people you don't agree with.

Are you seriously telling me the Euro isn't a failure? are you for real? I rarely get shocked, I am now by that statement. The utter denial of the Euro elite you seem to share - take a look at Greece, take a look at Spanish bonds, take a look at Italian debt - take a look at the Greeks going to Germany to withdraw their life savings. The Euro is finished and consequently the project is on the ropes.

I said earlier, the only way the Euro can survive (and which many people told you of this, citing historical examples) is if the Eurozone federates into one nation which will not be happening if put to a democratic vote of the peoples of Europe because people do not want to abolish their nation states. If it federates without a mandate from the peoples of Europe then it will survive for a short period - until the people regain their sovereignty, violently if need be.

I would appreciate a reply because you didn't give me a reply here.

I only owe allegians to our Dutch red white and blue flag.The EU is a threat to my country's sovereignty. We have the chance, on september 12, to speak up after been silenced for too long. EU hear the democrats roar !!!!!

Make no mistake that we will regain our sovereignty and freedom and that it will turn violent if it has to. I warn you of this now as do others just as we warned people such as yourself before the Euro was introduced. The question is, are you going to listen this time or simply stick your head in the sand and attempt to defy history?

[jasey]

We warned, you didn't listen - instead choosing to believe public relations slurry from the European Commission. As the famous phrase goes, and so on your head be it.

I will start this off by mentioning that I have the flu so I probably am not going to write anything right now that is sufficient to satisfy you. For that, you have my apologies because I consider you an interesting person to debate with and I really wish I could give you a bit more but you have made it clear that the speed of my reply is more appealing to you than the length.

Like I said earlier, you employ the tactic of only citing examples that support your argument when there are a plethora of similar examples that do not support your argument. How dare you claim I am 'defying history' when you simply choose to ingore and blank any historical examples that show the union could be a good idea.

You must realise that it is possible to not be in full agreement with the European Community while at the same time not calling for the immediate slash of everything involved. That would be irresponsible — something like this cannot be done away with like you say not bringing a great deal of unrest and even violence with it.

While I am positive that you are smart enough to realise that, I am unsure in your ability to not make the illogical connection of people calling the union 'bad' before it happened and what is going on now. No one predicted the future past their ambiguous ramblings that 'something terrible will happen'. There are problems and they need to be worked out. No one wants to listen to people who do nothing scream 'I told you so,' over and over. Please don't be childish.

Regarding your disdain for my decision to abstain from responding to you on the other thread, I will explain why I did not respond. Like I said earlier in this post, you are an interesting debate partner. I do not consider you a good debate partner, though. The difference between you and I is that you are almost unwilling to accept anything anyone brings up against you as even a minor point. You are rabid and crass with your posts. I am able to recognise how other people feel and try to explain why I disagree if I do disagree at all. I understand that no one person is right about everything.

You don't even have to look at me to realise this, Daniel. There are people who have noted you have turned the Current Affairs section in to your personal soapbox and ran everyone else away. Does that not make you think for a second that perhaps you need to learn how to disagree about something properly? How to phrase things without coming across as a vulture insatiable for things to pick apart and dissolve of all context?

I decided not to reply to you because I didn't want to play sandbox with that. I haven't the time to write lengthy responses defending my point of view to someone who acts like everything besides what he says is wrong. I will take the time to write out my point of view on a thread in here. It sometimes shocks me that I take the time considering the only people that really post here; besides you, are people that share your general opinion on politics. More often than not, people that tend to stray further away from the values you have avoid this section like the plague. Why? Because of your attitude. I will not take part in your mutated style of debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I will start this off by mentioning that I have the flu so I probably am not going to write anything right now that is sufficient to satisfy you. For that, you have my apologies because I consider you an interesting person to debate with and I really wish I could give you a bit more but you have made it clear that the speed of my reply is more appealing to you than the length.

Like I said earlier, you employ the tactic of only citing examples that support your argument when there are a plethora of similar examples that do not support your argument. How dare you claim I am 'defying history' when you simply choose to ingore and blank any historical examples that show the union could be a good idea.

Instead of talking about them, cite them to me - prove me wrong.

You must realise that it is possible to not be in full agreement with the European Community while at the same time not calling for the immediate slash of everything involved. That would be irresponsible — something like this cannot be done away with like you say not bringing a great deal of unrest and even violence with it.

So, we carry on as usual with riots and violence anyway? yet more verbal slurry.

While I am positive that you are smart enough to realise that, I am unsure in your ability to not make the illogical connection of people calling the union 'bad' before it happened and what is going on now. No one predicted the future past their ambiguous ramblings that 'something terrible will happen'.

Erm, yes they did. A number of examples of whose writings on the subject you can find freely on the internet include Hugh Gaitskell, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell, Norman Tebbit, Margaret Thatcher, Valclav Klaus, Milton Friedman, Nigel Farage, Godfrey Bloom, Daniel Hannan, UKIP, Business for Sterling with some more quotes and sources which can be on page 25 of this document http://www.scribd.com/doc/32144525/Euro-They-Said-It. The writings of Enoch Powell for example (died 1997, before the Euro even existed) were completely accurate in how he showed that a currency union along with the entire project itself would not hold together as it defied the cultures and national sovereignty itself - he wrote this back in the 1970s. Milton Friedman on the other hand (died 2006) focused more on the economic contradictions within such a union with his writings in the late 1990s.

A very simple search of phrases such as 'Thatcher Euro' will bring up various writings on the topic which are years old, I strongly suggest you read them.

No one wants to listen to people who do nothing scream 'I told you so,' over and over. Please don't be childish.

We did though, and you (and the EU) still do not understand the gravity of the situation or why it occured. You said to me just then "There are problems and they need to be worked out." yet at the same time you push for more of the same. Has it not occured to you that the problems (such as currency collapse) have arisen because a currency union between democratic nation states cannot actually work as so proven by history?

Regarding your disdain for my decision to abstain from responding to you on the other thread, I will explain why I did not respond. Like I said earlier in this post, you are an interesting debate partner. I do not consider you a good debate partner, though. The difference between you and I is that you are almost unwilling to accept anything anyone brings up against you as even a minor point. You are rabid and crass with your posts. I am able to recognise how other people feel and try to explain why I disagree if I do disagree at all. I understand that no one person is right about everything.

You don't even have to look at me to realise this, Daniel. There are people who have noted you have turned the Current Affairs section in to your personal soapbox and ran everyone else away. Does that not make you think for a second that perhaps you need to learn how to disagree about something properly? How to phrase things without coming across as a vulture insatiable for things to pick apart and dissolve of all context?

I decided not to reply to you because I didn't want to play sandbox with that. I haven't the time to write lengthy responses defending my point of view to someone who acts like everything besides what he says is wrong. I will take the time to write out my point of view on a thread in here. It sometimes shocks me that I take the time considering the only people that really post here; besides you, are people that share your general opinion on politics. More often than not, people that tend to stray further away from the values you have avoid this section like the plague. Why? Because of your attitude. I will not take part in your mutated style of debate.

When somebody turns personal as you just have done, I know i've won the day.

[Chippiewill]

There are people who have noted you have turned the Current Affairs section in to your personal soapbox and ran everyone else away.

I believe that's an issue with people not being willing to think their views through properly before they support them. Whilst Dan can on occasion over-saturate the forum with UKIP propaganda people can and do ignore it on the occasions he goes OTT.