Discussion thread for Nigel vs. Nick 1st debate- 7pm today

It's stupid how a debate can be 'won', too many people are ignorant to the ideologies behind these two men. Farage has a right-wing agenda that is incompatible with so many basic right-wing economic policies, such as improving the supply-side of our economy by increasing competition and liberalising markets. The global economy is progressing and the only way to 'move with it' is to ignore all these bull-**** patriotic, protectionist ideas and actually integrate. If anything we've only made one incredibly tenuous step by being part of a customs union. Also remember UKIP do not represent the working class of this country, they are the only political party that advocates a universal 30% rate of tax that does absolutely nothing to protect working class people and merely promotes the interests of big businesses, fact! UKIP also paradoxically want to remove Foreign Direct Investment from this country by creating unneeded protectionism. His policies not only contradict each other, but make no economic sense and would only precipitate Britain into a period of deep economic depression.

It's called the National Health Service because it operates nationwide. Is Nationwide a nationalist bank because it has the word "nation" in it? Is the National Union of Teachers nationalist because it has the word "national" in the title? Of course not. That is an utterly incredulous argument. As is suggesting it being made exclusively for British people means that it's a nationalist service. It exists in Britain for crying out loud, of course it's going to be exclusively for British people.

Of course there is a core nationalist doctrine. When nationalism came to the fore of political thought it wasn't as if civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism were immediately distinguishable was it? There is a core emphasis on the nation in all of them and that is the core doctrine of nationalism. If you reject that then how can you call yourself a nationalist?

It's you that can't debate intelligently because your grasp on the subject is absolutely flawed. It's almost as if you are trying to prove to someone that you have absolutely no idea about how politics has developed as a social science at all. You literally bring the same point over and over again. You create the weakest, most whimsical arguments that I have ever seen. You completely lack tact and fluidity in your arguments. You fail impeccably at reacting to arguments made and your reading comprehension skills appear to be lower than that of an eight year old. You are essentially a complete failure and you are completely incompetent when arguing for your own points.

They know different things, as you get older you tend to get more set in your ways, young people have better mental facilities than older people, I should know, I am 62, and clearly doo lally. It is also about trust, anyone given trust will respond to that trust.

I'm hearing a lot about how Clegg gave us facts, while simultaneously banging my head at people claiming Farage did not (they're both misleading and poor at it at that). Clegg criticised Farage's claim that our borders were not open to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians because there wasn't that many in the countries. Really Clegg didn't even look at the census (2012 2 years a go I might add, google the population of both of these countries). Then Nick accuses Farage of scaremongering, and continues to say that: 'If we leave the EU millions of people will lose their jobs' (despite the fact many British jobs are actually lost in the first place to cheap Eastern European migrants) and then continues to say that if the UK was not in the EU we would not have an extridition treaty, i've never heard so much crap in my life. I can't even be bothered to say anything else, the 7% figure has also came under fire (i'll find the source, it's supposingly between 15-50%), and these companies moving elsewhere is also a load of crap, I highly doubt they'd risk so much.

It's stupid how a debate can be 'won', too many people are ignorant to the ideologies behind these two men. Farage has a right-wing agenda that is incompatible with so many basic right-wing economic policies, such as improving the supply-side of our economy by increasing competition and liberalising markets. The global economy is progressing and the only way to 'move with it' is to ignore all these bull-**** patriotic, protectionist ideas and actually integrate. If anything we've only made one incredibly tenuous step by being part of a customs union. Also remember UKIP do not represent the working class of this country, they are the only political party that advocates a universal 30% rate of tax that does absolutely nothing to protect working class people and merely promotes the interests of big businesses, fact! UKIP also paradoxically want to remove Foreign Direct Investment from this country by creating unneeded protectionism. His policies not only contradict each other, but make no economic sense and would only precipitate Britain into a period of deep economic depression.

They may have quicker minds but they mostly haven't really exercised them yet. For many people it's still uncool to think about politics at 16. Even if they're interested, they'll have been interested for, what, a year at most? I would feel much safer if decisions were made by people who have at least had chance to follow the news for a few years, and actually matured, paid some tax, lived away from home, etc. The idea of children who have just done their GCSEs making decisions like this is pretty scary imho. And trusting 16 year-olds to be mature, informed, and thoughtful is all very well, but they're still just 16 year-olds, so almost by definition they aren't and can't be those things.

I realise that lowering the voting age is supposed to encourage kids to take an interest, but I tend to think that important decisions shouldn't be opened up to people just so that they can feel like they're making important decisions. I'd rather them be made by people who are better at making them (i.e. adults). I'd probably support raising the voting age to 21, tbh.

I realise this view is out of fashion, and perhaps I'm biased because I personally was fairly ignorant at 16.

/

Don't kid yourself that age equals a mature mind, we allow people to vote in this country whether they have intellect or not. The point is, a European Referendum is going to impact more on the young than the old.
Your point about 'have paid some taxes' is also invalid, firstly lots of under 18's pay tax, and not all adults do.

No, of course, there are many immature and entirely ignorant 18 year olds and 21 year olds. But your argument proves too much: you should want 12 year olds to be able to vote, on the basis that 16 year olds aren't any better. Some 12 year olds may be able to vote on just as informed basis as older people -- you get the occasional William Hague type, who is deeply interested in politics from about 5 -- but at some point I think you have to say 'the proportion of people who are immature and ignorant at this age is too high'. And, as I said, I don't think that by 16 you've had chance to develop your views. An 18 year old may have been thinking about politics for a couple of years. A 16 year old very likely will not. An 18 year old may (being optimistic) even have changed his views a few times, and figured out that he will not always think what he thinks right now. A 16 year old likely won't have that experience.

The point about tax isn't invalid. It is more likely that an older person has paid tax; it is one factor in the older person being more mature and understanding what they're voting about.

It's going to impact everyone hugely (if we get the referendum, of course): a sixteen year-old no more than an eighteen year-old, and an eighteen year-old no more than a twenty-one year-old, and a fourteen year-old no more than an sixteen year-old.

Farage is destroying him.

Clegg is just coming out with standard political rhetoric.

'Just the other day....'
'Only last week.....'
'I recently spoke with.....'

Basically, all that Clegg is saying is 'it's easier to pay to be an EU member with our taxes for economic reasons than renegotiate deals/treaties', i.e. they're just lazy. Its okay though Clegg, just keep using our taxes whilst you sit at Westminster with your boyfriend.

Clegg has no grasp of business or commerce at all. Its quite embarrassing for our country that this guy is in fact our Deputy PM.

I anticipated that this why not a fourteen year old argument would come up, in theory I would say, Why not, in practice very difficult. People in this country from the age of 16 can take employment on a full time basis, therefore they are liable to be tax paying citizens if they are in work, I have always quoted the 'No taxation without representation' type of argument.

I don't see why you keep going on about 16 and 17 year olds not being tax payers, they are, I have paid an awful lot of tax in my life, simply because I am older, these kids, (young Adults), will no doubt pay vast amounts into the tax system given time. Why should they be denied a say in their future. Is it that old chestnut 'It was good enough for me'?

After the debate, I made up my mind on one thing.... maybe I will give the LibDems a chance if there was an opportunity to do so, while I do support a somewhat far-right party in Norway because I like the leader and their economic policies, UKIP on the other hand will never be one of those parties that I'd put any support behind as for the most part the leadership is clueless and essentially is just one big propaganda machine that lives in the past.

Dinosaurs and Nazi party went extinct, time to bring about the extinction of this useless party at the same time too for the better of Britain............. oh but please continue to keep the leader, the rest of Europe does need a clown and Farage makes for an excellent one.

You literally have not understood or read anything i have said have you?

The best thing about a personal attack is that its not against my point in the argument. This is because they know they are wrong, they just dont want to acknowledge it so go on a rant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Progressing? Where are we going, are Greece, Ireland and Spain coming with us? I'm not buying this 'Britain is too small to make it on its own' crap, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway all have a far superior quality of living to most European States despite having far less influence in the Union. Really UKIP don't represent the working classes? It's great the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do isn't it.

Farage has worked in the city for 20 years, I think he knows more about economics then you, you loon.

They may have quicker minds but they mostly haven't really exercised them yet. For many people it's still uncool to think about politics at 16. Even if they're interested, they'll have been interested for, what, a year at most? I would feel much safer if decisions were made by people who have at least had chance to follow the news for a few years, and actually matured, paid some tax, lived away from home, etc. The idea of children who have just done their GCSEs making decisions like this is pretty scary imho. And trusting 16 year-olds to be mature, informed, and thoughtful is all very well, but they're still just 16 year-olds, so almost by definition they aren't and can't be those things.

I realise that lowering the voting age is supposed to encourage kids to take an interest, but I tend to think that important decisions shouldn't be opened up to people just so that they can feel like they're making important decisions. I'd rather them be made by people who are better at making them (i.e. adults). I'd probably support raising the voting age to 21, tbh.

I realise this view is out of fashion, and perhaps I'm biased because I personally was fairly ignorant at 16.




Clegg shouldn't even have entered into dispute on the numbers. He should just have said 'it doesn't matter -- EU immigration is fine and here's why'. He shouldn't have let himself get dragged into so many exchanges of assertions and counter-assertions of fact on points that are actually irrelevant to his case. His message just got lost.

The number of laws made in Brussels is possibly more relevant, but I still think he shouldn't have emphasised the number so much: he should have said 'the following kinds of laws are made [or influenced, if you like] by Brussels... I believe it is right that these kind of laws should be made centrally, because reasons'.

The exchanges of figures were wholly uninformative: without further research no-one is going to ascertain the true position just by watching that debate. If anything it just muddied the waters more. That might help Farage, because he's attacking the status quo and causing doubt, but I can't see how it could possibly help Clegg.



Are you sure about the flat tax? Nigel seemed to waver on it last year (one of many articles you can find by googling): http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/about-that-ukip-tax-policy/

When you think about it, it is pretty weird that Farage came out on Putin's side in the Ukraine. If this is the sort of foreign policy UKIP supports, it's actually pretty dangerous to have them in high office.

Farage said during the debate:

Clegg has no grasp of business or commerce at all

Just because you criticise the actions, agendas or foreign policies of one nation doesn't in turn mean you support another. I despise Farage and hate Putin equally so nevertheless Farage is right on this one, although he only says things like this for his own gain.

I'd say Clegg won. As I said earlier, he was struggling a little at the start but he grew into it and ended much stronger.

It was a bit depressing hearing the 3m claim being repeated as fact. Nobody in the media believes that figure any more either. I think Clegg was badly briefed at times. He comes across as slightly amateur at important moments. Bit like Cameron.

Don't kid yourself that age equals a mature mind, we allow people to vote in this country whether they have intellect or not. The point is, a European Referendum is going to impact more on the young than the old.
Your point about 'have paid some taxes' is also invalid, firstly lots of under 18's pay tax, and not all adults do.

[h="1"]The Euro is Collapsing - it will take the EU with it[/h]It is becoming more and more clear that the Euro cannot survive in its present form. EU leaders still refuse to recognise the inevitable, and think that they can take on the world bond markets and win. Greece and Portugal are bankrupt, Italy and Spain in trouble, and Germany is not going to give them a blank cheque.
We are not in the Eurozone, but it is our biggest market. We need to start focusing our trade away from Europe - a declining region - and towards the rest of the world. Leaving the EU would provide the catalyst we need. EU rules prevent us from negotiating trade deals for ourselves with the growth regions of the world. Instead, we have to leave it to the EU. Their objectives are not our objectives. We urgently need fewer barriers to trade in services - they do not.
The EU itself will not long survive the collapse of the Euro - the dream of "ever-closer union" will be shattered. Their folly, their purblind arrogance, will cost the people of Europe dear.
The EU no longer looks like the future - more like a discredited past.


[h="1"]Britain is Isolated - just like the Titanic survivors[/h]The BBC and others who moan about Britain's isolation and weakness are missing the point. It's not us that's in trouble, it's the Eurozone. As Ian Hislop put it recently, we are isolated on the sidelines while the centre collapses. The endless summits do almost nothing to solve the real problems - competitiveness and excess debt. You cannot solve a debt problem with more debt.
I don't think the Titanic survivors worried too much about being isolated - they just rowed like mad to avoid being dragged down when the ship sank.


[h="1"]Renegotiation is Not an Option[/h]Cameron promises to repatriate powers from the EU. Anyone who knows much about the EU knows that this is out of the question for EU leaders – it would mean abandoning their whole central principle of “ever-closer union”. They will only do so under extreme pressure. As we have seen, vetoing a treaty is not enough. They would offer nothing to Cameron. The only threat they might recognise is a threat to leave the EU - which Cameron has specifically ruled out.
What Cameron should be doing is pressing for an orderly break-up of the Eurozone. It is the only alternative to a disorderly break-up, which would do far more damage.
[h="2"]The EU is holding Back the UK Recovery[/h]We are paying too much (our net EU contribution increased from £6.8 billion in 2009 to £10.8 billion in 2011), and the vast body of EU regulation stifles business and the City of London. Rising powers like Brazil, India and China don't have these burdens. To recover, we have to make the UK competitive. We cannot do that without leaving the EU.
We would flourish outside the EU.

[h="2"]We Must Leave the EU[/h]EU leaders are determined to create a United States of Europe – a single country of which Britain would be merely a province. The EU is taking more and more power over member states – the most recent being a plan for Eurozone governance - ie control over taxes and spending in return for a central bail-out fund. “Ever-closer union” is their declared aim.
We cannot stop this process. Successive British Governments have tried, and failed even to slow it down. They have resorted to denying it is happening. The only way to keep Britain an independent country is to leave the EU. We can leave – our parliament is still sovereign (for the present). We are subject to EU law because British legislation says so. Repeal the legislation and we are free. It only takes the political will.


[h="2"]